"Diversity"

I guess my big problem with AA and diversity policies, is it often lowers the bar in many areas. Instead of encouraging various ethnicities and peoples to improve themselves and their conditions, we instead lower standards and wave requirements just so they can have 'more equal' proportions of 'success'. When success is redefined by race, I find that racist. When 'requirements' are altered by gender, I find that sexist.

EXACTLY. Lots of "diversity" admission minority students end up dropping out of schools. Whatever white or asian students get past the racial discrimination against them are the utter cream of the crop. Then many of the blacks, underprepared by their schools, and having also been ill-prepared and having the wrong mindset due to the social pathologies in the black community, quickly see that they're like a ten year old hockey player competing in the NHL.

As for the military, they've used "gender norming" for a long time. About twenty years ago, in the military academies when they were admitting lots of women, they made optional the requirement (at least at West Point) that all cadets compete in martial arts, because of course the women would get clobbered. This gives an example of how PC doctrine works - when PC doctrine conflicts with reality, reality is bent and shaped so that it conforms to PC, not the other way around. "Diversity" is another example of bending and twisting reality until it conforms to PC.
 
Patrick said:
My experience has left me with the clear impression that diversity in an educational setting is a worthwhile goal.

The problem with such views is that they simply ignore the TOTAL consequences of "diversity". It's always "diversity made me a well-rounded lawyer" etc etc. AND, AND, ANNNNNNNND it kept someone who worked hard, earned his grades, merited admission to law school - and got rejected because of skin color.
Click to expand...

You have incorrectly assumed I made the statement without looking at the whole package.
 
What?

Tmy said:
Should the person with the highest IQ automatically be the president of the united states????

Of cousre not. WHy?? Cause a High IQ doesnt mean you have the skills to do the job. Its just a test. Same with the SAT or whatever. Its an indicator and nothing else. Its one factor of many when deciding whether to hire or admit someone.

Who here has ever gotten a job merely on there resume?? Theres always and interview because there are intangibles they want to investigate.

If people get into UM law under an AA program, and they are so unqualified wouldnt they all fail out??? Its not like they get different tests or extra points. AA just gets you in the door.
Click to expand...

and this is cogent how? The President of the US is an elected official. People vote to choose their leadership. Certainly, it makes sense to evaluate candidates for entry in a University based on a variety of factors. In as much as it is an institution of higher learning one might figure that academic ability would be at the top of the list. I would suggest the race or sex or sexual orientation should not be on the list at all.
 
Should the person with the highest IQ automatically be the president of the united states????

Of cousre not. WHy?? Cause a High IQ doesnt mean you have the skills to do the job. Its just a test. Same with the SAT or whatever. Its an indicator and nothing else. Its one factor of many when deciding whether to hire or admit someone.

Idiot arguments about "diversity" spring up like weeds - kill one here, and another springs up there.

That there may be multiple VALID indicators of merit doesn't at all mean that there is a justification for including INVALID indicators, such as skin color.
 
Do you want to get into somthing that REALLY effects job placement. Lets talk about veteren preferences in civil service jobs. That has WAY more of an effect than AA. Yet you hardly hear anyone complain about it.

While this is an example of using considerations other than merit, do you grasp that risking your life to preserve a government, maybe losing some of your limbs, can with some justification be deemed a convincing reason to be rewarded by that government, as opposed to just showing up with the politically correct skin color? No, you probably don't get it.
 
To be clear

I do not have a problem with diversity all. I don't even have a problem with private institutions of any kind (assuming they are, in fact, truly private) screening applicants by whatever criteria they might choose. (Yes, I believe that private colleges or businesses have the the right to serve or not serve whomever they may choose.) However, I personally think racial consciousness is a bad thing. I think it is a bad thing even when its supposed ends are good ones. I do not think there is a good way to racist. I believe that emphasis on one's ethnic background simply serves to reinforce the divisions between us. And yes, I belief the most qualified candidates should be given slots over those who are less qualified. As someone once alluded to in another thread - the concept of race is an obsolete paradigm. It is truly and artificial distinction that has done nothing be served the purposes of the worst among us.
 
Lets say you're a doctor. If youve never delt with different people from other backgrounds can you effectivly treat all you patients?? People from diffrent races/countries/ religions may have different needs and sensibilities.

This is trivial - of course you can. If you speak "ebonics", then the doctor might not understand you, but that is another problem caused by liberals and the government schools, who condemn children to a life of semi-functional illiteracy because they tell them the PC view that "ebonics" is just a variant of english and no problem. As for the races/countries etc, that too is a problem to lay at the doorstep of liberals - "multiculturalism" (a subject for another thread) is the liberal establishment's attempt, succeeding greatly, to balkanize the american identity and civil culture.

And a doctor who might have discovered a cure for cancer is denied admission to med school just so mediocre doctors can deal with balkanized society?

God! It's a whole downward spiral with with one liberal social engineering idiocy reinforcing another!
 
Unfortunately, if we don't have laws PREVENTING people from only hiring one race,

We have had that law since 1964 - it's the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This law is the OPPOSITE of "diversity" - which in practice consists of anti-white discrimintaion.
 
Patrick said:
We have had that law since 1964 - it's the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This law is the OPPOSITE of "diversity" - which in practice consists of anti-white discrimintaion.
Click to expand...

Let's try again:

Diversity is the goal, or ends, of affirmative action, the means. The means may indeed be unfair, unjust, unconstitutional, whatever---but that doesn't make the ends wrong, just the means. There are two separate questions: Is diversity wrong? Is affirmative action wrong? You can answer yes to both, or no to both, or one yes and one no. Confusing the two questions is just muddling debate.

Personally, I think the goal, diversity, is desirable. But I don't think there is any acceptable means to achieve it.
 
Is diversity wrong? Is affirmative action wrong? You can answer yes to both, or no to both, or one yes and one no. Confusing the two questions is just muddling debate.

The "muddling" is done by liberals who endlessly pollute the debate with their creative semantic gymnastics. "Diversity" is just another code word for anti-white racial discrimination, just as "affirmative action" was previously -- both terms have their origin in court cases where liberal establishment types were attempting to fight back against challenges to their policies of racial discrimination.
 
Patrick said:
The "muddling" is done by liberals who endlessly pollute the debate with their creative semantic gymnastics. "Diversity" is just another code word for anti-white racial discrimination, just as "affirmative action" was previously -- both terms have their origin in court cases where liberal establishment types were attempting to fight back against challenges to their policies of racial discrimination.
Click to expand...

You're the one doing the muddling here. If you disagree with my definitions of diversity as the ends and affirmative action as the means, then say so. If you don't disagree, then you are deliberately confusing ends and means--how can you debate rationally, doing that? Or perhaps you are not interested in debating rationally, but instead pursuing a course of lobbing inflammatory catch phrases around to create a ruckus?

Previously, I assumed you simply didn't read other people's posts before arguing with them. I'm beginning to think you just want to kick up a fuss. That doesn't do your political causes any good, you know--the means reflect upon the ends. Diatribe gets attention, but it won't convince anyone who reaches their decisions via reasoning. I'd hope that the majority of people in a JREF forum are people who make their decisions, even political ones, based on reason. As it happens, I agree that affirmative action is undesirable. But who's argument do you think will better convince the opposition--mine, or yours?
 
You're the one doing the muddling here. If you disagree with my definitions of diversity as the ends and affirmative action as the means, then say so.

Uh .... I .... sure .... thought ....I did .... just that .....

Let's try again:

QUOTE: "Diversity" is just another code word for anti-white racial discrimination, just as "affirmative action" was previously

Did it register this time ........?
 
Patrick said:
I guess my big problem with AA and diversity policies, is it often lowers the bar in many areas. Instead of encouraging various ethnicities and peoples to improve themselves and their conditions, we instead lower standards and wave requirements just so they can have 'more equal' proportions of 'success'. When success is redefined by race, I find that racist. When 'requirements' are altered by gender, I find that sexist.

EXACTLY. Lots of "diversity" admission minority students end up dropping out of schools. Whatever white or asian students get past the racial discrimination against them are the utter cream of the crop. Then many of the blacks, underprepared by their schools, and having also been ill-prepared and having the wrong mindset due to the social pathologies in the black community, quickly see that they're like a ten year old hockey player competing in the NHL.

As for the military, they've used "gender norming" for a long time. About twenty years ago, in the military academies when they were admitting lots of women, they made optional the requirement (at least at West Point) that all cadets compete in martial arts, because of course the women would get clobbered. This gives an example of how PC doctrine works - when PC doctrine conflicts with reality, reality is bent and shaped so that it conforms to PC, not the other way around. "Diversity" is another example of bending and twisting reality until it conforms to PC.
Click to expand...


In the case of the Michigan School, how does it lower the bar if all of the candidates were truly qualified?
 
In the case of the Michigan School, how does it lower the bar if all of the candidates were truly qualified?

"Qualified" has always been a relative term vis-s-vis university admissions - there are a limited number of chairs, usually ten times as many applicants as chairs. "Qualified" is a term in the PC dictionary that is usually used by "diversity" proponents to avoid letting concepts such as competition and merit enter the debate.
 
Patrick said:
In the case of the Michigan School, how does it lower the bar if all of the candidates were truly qualified?

"Qualified" has always been a relative term vis-s-vis university admissions - there are a limited number of chairs, usually ten times as many applicants as chairs. "Qualified" is a term in the PC dictionary that is usually used by "diversity" proponents to avoid letting concepts such as competition and merit enter the debate.
Click to expand...

Were the Black applicants qualified or not qualified to get into the Michigan school based on their grades?
 
Were the Black applicants qualified or not qualified to get into the Michigan school based on their grades?

Turn down the noise in your brain, troll. Focus until your head hurts.

In the undergraduate case, there was a point system, ONE of whose components was grades. Another component, a hefty component was RACE - worth lots of points to non-whites. There was no "qualification" based on grades alone - what counted was your total points.

In the law school case, there were also multiple components but no point system. The admissions committee operated in private and never gave reasons for their particular decisions to outsiders. But based on an analysis of who was accepted and who was rejected during the court challenge it was clear that race was a huge factor. It was shown that Grutter (or whatever her name was) got a high LSAT score and high grades, but based on an analysis of actual admittees only about 8% of white students would have been admitted with those credentials, whereas 100% of balck students would have. Clearly, race trumped everything else.
 
I'd have thought suing the law school you wished to attend would prove to the admissions committee that an applicant were truly worthy of admission.
 
Patrick said:
Were the Black applicants qualified or not qualified to get into the Michigan school based on their grades?

Turn down the noise in your brain, troll. Focus until your head hurts.

In the undergraduate case, there was a point system, ONE of whose components was grades. Another component, a hefty component was RACE - worth lots of points to non-whites. There was no "qualification" based on grades alone - what counted was your total points.

In the law school case, there were also multiple components but no point system. The admissions committee operated in private and never gave reasons for their particular decisions to outsiders. But based on an analysis of who was accepted and who was rejected during the court challenge it was clear that race was a huge factor. It was shown that Grutter (or whatever her name was) got a high LSAT score and high grades, but based on an analysis of actual admittees only about 8% of white students would have been admitted with those credentials, whereas 100% of balck students would have. Clearly, race trumped everything else.
Click to expand...

That's all very interesting, but could you answer the question I asked? Did the black applicants, based on their grades, qualify to attend the school?
 
That's all very interesting, but could you answer the question I asked? Did the black applicants, based on their grades, qualify to attend the school?

Let's try the scoped down short answer for you, and see if that does the trick: there's no such thing as qualifying to attend the school based on your grades.

Did that work? If not, try the super-scoped down answer:

No.
 
In other words, NO applicant was qualified based on grades alone. Their grades were sufficient to score them points, but their race was the decisive factor. Is that right, Pat?

It's not surprising - it happens everywhere.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom