Were sorry your son died on the operating table. His surgeon wasn’t able to perform as well as we would have liked. But he was a non-asian minority so we should all pat ourselves on the back for promoting diversity.
Whiskey.Tango.Foxtrot.
It’s truly through the looking glass to claim that abolishing race as a criteria is actually racist when it is the precise opposite.
This is simple. A racist law is one that identifies any particular race for treatment different than any other race. What’s your criteria?
Sounds like the words of a man who’s unable to defend what he’s asserted.
This is flat-out untrue. As one of the articles that you linked to noted, bills requiring voters to have ID have been introduced in the large majority of the states. (We’ll make a side note that several states governed by Democrats passed such laws.) In some cases, the bills didn’t become law. In some, they became law and were overturned in court. In some cases they became law and were not overturned in court. To say that all of them would have been overturned if the Supreme court had not not altered the Voting Rights Act is incorrect.
And I give Bone’s definition of a racist law two thumbs up, since it agrees with the dictionary definition of “racist”. I, too, would like to hear your definition.
Perhaps it was the not-so-clear why you wrote your post, but I read it as saying the article called out the laws as being racist. I see now that what you meant was that the article called out laws and it’s your interpretation, not that of the article’s author, that the laws are racist. As for whether or not the laws are racist, it’s probably not worth hijacking this thread into yet another debate about Voter ID laws. Suffice it to say that such laws are widely popular across the political spectrum in the US, so you have a tough row to hoe if it is your inanition to prove that the vast majority of Americans are racists. Not to mention the fact that voter ID laws are SOP in many of the countries of the industrialized world.
It seems a bit disingenuous to say that it’s not worth hijacking the thread about Voter ID laws and then throwing out the kinds of statements that you just did.
What there is “broad agreement” around is the principle of voting integrity, but most of the specific Voter ID laws that have become controversial seem to uniquely affect the sort of lower-income and minority demographic that tend to vote Democrat and for some reason – a reason that is probably not entirely coincidence – these laws seem to be overwhelmingly favored by Republicans. Yes, reasonable voter ID laws are indeed SOP in most industrialized nations, but most industrialized nations didn’t have the “literacy tests” administered to black voters in the 60s specifically to exclude them from voting. Perhaps you’d like to argue that these were just a well-meaning effort to ensure voting integrity? :rolleyes: Many of these Voter ID laws are just the modern equivalent, and intended for the same purpose.
I don’t want to hijack the thread into another debate about this, either, but if you’re going to make that kind of statement, then these things need to be pointed out, too.
[QUOTE=Chief Pedant]
Does it seem OK to you to have almost zero black physicians in the whole damn country?
[/QUOTE]
Yes.
I would prefer my doctors to be the best-qualified available, rather than a given color or race. Interestingly enough, we have anecdotal information on what can happenwhen race is given preference over qualification in medical school admissions.
Regards,
Shodan
Ah, yes, the old anecdote, the last refuge of… well, of anyone trying to frivolously “prove” anything. :rolleyes:
In other anecdotal news, two members of the Medical Board of California are black. (They should probably revoke their memberships just on general principle!)
And in another bit of anecdotal news, a black dude was seen in the Oval Office of the White House – probably a servant, or maybe an intruder … details and more news at 11. :rolleyes:
And in other news, some one said something stupid and irrelevant about the President in an Internet thread about affirmative action.
Regards,
Shodan
Bolding mine.
Sigh.
No it’s not, nor does it pretend to be.
There isn’t a ton of reliable data on this issue, but the market has seemed to come to the conclusion that the gains are worth the money, and are likely greater in magnitude than you suggest.
Wrong on both counts.
SAT subject tests are usually considered by colleges.
So did you inquire about your doctor’s MCAT scores, SAT scores and grades before you make an appointment? Do you even know all the schools your doctor(s) attended? How strong is that “preference” if you don’t even bother to check these things(assuming you don’t)?
You didn’t quote the part about how he initially had his license suspended not because he was a bad doctor, but because he didn’t pay child support (as crappy as that may be). You also failed to provide any reason why we should think his troubles were do to him being unqualified or ill-trained. When you actually look at the data on why doctors get sued, a lot of it is due to things like their specialty, and demeanor. It’s not poor MCAT scores that convince surgeons that they don’t need to use checklists wash their hands before surgery.
The idea that you think being admitted to med school with inferior quantitative qualifications is related at all to losing one’s license years later speaks to your intellectual dishonestly or your ignorance. The idea that the multiple hurdles he faced after being admitted to med school, or practicing (eg. med school, residency, licensing exams, etc.) tell us less than his MCAT scores is just laughable. But at least you are living up to your reputation.
I’m going to offer a defense of diversity in a college environment. As an undergraduate I benefited from having a diverse student body in any class where discussion was part of the curriculum. Often times other students noticed something I didn’t see or asked questions I wouldn’t have considered asking. Having a diverse class helped me expand my horizons a bit more and make me more critical of my own beliefs. Diversity is a good thing.
The two most reliable predictors of university performance are high school grades, followed by rigor of curriculum (AP, IB, etc.) the College Board tried and tries, but SAT scores are not particularly well correlated to future grades.
That’s a poor definition. Racist laws can be made when no race is specifically identified, but in reality affects particular races differently than others to an extent that is negative.
Exactly, and I wonder if those who don’t realize this are deliberately being disingenuous, or are simply that naive and/or blind to their own privilege.
Such laws and other measures are clearly designed to reduce turnout and chip away at demographic groups that vote Democratic. Their provisions affect some racial groups more than others, thus the laws are, in fact, racist. That doesn’t mean they always work; there is this thing called “backlash” which produces a backfiring effect. That isn’t enough to stop the reactionaries, as we can see.
I notice you didn’t put forth your own criteria - let me guess - it’s one where there is an outcome liberals favor?
More seriously it seems you are arguing in favor of disparate impact analysis. Disparate impact is bullshit. It’s good we are moving away from the racism of affirmative action
In the autumn of 2000, I was in a sociology class when some white student raised the primary objections to AA. A black student responded by saying that “Without Affirmative Action, I wouldn’t be here.” It was a great, thought-provoking moment, the kind of thing that is helped by a more diverse environment.
Let’s get rid of the kinds of AA that help white people, you know, like “Granddad Prescott went to Yale, so I can too.” Then we’ll talk about what to do next.
A racist law is one that has a disproportionate and unjustified negative effect on a perceived racial community, even if the word race never appears in the law.
Making the punishment for crack cocaine ten times as heavy as the punishment for powder cocaine was a racist law, since it explicitly targeted one of two drugs with equal addictive properties that was more popular among one community than another.
It was probably not passed as a racist effort, (just as an act of Congressional hysteria), but when the punishments were not rectified for eighteen years after the original belief of disproportionate addictive properties was demonstrated, (fewer than twelve months after the law was passed), the continued application of the law was racist.
How do you define “diversity”, and is race the best way to determine if someone is bringing diversity to the table?
Not that I buy into the diversity argument, but it seems we automatically assume that diversity = race. Does Sasha Obama bring a diversity of thought/life experience to the table that Bubba Jones from Hicksville Tenn does not? Do you want an Evangelical Christian and an atheist in your class or just someone with a different skin color from you?
I don’t know. Lately it seems to be mostly just a wedge issue. Something people get upset about on either side of the fence due to the principle involved, but which doesn’t actually make much difference in the real world either positively or negatively in either case.
The people who are going to get into or not get into a particular university because AA is or is not in place, are already academically challenged - how does it help them to encourage them to attend a more challenging school and do worse, rather than attend somewhere they can excel? The kinds of employers who look very closely at the name of the institution you attend are unlikely to be interested in the academically challenged anyway.
AA seems nice in theory but I think superficially altering demographics doesn’t do much to address the core roots of the problem.
Like I said, disparate impact is bullshit. Consider the crack vs. powder sentencing example.
If crack was used primarily by white people, or equally among all people, the law wouldn’t be racist under this principle, right? What if some time after this allegedly racist law was passed, all the impacted black and minority folk started using powder, would the law still be racist? The use of disparate impact analysis means that a law can be either racist or not, and switch between each on a daily basis based on the racial makeup of who is impacted. That is racist.
Even if I were to accept the value of disparate impact analysis, that is not the only way a law can be racist right? Would you agree that any law that treats different races differently would be racist, regardless of the impact? If not, the word has no meaning - at least not one that we will ever agree on.