Sotomayor to white firefighters - drop dead!

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

This begs the question as to how you can be so certain when rendering judgement. You don't know. Nor can you... but all the same you're putting out this spurious "law of averages" argument and the implication that the competence of black professionals across the board are somehow "tainted" by the existence of a government social program that may or may not have affected them.

That's just #######.

The competence of black professionals across the board *has* been tainted by AA,

it's undeniable. You can deny it all day long, but it is what it is.

You don't have to be 100% certain when rendering judgement either - most people wouldn't

take any chances with their health or their children's health. If there's even the slightest

chance that the doctor could be incompetent, why take it?

It's even more insidious than that.

AA harms those minority individuals who ARE able to compete on their merits. By setting society's bar lower for minorities, it is essentially saying to those who are talented, are qualified, are capable - well, we don't think you really are as good, so here is a lower standard for you to shoot for. Even when those high achievers strive and achieve to the highest standards, graduate with excellent grades from the best schools, the perception that dogs them throughout their careers is that they must have gotten a pass and not truly earned their achievements. It must be infuriating to know that you're every bit as good, but everyone nods and winks and assumes otherwise.

You do realise that Affirmative Action relates to nothing specifically tangible - as much as a fairly broad set of generalised policies defined and applied at the local level.

What does 'tangible' mean? Does a specific university admissions policy not count as something 'tangible'?

If you mean that there isn't a uniform law or set of laws, you're right. Thank goodness. The law assures (or is meant to assure) equality. Hence we have the Civil Rights Act etc. Those local policies you mention are pretty darn tangible, however. Ask anyone who ever lost an admission spot because there was a reserved quota for minority applicants.

Are you familiar with the Bakke decision? And the 2003 University of Michigan decisions?

Universities and public institutions in this country have for decades been implementing "reverse quotas" aka Affirmative Action, and have needed to artfully cloak them in order to not be discriminatory. They walk a fine line indeed to do so. I'm actually in favor of having admissions criteria that comply with the current Bakke & U.Mich. rulings, namely that they are entirely color-blind, gender-blind, ethnicity-blind. What they CAN do , and SHOULD do is be economically sensitive.

If universities want to guarantee placement and scholarships to people from lower socio-economic backgrounds so that poor kids get a shot to go to college, I think that's great. Just so long as ANY poor kids get EQUAL chances at those spots, regardless of color etc. Of course many of those spots will go to blacks, Latinos, etc. As they should! I would expect that we give a hand to talented kids who want to excel but can't afford the cost of tuition. I just don't think we should selectively pick minorities for this special help. And, in Bakke and U.Mich, the Supreme Court has fundamentally agreed.

How does a person "prove" with any certainty that they were denied a college place because of Affirmative Action? I'm not saying that it isn't possible - but I would think it be hard for the individual to say with authority that they were specifically passed over in favour of someone less qualified.

Isn't it the same reasoning that applies to job interviews - you aren't allowed by law to discriminate, but short of something blatant you aren't going to know what reasoning the interviewer applied to the selection process.

Incidentally I don't agree with quota systems (but from what I understand that isn't strictly what Affirmative Action promotes) but I don't think its fair to cast aspersions across entire professional fields because of the existence of a generalised set of non-specific policies.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I would expect that we give a hand to talented kids who want to excel but can't afford the cost of tuition. I just don't think we should selectively pick minorities for this special help.

It is scandalous how poverty in this country is almost always associated with people of color in our inner cities, as if the vast swathes of rural poverty - white poverty - doesn't exist.

But is that entirely accurate though - as far as college selections go aren't there AA programs that look specifically at economic means as opposed to race specifically?

Someone who worked in college admissions posted about this a while back - that in areas where schools were generally substandard a person who achieved a B grade at a failing school might be deemed a better student that someone who achieved an A at an expensive public school.

I imagine that there are a lot of factors that go into college selections - and it isn't simply a matter of "we need x numbers of black folk".

[scandal 951]

How does a person "prove" with any certainty that they were denied a college place because of Affirmative Action? I'm not saying that it isn't possible - but I would think it be hard for the individual to say with authority that they were specifically passed over in favour of someone less qualified.

Well, just ask those white firefighters which are the original topic of this thread. They studied hard, qualified for the jobs, and were told sorry - no good. Pretty compelling case, I should say.

Isn't it the same reasoning that applies to job interviews - you aren't allowed by law to discriminate, but short of something blatant you aren't going to know what reasoning the interviewer applied to the selection process.

Yes. That does happen all the time. There are many shadowy things that go on where we're never quite sure who said what, meant what, did what.

That doesn't change the fact that for many years it was fashionable and correct to reverse-discriminate strictly on the basis of minority status. And to do so overtly, blatantly, openly. We're finally coming around to the idea that reverse discrimination is just as odious as forward discrimination. More to the point, reverse discrimination hurts the very people it is trying to help, as I've been trying to point out.

Incidentally I don't agree with quota systems (but from what I understand that isn't strictly what Affirmative Action promotes) but I don't think its fair to cast aspersions across entire professional fields because of the existence of a generalised set of non-specific policies.

I don't understand what that means.

Sorry Private Pike, I'm still kinda new to these OT discussions. I read a lot of your posts and sometimes I get them, and sometimes I just see lots of words strung together that I fail to parse. This is one of those sentences. No offense!

[Niels Bohr 72]

Sorry Private Pike, I'm still kinda new to these OT discussions. I read a lot of your posts and sometimes I get them, and sometimes I just see lots of words strung together that I fail to parse. This is one of those sentences. No offense!

You're getting a parse error in your debugger.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Yeah, yeah - always blame the debugger.

[scandal 951]

Yeah, yeah - always blame the debugger.

Have you guys ever tried to debug in Brainfu*k? That takes skill

[Niels Bohr 72]

Yeah, yeah - always blame the debugger.

Have you guys ever tried to debug in Brainfu*k? That takes skill

Geezes. I'd get lost in the statement.

>+++++++++[<+++++++++++>-]<[>[-]>[-]<<[>+>+<<-]>>[<<+>>-]>>>

[-]<<<+++++++++<[>>>+<<[>+>[-]<<-]>[<+>-]>[<<++++++++++>>>+<

-]<<-<-]+++++++++>[<->-]>>+>[<[-]<<+>>>-]>[-]+<<[>+>-<<-]<<<

[>>+>+<<<-]>>>[<<<+>>>-]>[<+>-]<<-[>[-]<[-]]>>+<[>[-]<-]<+++

+++++[<++++++<++++++>>-]>>>[>+>+<<-]>>[<<+>>-]<[<<<<<.>>>>>-

]<<<<<<.>>[-]>[-]++++[<++++++++>-]<.>++++[<++++++++>-]<++.>+

++++[<+++++++++>-]<.><+++++..--------.-------.>>[>>+>+<<<-]>

>>[<<<+>>>-]<[<<<<++++++++++++++.>>>>-]<<<<[-]>++++[<+++++++

+>-]<.>+++++++++[<+++++++++>-]<--.---------.>+++++++[<------

---->-]<.>++++++[<+++++++++++>-]<.+++..+++++++++++++.>++++++

++[<---------->-]<--.>+++++++++[<+++++++++>-]<--.-.>++++++++

[<---------->-]<++.>++++++++[<++++++++++>-]<++++.-----------

-.---.>+++++++[<---------->-]<+.>++++++++[<+++++++++++>-]<-.

>++[<----------->-]<.+++++++++++..>+++++++++[<---------->-]<

-----.---.>>>[>+>+<<-]>>[<<+>>-]<[<<<<<.>>>>>-]<<<<<<.>>>+++

+[<++++++>-]<--.>++++[<++++++++>-]<++.>+++++[<+++++++++>-]<.

><+++++..--------.-------.>>[>>+>+<<<-]>>>[<<<+>>>-]<[<<<<++

++++++++++++.>>>>-]<<<<[-]>++++[<++++++++>-]<.>+++++++++[<++

+++++++>-]<--.---------.>+++++++[<---------->-]<.>++++++[<++

+++++++++>-]<.+++..+++++++++++++.>++++++++++[<---------->-]<

-.---.>+++++++[<++++++++++>-]<++++.+++++++++++++.++++++++++.

------.>+++++++[<---------->-]<+.>++++++++[<++++++++++>-]<-.

-.---------.>+++++++[<---------->-]<+.>+++++++[<++++++++++>-

]<--.+++++++++++.++++++++.---------.>++++++++[<---------->-]

<++.>+++++[<+++++++++++++>-]<.+++++++++++++.----------.>++++

+++[<---------->-]<++.>++++++++[<++++++++++>-]<.>+++[<----->

-]<.>+++[<++++++>-]<..>+++++++++[<--------->-]<--.>+++++++[<

++++++++++>-]<+++.+++++++++++.>++++++++[<----------->-]<++++

.>+++++[<+++++++++++++>-]<.>+++[<++++++>-]<-.---.++++++.----

---.----------.>++++++++[<----------->-]<+.---.[-]<<<->[-]>[

-]<<[>+>+<<-]>>[<<+>>-]>>>[-]<<<+++++++++<[>>>+<<[>+>[-]<<-]

>[<+>-]>[<<++++++++++>>>+<-]<<-<-]+++++++++>[<->-]>>+>[<[-]<

<+>>>-]>[-]+<<[>+>-<<-]<<<[>>+>+<<<-]>>>[<<<+>>>-]<>>[<+>-]<

<-[>[-]<[-]]>>+<[>[-]<-]<++++++++[<++++++<++++++>>-]>>>[>+>+

<<-]>>[<<+>>-]<[<<<<<.>>>>>-]<<<<<<.>>[-]>[-]++++[<++++++++>

-]<.>++++[<++++++++>-]<++.>+++++[<+++++++++>-]<.><+++++..---

-----.-------.>>[>>+>+<<<-]>>>[<<<+>>>-]<[<<<<++++++++++++++

.>>>>-]<<<<[-]>++++[<++++++++>-]<.>+++++++++[<+++++++++>-]<-

-.---------.>+++++++[<---------->-]<.>++++++[<+++++++++++>-]

<.+++..+++++++++++++.>++++++++[<---------->-]<--.>+++++++++[

<+++++++++>-]<--.-.>++++++++[<---------->-]<++.>++++++++[<++

++++++++>-]<++++.------------.---.>+++++++[<---------->-]<+.

>++++++++[<+++++++++++>-]<-.>++[<----------->-]<.+++++++++++

..>+++++++++[<---------->-]<-----.---.+++.---.[-]<<<]

Edited May 27, 2009 by Niels Bohr

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Well, just ask those white firefighters which are the original topic of this thread. They studied hard, qualified for the jobs, and were told sorry - no good. Pretty compelling case, I should say.

Compelling if you accept certain assumptions at the outset of the argument - that the low scores on the part of minority applicants were due to poor ability (and lowered standards on initial hire) than anything related to the construction or application of the test itself.

Were all things equal here? I honestly can't say - can you?

Yes. That does happen all the time. There are many shadowy things that go on where we're never quite sure who said what, meant what, did what.

That doesn't change the fact that for many years it was fashionable and correct to reverse-discriminate strictly on the basis of minority status. And to do so overtly, blatantly, openly. We're finally coming around to the idea that reverse discrimination is just as odious as forward discrimination. More to the point, reverse discrimination hurts the very people it is trying to help, as I've been trying to point out.

There's no such thing as reverse discrimination (or reverse racism) - as the implies in its meaning that the discrimination is the province of a single group. It isn't the case - discrimination is discrimination, so is racism. It isn't reverse anything.

This is beside the point though - the reality of the issue is that as much as we want to maintain that things are equal - they aren't. There are pretty broad disparities among ethnicities in terms of things like general level of education, annual salary etc etc. Programs like Affirmative Action exist to readjust the balance - artificially - definitely, effective - arguably.

But the alternative is to refuse to recognise or do anything to address marked racial disparities between majority whites and the rest of the population. Politically that's a pretty dodgy thing to do.

I don't understand what that means.

Sorry Private Pike, I'm still kinda new to these OT discussions. I read a lot of your posts and sometimes I get them, and sometimes I just see lots of words strung together that I fail to parse. This is one of those sentences. No offense!

It means that its unreasonable to choose one doctor over another on the basis of Affirmative Action when it may have played no part in their hiring or their ability to do their job effectively.

[ready4ONE 5,400]

Just so I am clear, this is Sotormayers only case which she ever decided before Obama appointed her? And it is obvious she made her decision based solely on race?

The white firefighters didn't have attorneys argue their case? If so they did a perfect job that fell on deaf ears due to racism because the aggrieved parties were white? There is no possibility their argument was flawed?

Every plaintiff, every person who was initially qualified for promotion was white? No Hispanics? No Asian? No Native American?

Not one African American was able to successfully complete the exam? The city didn't have attorneys which argued a better case than the plaintiff?

I won't know how to feel until Rush Limbozo tells me what to think!

[scandal 951]

There's no such thing as reverse discrimination (or reverse racism) - as the implies in its meaning that the discrimination is the province of a single group. It isn't the case - discrimination is discrimination, so is racism. It isn't reverse anything.

This is beside the point though - the reality of the issue is that as much as we want to maintain that things are equal - they aren't. There are pretty broad disparities among ethnicities in terms of things like general level of education, annual salary etc etc. Programs like Affirmative Action exist to readjust the balance - artificially - definitely, effective - arguably.

But the alternative is to refuse to recognise or do anything to address marked racial disparities between majority whites and the rest of the population. Politically that's a pretty dodgy thing to do.

Of course there is such a thing as reverse discrimination (Note: I am not using the term racism - you wrote that, not I).

There is a conventionally accepted definition of this term. For centuries in this country, overt discrimination was practiced: against Blacks, Asians (called Orientals, or even 'Celestials' way back when), against Catholics, Jews, against gays, women, disabled.

When it became socially desirable in the 1960s to redress these wrongs (and they were wrong), one avenue to chosen was to tilt the balance in the reverse direction. Where previously white Protestant males received preference, now they would be singled out and given restricted access so that the minorities would receive greater access. That is reverse discrimination. You even appear to agree that it occurred (and still occurs), you just don't like the label. Whatever. It's an accepted term in this debate.

Look at the opening words of the Bakke decision:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/hist...38_0265_ZS.html

Syllabus

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

438 U.S. 265

Regents of the University of California v. Bakke

No. 7811 Argued: October 12, 1977 --- Decided: June 28, 1978

The Medical School of the University of California at Davis (hereinafter Davis) had two admissions programs for the entering class of 100 students -- the regular admissions program and the special admissions program. Under the regular procedure, candidates whose overall undergraduate grade point averages fell below 2.5 on a scale of 4.0 were summarily rejected. About one out of six applicants was then given an interview, following which he was rated on a scale of 1 to 100 by each of the committee members (five in 1973 and six in 1974), his rating being based on the interviewers' summaries, his overall grade point average, his science courses grade point average, his Medical College Admissions Test (MCAT) scores, letters of recommendation, extracurricular activities, and other biographical data, all of which resulted in a total "benchmark score." The full admissions committee then made offers of admission on the basis of their review of the applicant's file and his score, considering and acting upon applications as they were received. The committee chairman was responsible for placing names on the waiting list and had discretion to include persons with "special skills." A separate committee, a majority of whom were members of minority groups, operated the special admissions program. The 1973 and 1974 application forms, respectively, asked candidates whether they wished to be considered as "economically and/or educationally disadvantaged" applicants and members of a "minority group" (blacks, Chicanos, Asians, American Indians). If an applicant of a minority group was found to be "disadvantaged," he would be rated in a manner similar to the one employed by the general admissions committee. Special candidates, however, did not have to meet the 2.5 grade point cutoff and were not ranked against candidates in the general admissions process.

The italics are mine, to emphasize the phrasing I think relevant here. People in the "minority group" were simply given a different admission path than the "general path". That is reverse discrimination. And the court ruled it to be unconstitutional.

In Bakke, the court recognized the social good of affirmative action, but restricted it so that it could not be applied blatantly as was done by UC Davis. However in the U. Mich decisions they have gone even further. Race can simply no longer be used as a criterion in admissions policies. Only "color blind" criteria can. Which I totally concur with. The court got it right, and struck the right balance.

I don't understand what that means.

Sorry Private Pike, I'm still kinda new to these OT discussions. I read a lot of your posts and sometimes I get them, and sometimes I just see lots of words strung together that I fail to parse. This is one of those sentences. No offense!

It means that its unreasonable to choose one doctor over another on the basis of Affirmative Action when it may have played no part in their hiring or their ability to do their job effectively.

When who chooses a doctor? When I, as a private citizen choose my doctor? Thanks, but my selection criteria are my own damn business and what's "reasonable" for you is not necessarily "reasonable" for me.

[scandal 951]

Just so I am clear, this is Sotormayers only case which she ever decided before Obama appointed her? And it is obvious she made her decision based solely on race?

The white firefighters didn't have attorneys argue their case? If so they did a perfect job that fell on deaf ears due to racism because the aggrieved parties were white? There is no possibility their argument was flawed?

Every plaintiff, every person who was initially qualified for promotion was white? No Hispanics? No Asian? No Native American?

Not one African American was able to successfully complete the exam? The city didn't have attorneys which argued a better case than the plaintiff?

I won't know how to feel until Rush Limbozo tells me what to think!

Sotomayor has made many, many rulings in a long illustrious career. She is a fine judge and will make a great Supreme Court justice. Amongst her rulings, she settled the baseball strike in 1995.

However, she is not perfect. Here and there, like everyone in public life for 30 years, she has made mistakes. She has spoken in front of an open mic and talked about legislating from the bench. I'm sure she regrets that.

And she made a ruling in the New Haven case that is now before the Supreme Court with an opinion expected this spring. The very people who are about to become her colleagues in the fall are quite likely to overrule her decision now in the spring. Hence I don't think it's an over reach even for those those of us who like her and think she's a great judge to say that she made a poor ruling. One poor ruling - in a career filled with good and sound judgments.

Rush who? Don't listen to him - I'll tell you what to think

[Danno 1,228]

<<<Kenneth Yusko, a specialist in employment testing, says psychologists aren't sure why certain written tests produce racial disparities in certain job categories, but they do.

"Typically, a written test has a large amount of what we call adverse impact," Yusko says. "It really does reduce diversity.">>>>

[spookyturtle 9,466]

It's clear. She doesn't like white people.

That's why Obama is bringing her in. If he get re-elected, he will try to rule whites by force.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

<<<Kenneth Yusko, a specialist in employment testing, says psychologists aren't sure why certain written tests produce racial disparities in certain job categories, but they do.

"Typically, a written test has a large amount of what we call adverse impact," Yusko says. "It really does reduce diversity.">>>>

When I moved here they had just brought in discursive style examinations into the SATs in LA area schools. Suddenly kids (and parents) were freaking out because their kids had to write full-length essays under exam conditions, as opposed to ticking a multiple choice box.

Naturally that would adversely impact anyone whose comprehension and writing skills weren't up to snuff.

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

Come on folks! She's not racist she's a minority