And that was the point, it is very underwhelming and just following arguments from right wing sources to make CRT the bogeyman in this case. Juvenile points like ‘CRT is ruining all!’ are ignoring how complicated scholars are going on about that.
Modhat: As this thread has devolved into two posters swiping at each other. I’m going to close it now.
I will reopen this thread shortly.
Specifically to @GIGObuster & @damuriajashi. Please ensure you debate the contents of the posts and not personalize the debate at all. Don’t make sly cuts at each other please. Don’t misrepresent each other’s posts either.
Honestly as I screwed up yesterday. I’m just going to take the easy way out and leave it at this modnote. Cleanish slate, please follow the GD rules. Please don’t swipe at each other.
To all the other participants, I apologize for the closure. Two posters generated all the flags for this thread and when I looked at it yesterday, I swear I only saw them left posting. I was mistaken.
Sorry,
Jim
I think the source of some of the confusion by some is the fact that asians support AA in principle but not as it is practiced today (and yes, I’m sure you can find an asian on the internet that loves AA exactly as it is practiced today but generally speaking this is not true). In fact asians support some form of affirmative action more than any other group. There is a form of affirmative action that asians do in fact support, overwhelmingly. Improving public education for poor kids in poor neighborhoods.
What right wing sources has he been relying on?
Cite?
How is that mind reading? It’s not even evidence. It’s argument.
It is clear that my side of the argument is not using anyone as a token in this thread. We are not holding up some small subset of a group and pretending that this indicates something more than a small subset. You seem to be holding up a minority of asians as representative of asians. That’s tokenism, isn’t it?
And depending on the details of those efforts, I may or may not support them. Mostly depending on how racist they are.
The folks who drafted and sponsored this proposition had 25 years to communicate their intent. Their problem was and has always been that they have to somehow signal to the blacks, hispanics, and (most importantly the woke white people) that want racial preferences for some groups over others that this will provide those preferences without tipping off everyone else. They’ve had 25 years to figure this out and they are having trouble doing so. This is basically excuse making by losers. They might as well complain about election fraud.
You don’t need to tap into right wing sources to find criticism of CRT. It is a fairly controversial issue everywhere except the far left.
I am old enough that I was there at the beginning when CRT was still being gathered together as a body of thought and at the time it served a useful purpose in helping us see the law and institutions from non-typical perspectives (i.g. non-white, non-straight, non-christian, etc.). It was useful in legal policy discussions to have this expanded perspective. The problems arose when it leaked from law schools to sociology and education departments where they didn’t have the same levels of analytical rigor. Soon this additional perspective became the primary perspective. And when the primary perspective is based on anecdote and storytelling over data and analysis, you get folks who think that it makes sense to replace 150 deserving asian kids with 100 less deserving white kids and 50 black/hispanic kids while virtually eliminating the extraordinary selectivity of the school.
Accusing others of using more educated arguments from Asians, or other educators involved as just tokenism, is an accusation made so as not have to deal with the arguments they made.
And this ignores what the Attorney General reported.
It is not that your arguments can be wrong, is that clearly there is a lot of omissions to get a hyperbolic conclusion where a more moderated one is more correct, there where blacks/Hispanics kids that were deserving. Not all, but enough that showed that the school was not doing the right thing.
I’ve asked this several times before but can you please state the argument?
So far, the argument seems to be “here are some asians that agree with me”
Did you read what the attorney general reported? They found something that sounds like disparate impact. A non-discriminatory policy had a disparate impact on whites vs blacks. Disparate impact is not discrimination in the traditional sense and frankly what happens in loudoun has very little to do with implementing a lottery system at tjhsst.
If your point is that discrimination may exist somewhere in america in some form, then sure. I agree. I just don’t think the way to remedy that is by discriminating against asians.
I don’t think so. I don’t think I’m ignoring anything relevant. What am I omitting that is relevant? Because there is a lot of irrelevant stuff being thrown into this argument to “make weight”
In a report about a totally different school, which hinged on, in addition to the dubious notion of “disparate impact,” the fact that because that other school is not designated a “magnet school” it should not be using an admissions test. You know - the admissions test that TJ, the school we are actually discussing, which is designated a magnet school, is legally required to use, because Virginia legally requires magnet schools to use admissions tests.
I’m guessing your insistence that we all defer to the Attorney General’s judgment is not going to be maintained consistently when he is tasked with telling the Fairfax County school board that their lottery plan is totally illegal under current VA law.
Well, we are done here, you are continuing to deny that I have said that I do agree with their opinion, I will only let it to be noted that their opinions stand then.
That is right, but as even the AP reported the reason why that item was mentioned is because it mirrors what is happening next door.
The point was that it is not the test, but the lack of diversity.
That is not an argument.
You can’t link an internet opinion and then instruct me to search for the argument in that internet opinion. That’s kind of frustrating.
No it doesn’t It notes that the DEBATE mirrors the one going on next door. If the alleged discrimination mirrored what was going on next door the AG report would have been directed at tjhsst not some school in loudoun county.
Yes, more diversity is good. So long as you can achieve it without resorting to racism.
Did you actually read the report or just rely on a news article about what “mirrors” what? The AG’s report claims that because the Loudoun school is not legally designated a “magnet school” it should not be basing its admissions on tests.
The reports did not talk about just the magnet school, the issue was diversity, wile I noted that you are correct on what school that was, you are not correct on the reports not pointing out that they are related. I hope you can grant that AFAICT there are no reports of the Attorney General declaring the lottery to be illegal.
Last I heard the lottery has been modified or changed by the school. What it is clear is that opponents to diversity will complain regardless of the changes or any other plan they come with to deal with the issue.
I see no opponents to diversity on this thread. Who do you think opposes diversity? Or do you think that anyone that does not believe in “diversity at any cost” is an opponent of diversity? Do you think opposing discrimination against politically weak minority groups (even if that discrimination is in favor of other minority groups) is opposition to diversity?
So I had a talk with someone that knows more about the academies at loudoun and the lack of diversity in those programs is not the result of a ton of white kids in a predominantly white county excluding a ton of black kids that could have gotten in but for the white supremacy.
Of the 125 slots in the loudoun county academy of science, over 100 of them went to asians.
The AG’s finding was that loudoun’s policies, though neutral, result in a disparate impact. A disparate impact in favor of asians (many of them immigrants) because that’s what racists do, they rig the deck in favor of asians.
First the compliment: that’s a decent definition for “overly woke”–if they forget about justice the general concept because they’re so focused on social justice, which is a subset.
However, I would point out that, in this case, both are social justice. The argument here is that the attempt to do social justice for one group has actually harmed the social justice for another group–that the Asians are not getting social justice.
My point thus is that you look at this incorrectly if you see this as a battle between “ordinary justice” and social justice. It’s more a debate about what the best social justice solution is.
Also, I really like @Ruken’s post, which illustrates that it may be more the specific solution that people have trouble with, and not the general idea of affirmative action. The general idea seems fine and up the usual alley for California, but the specific kind seems to be what is creating problems.
I’ll leave the rest to others to discuss for now, as I’m not well versed in affirmative action stuff, and it seems that there are others who are, if the Pit thread is any indication. I just know I support the general idea that, sometimes, to help fix an unequal system, you have to be unequal in the opposite way on a temporary basis to get things back under balance. As such, I’m not against the concept of affirmative action as a rule, but the details are definitely in the implementation and whether there are signs that it is actually working to correct the injustice.
When I do say I think people are being immoral, it is because I genuinely see aspects that are immoral, and not because I don’t want to listen. That’s why I explain myself rather than just give pithy one-liners–so no one in good faith can say I just dismiss things I don’t like (well, unless I slip up).
Maybe so. I was looking at it more from the point of view of an individual. Suppose you work hard to pass the test/achieve good grades/whatever the requirement is, and then you are marked down because of your race. Or they abolish the test entirely because they don’t like the results, so you lose the opportunity you worked hard for. That seems unjust on an individual level.
As for AA, @damuriajashi mentioned improving education for poor kids in poor areas. I wouldn’t have thought that counted, but I’m not an expert either. Does AA always mean someone else must lose out in order to benefit the targeted group?
I would say that’s still social justice. If not for the race aspect you brought up, I would argue that the school has the right to choose whatever criteria it wants to pick its students. I don’t recognize the idea that working hard for an opportunity inherently entitles you to it. Not even being better than someone else entitles you to win and them to lose.
The school isn’t some god or other entity rewarding you for your work. It is a private institution with its own purpose, one of which is to help create a more educated society. There’s no inherent injustice for it not giving you what you want if that doesn’t align with its goals.
The way injustice is addressed is in whether the goals themselves are good, and whether the strategies to attain them actually work, and whether any of this violates anyone’s rights.
That’s why this would be social justice related, as it would be about the right to not face discrimination for one’s race.
If hard work entitled one to certain opportunities, then the entire system is unjust. Because it isn’t the people who can afford elite schools (the ones that tend to want to use AA) that work the hardest. It’s very often the blue collar workers. It doesn’t seem that the person complaining about how they didn’t get the opportunity they wanted is really talking about injustice, and not just upset they didn’t get what they thought they deserved.
It’s only once you introduce the racial component that this changes. It becomes “does this criteria for entry violate someone’s right not to be racially discriminated against?”
And that is in the realm of social justice. That is what establishes bigotry and discrimination as wrong. Like all justice, it is the wider picture that establishes the right for the individual.
The individual is no more harmed than I am for not being in Harvard. But a society can be harmed by the disparity in treatment of people of difference races.
To the exclusion of ordinary justice.
50 fucking years. We have had affirmative action for FIFTY fucking years. And now affirmative action has transformed from racism with more racism (a deeply troubling position to begin with) to fighting conservative white racism against blacks with woke white racism against asians.
Yes, any affirmative action taken to remedy past discrimination is affirmative action. It doesn’t have to include discrimination against others but if you want results you can get warm and fuzzy feelings about today and don’t really care if you’ve made any actual lasting changes, then taking from peter to pay paul is pretty effective.
In some places AA is a racial quota, in other places its a special school funding formula for predominantly black schools.
Originally affirmative action was an effort to create a more race blind society:
The term “affirmative action” was first used in the United States in “Executive Order No. 10925”,[13] signed by President John F. Kennedy on 6 March 1961, which included a provision that government contractors “take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and employees are treated [fairly] during employment, without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin”.[14] It was used to promote actions that achieve non-discrimination. In 1965, President Lyndon B. Johnson issued Executive Order 11246 which required government employers to “hire without regard to race, religion and national origin” and “take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, color, religion, sex or national origin.”[15]
In 1968, gender was added to the anti-discrimination list.[ clarification needed ][16]
Affirmative action is intended to promote the opportunities of defined minority groups within a society to give them equal access to that of the majority population.[17]
It is often instituted for government and educational settings to ensure that certain designated groups within a society are able to participate in all provided opportunities including promotional, educational, and training opportunities.[18]
The stated justification for affirmative action by its proponents is to help compensate for past discrimination, persecution or exploitation by the ruling class of a culture,[19] and to address existing discrimination.[20]