It is interesting that the 100 m sprint - likely the simplest and most straightforward (no pun intended) of all athletics events - came up in this thread. If anything, the black sprinters are not merely “overrepresented” at the highest level, they have virtually monopolized it. The IAAF all time list for men lists 119 sprinters with a PB of 10.00 seconds or better. While at first glance the list seems to be dominated by Americans and Jamaicans, there are quite a few sprinters from various European, Caribbean and African countries. Still, I counted only six non-black athletes - and the 10.00 cutoff is very generous to them, since half of them have run exactly this fast. Christophe Lemaitre is the fastest (9.92) non-black sprinter, tied for 39th overall all time. The other five are Patrick Johnson (who is half Aboriginal), Marian Woronin (Poland) and three Asians - Ito (Japan), Su and Zhang (both China). Given that Lemaitre and Woronin, unlike many others on the list, both had the advantage of 2.0 m/s tailwind (maximum legal for record consideration and, according to this site, giving at least a 0.1 second advantage over still conditions), then, depending on how one defines “white”, one could theoretically argue that no white man, unlike numerous black sprinters, has ever broken the 10 second barrier.
To the OP: no, it shouldn’t. Aside from the fact that I am not a fan of race based policies in general (including the Rooney Rule), I don’t think there is a bias against non-black players in the NFL that should warrant such a policy. If there exists a racial/ethnic bias in advising young players to develop skill sets for certain positions - and I think there may well be, given the stereotype of “traditionally black” positions - it happens much earlier in their careers. Mandating “white quotas” for the NFL in any shape of form will do little to compensate for that.
No, I thought that was what you were doing… if I’m wrong, and you believe that culture plays a role, and outcomes aren’t solely determined by genetics, then I apologize.
Another dumb “creationist” jab – when are you going to drop that strawman? I’ve never said or implied that human genes haven’t or don’t evolve.
There may well be, on average, genetic differences between various populations for some physical characteristics. I’m just not ready to conclude such broad, sweeping things like “black people are better sprinters” when different groups have dominated differing athletic categories at different times. I don’t believe that NOW is special – I think the same biases from the past may still be active, to varying degrees. And I don’t think the sprinting records tell us much – sure, most of the top sprinters are black (in the sociological grouping called “black” by most Americans), but most of them probably have European ancestry as well. Why would anyone be so ready to conclude, with certainty, that it’s just the African ancestry that is involved? It seems like there could be so many other explanations: the combination of African and European ancestry provides an advantage; something about the culture (diet as well as sports culture, among other things) of Caribbean islands provides an advantage; or a million other possibilities.
In short, it’s entirely possible that there is some group of “great sprinting genes” that show up more often in some populations then others. But I’m not ready to conclude that this is so, with certainty, and I don’t see why anyone should.
They may be, but certainly the world as a whole, in terms of race and ethnic origin, is more “equal opportunity” now than it was in the 1960s or the 1930s. And, given present trends, it will likely be even more so, say, 30 years from now. What we have experienced so far is that the more we have dismantled systemic discrimination, the more extensive the non-white dominance in certain sports has become.
Well, we are mostly splitting hairs here. If the “X” factor that makes one a top class sprinting talent is genetic in nature AND is more prevalent in a certain subgroup of black people, no matter how wide or small said subgroup is, then it is of little importance whether it is “purely African” or a very specific African/European combination. The real world outcome is the same either way.
But what could be this alleged unique culture that has led to an absolute dominance of blacks in speed/explosiveness sports and appears to be shared by blacks born and training in so many different countries and regions? In what way are black sprinters from US, France, Great Britain and Nigeria so similar that they have been frequently breaking the 10 second barrier in 100 metres dash since 1968, while white sprinters had to wait a whopping 42 years until Lemaitre became the first athlete of purely European descent to do it? The short sprint is perhaps the most accessible of all athletics events and has been among its most popular events for over a hundred years. Yet even Soviet Union and East Germany, all-time athletics superpowers in terms of Olympic medal count (including sprint events!) but virtually non-black countries, failed to ever produce a single athlete to run a sub-10 short sprint.
I can understand (though not necessarily agree with) the reluctance to acknowledge the genetic factor and ancestry, if for no other reason than avoiding vindicating racists (“see, we always said there was something innate about these people!..”), but even a purely statistical research suggests something interesting has been going on in the speed/explosiveness sports for several decades.
In what way do HBCUs “sustain the results of segregation”? Are there any HBCUs that restrict admissions or give priority to admissions based on race? Are there any that have ANY racially-based policies (formal or otherwise) relating to admission or retention of students?
It is also worth noting that most of the HBCUs take students who have lower grades, lower test scores, and less academic preparation than those admitted to flagship universities. That means that many HBCU students would NOT be admitted elsewhere, would NOT be able to go to any school they want. Shutting down the HBCUs would serve what purpose, exactly?
Back in post #42, I linked to a youth sports survey. Among the surveyed children who stopped participating, only 15% quit because they weren’t a good enough player.
Yeah, but 70,000 years and exposure of at least one source pool to even more ancient lineages is obviously enough time to diverge gene variants and their frequencies. The proof is that we can measure both the gene frequencies and the empiric outcomes!
And what injustice have whites suffered as a result of historically black colleges? Or are you saying that more whites at historically black colleges would somehow address injustices suffered by the black colleges or their students?
No, the line is not blurry. Liberal academics pretend it is but its not. There is no real reason that we cannot apply affirmative action as a remedial measure but we don’t. We give preferences to latinos. We give preferences to all sorts of other minorities that were not historically victims of slavery or genocide.
The line is obviously very blurry. The idea that you can declare that past racial discrimination only affected on particular part of scociety or people’s lives and didn’t extend into any other is nonsense.
Slavery or genocide are not the issue. Past discrimination, of any kind, is.
I am also very skeptical of AA, like you. I don’t think it should be used lightly either. But you can’t say put everything in silos like you’re trying to do.
The line is pretty fucking clear. If your ancestors weren’t slaves then we don’t need to remedy past discrimination. If THAT were the criteria, we would still be giving Asians a preference. There are only TWO bases for affirmative action: the legacy of slavery and the legacy of genocide. Anything beyond that is blurry and is usually better described as diversity rather than affirmative action. Any other effects of past discrimination are better addressed by socioeconomic preferences rather than racial ones.
No, slavery and genocide are the sole bases for affirmative action as it was first implemented. it has since BECOME blurry as more and more rationales and groups bet thrown into the mix.
Of course you can, we just don’t. We let these preferences bleed over into other areas because it is an effective tool to confer advantages whether those advantages are warranted or not.
BTW, I am not skeptical of affirmative action. I just think that people have appropriated the term to give advantages to other groups that don’t really warrant it.
There’s no fame and fortune at the youth sports level. It’s many years and thousands of hours removed from any material benefit to the players, and players - even really talented ones - quit all the time for reasons like trying to improve their grades, dissatisfaction with coaches, and not having fun.
If you think there’s no one who could have been a pro athlete had they stuck with it past age 8 or whatever, you’re mistaken.