Race policies at universities questioned

[Heracles 417]

Steven isn't racist; he's saying that if you take a poor kid and put him in a shitty school, even if he does his best, he's going to have a hard time competing against mommy-bought-me-a-pony types. To give him equality of opportunity -- black, white, rural, whatever -- is going to require allowing that different background to count as much as a mommy-paid-for-my-important-life-experience-in-london.

The reality is the world does not work that way.. If someone is poor they have to study twice as hard with half as much. It is not impossible because all of my cousins and siblings did it. Now they are renowned doctors, lawyers, engineers and scientists..

[Ban Hammer 13,352]

i often think of this as an example for how some of our liberal minded think:

someone who is a minority gets into medical school due to this diversity appeal some love so much, then passes with average grades and goes on to be in all likelihood a mediocre brain surgeon.

someone who gets into medical school based on merit, with race and sex not playing a part at all, and odds are, goes on to have excellent grades and has a stellar reputation as a brain surgeon.

furthermore, both charge the exact same amount for every procedure. which person do you think the liberal minded would choose when if and when they should need brain surgery? it's not the first one listed.......

[Heracles 417]

Does it... Noone has shown any concrete proof that this is the case, or that affirmative action (such as it is) is a major consideration for awarding college / school places...

Are you talking specifics here, or just general theoretics?

I think your missing the point. If affirmative action is to continue, should it or should it not apply to everyone who is underprivileged and not just one race??

Edited February 20, 2007 by Infidel

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

i often think of this as an example for how some of our liberal minded think:

someone who is a minority gets into medical school due to this diversity appeal some love so much, then passes with average grades and goes on to be in all likelihood a mediocre brain surgeon.

someone who gets into medical school based on merit, with race and sex not playing a part at all, and odds are, goes on to have excellent grades and has a stellar reputation as a brain surgeon.

furthermore, both charge the exact same amount for every procedure. which person do you think the liberal minded would choose when if and when they should need brain surgery? it's not the first one listed.......

I wonder if there is any specific proof that this is the case - firstly that diversity programme are that widespread, secondly that school/college/university places are awarded largely, if not solely according to race; and thirdly, that "diversity" applicants amount to less skilled professional workers.

I think all of those assumptions are distortive over-generalisations.

[Ban Hammer 13,352]

i often think of this as an example for how some of our liberal minded think:

someone who is a minority gets into medical school due to this diversity appeal some love so much, then passes with average grades and goes on to be in all likelihood a mediocre brain surgeon.

someone who gets into medical school based on merit, with race and sex not playing a part at all, and odds are, goes on to have excellent grades and has a stellar reputation as a brain surgeon.

furthermore, both charge the exact same amount for every procedure. which person do you think the liberal minded would choose when if and when they should need brain surgery? it's not the first one listed.......

I wonder if there is any specific proof that this is the case - firstly that diversity programme are that widespread, secondly that school/college/university places are awarded largely, if not solely according to race; and thirdly, that "diversity" applicants amount to less skilled professional workers.

I think all of those assumptions are distortive over-generalisations.

perhaps, but it can happen. so which one would you pick?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Does it... Noone has shown any concrete proof that this is the case, or that affirmative action (such as it is) is a major consideration for awarding college / school places...

Are you talking specifics here, or just general theoretics?

I think your missing the point. If affirmative action is to continue, should it or should it not apply to everyone who is underprivileged and not just one race??

Actually I'm wondering why you think diversity programmes are solely concerned with race. And that schools/colleges and universities are somehow being swamped with "sub-standard" applicants.

[Ban Hammer 13,352]

Does it... Noone has shown any concrete proof that this is the case, or that affirmative action (such as it is) is a major consideration for awarding college / school places...

Are you talking specifics here, or just general theoretics?

I think your missing the point. If affirmative action is to continue, should it or should it not apply to everyone who is underprivileged and not just one race??

Actually I'm wondering why you think diversity programmes are solely concerned with race. And that schools/colleges and universities are somehow being swamped with "sub-standard" applicants.

maybe this is why you're having a difficult time getting your dream job. you're not a minority

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

i often think of this as an example for how some of our liberal minded think:

someone who is a minority gets into medical school due to this diversity appeal some love so much, then passes with average grades and goes on to be in all likelihood a mediocre brain surgeon.

someone who gets into medical school based on merit, with race and sex not playing a part at all, and odds are, goes on to have excellent grades and has a stellar reputation as a brain surgeon.

furthermore, both charge the exact same amount for every procedure. which person do you think the liberal minded would choose when if and when they should need brain surgery? it's not the first one listed.......

I wonder if there is any specific proof that this is the case - firstly that diversity programme are that widespread, secondly that school/college/university places are awarded largely, if not solely according to race; and thirdly, that "diversity" applicants amount to less skilled professional workers.

I think all of those assumptions are distortive over-generalisations.

perhaps, but it can happen. so which one would you pick?

Most medical decisions amount to pot-luck I thought, in the private system. Assuming you have the luxury of choosing your neurologist, you have nothing substantive to attest to his/her performance. I'll throw the question back on you - how would you realistically make that determination?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Your missing the point entirely. First, I'm not comparing a wheelchair bound person to a minority. I used an example of equality in the eyes of the law that doesn't translate into equal treatment. If you want to argue that point then go ahead. Let me ask you this - do you believe that equality means everyone should be treated exactly the same?

Well, don't you think that men and women, Anglo-Americans, African-Americans, Hispanic-Americans, and Asian-Americans should all be treated the same? Shouldn't they all be afforded the same rights and laws, the same decency in society, and the same equal opportunities? I think so. So naturally, they should all be treated the same.

Treating one group better than another is discriminatory, no matter how you slice it. If you treat men better than women or women better than men, it's sexism; likewise, if you treat whites better than blacks or blacks better than whites, it's racism. So the only answer is to treat everyone in a gender-neutral and racially-neutral fashion.

I really don't see any other way around the problem. Using race as a deciding factor is discrimination of the highest order. I could potentially see SES as a method in which to assist the decision-making process, but the final decision would still have to rest on merit.

It's not treating someone better than another. Take for example if you are a parent to a son and daughter. As a fair and loving parent you love them equally, yes? Does that mean that whatever you do for your son, you must also do for your daughter? No. Their needs are going to be different. Even if you have two sons, they each have their individual needs. You can't just do exactly the same things with one as to the other to ensure equality - that's a very myopic understanding of equality.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Your missing the point entirely. First, I'm not comparing a wheelchair bound person to a minority. I used an example of equality in the eyes of the law that doesn't translate into equal treatment. If you want to argue that point then go ahead. Let me ask you this - do you believe that equality means everyone should be treated exactly the same?

Well, don't you think that men and women, Anglo-Americans, African-Americans, Hispanic-Americans, and Asian-Americans should all be treated the same? Shouldn't they all be afforded the same rights and laws, the same decency in society, and the same equal opportunities? I think so. So naturally, they should all be treated the same.

Treating one group better than another is discriminatory, no matter how you slice it. If you treat men better than women or women better than men, it's sexism; likewise, if you treat whites better than blacks or blacks better than whites, it's racism. So the only answer is to treat everyone in a gender-neutral and racially-neutral fashion.

I really don't see any other way around the problem. Using race as a deciding factor is discrimination of the highest order. I could potentially see SES as a method in which to assist the decision-making process, but the final decision would still have to rest on merit.

It's not treating someone better than another. Take for example if you are a parent to a son and daughter. As a fair and loving parent you love them equally, yes? Does that mean that whatever you do for your son, you must also do for your daughter? No. Their needs are going to be different. Even if you have two sons, they each have their individual needs. You can't just do exactly the same things with one as to the other to ensure equality - that's a very myopic understanding of equality.

Or perhaps, the socialist/communist kind of equality

[Caladan 19]

It doesn't apply easily to medical school admissions. Nor law school, generally. Nor Ph.D. If someone is grossly underqualified, they wash out or fail to pass the bar.

And on the undergraduate level, it generally means you get as much of a boost as a legacy student or a lower-tier athlete; if you're not worried about underqualified frat boys going into business or lacrosse players, you shouldn't be worried about poor students.

[Ban Hammer 13,352]

i often think of this as an example for how some of our liberal minded think:

someone who is a minority gets into medical school due to this diversity appeal some love so much, then passes with average grades and goes on to be in all likelihood a mediocre brain surgeon.

someone who gets into medical school based on merit, with race and sex not playing a part at all, and odds are, goes on to have excellent grades and has a stellar reputation as a brain surgeon.

furthermore, both charge the exact same amount for every procedure. which person do you think the liberal minded would choose when if and when they should need brain surgery? it's not the first one listed.......

I wonder if there is any specific proof that this is the case - firstly that diversity programme are that widespread, secondly that school/college/university places are awarded largely, if not solely according to race; and thirdly, that "diversity" applicants amount to less skilled professional workers.

I think all of those assumptions are distortive over-generalisations.

perhaps, but it can happen. so which one would you pick?

Most medical decisions amount to pot-luck I thought, in the private system. Assuming you have the luxury of choosing your neurologist, you have nothing substantive to attest to his/her performance. I'll throw the question back on you - how would you realistically make that determination?

nice dodge. but i'd choose the one that is the most qualified, regardless of race or sex. i'm just wondering if you are that sincere in your desire for affirmative action that you'd choose a lesser qualified surgeon. my thoughts are that you'd not.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

i often think of this as an example for how some of our liberal minded think:

someone who is a minority gets into medical school due to this diversity appeal some love so much, then passes with average grades and goes on to be in all likelihood a mediocre brain surgeon.

someone who gets into medical school based on merit, with race and sex not playing a part at all, and odds are, goes on to have excellent grades and has a stellar reputation as a brain surgeon.

furthermore, both charge the exact same amount for every procedure. which person do you think the liberal minded would choose when if and when they should need brain surgery? it's not the first one listed.......

I wonder if there is any specific proof that this is the case - firstly that diversity programme are that widespread, secondly that school/college/university places are awarded largely, if not solely according to race; and thirdly, that "diversity" applicants amount to less skilled professional workers.

I think all of those assumptions are distortive over-generalisations.

perhaps, but it can happen. so which one would you pick?

Most medical decisions amount to pot-luck I thought, in the private system. Assuming you have the luxury of choosing your neurologist, you have nothing substantive to attest to his/her performance. I'll throw the question back on you - how would you realistically make that determination?

nice dodge. but i'd choose the one that is the most qualified, regardless of race or sex. i'm just wondering if you are that sincere in your desire for affirmative action that you'd choose a lesser qualified surgeon. my thoughts are that you'd not.

Of course I wouldn't - but how would I choose the "more qualified surgeon", and what are you basing the assumption on that the minority candidate is "less qualified"?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Your missing the point entirely. First, I'm not comparing a wheelchair bound person to a minority. I used an example of equality in the eyes of the law that doesn't translate into equal treatment. If you want to argue that point then go ahead. Let me ask you this - do you believe that equality means everyone should be treated exactly the same?

Well, don't you think that men and women, Anglo-Americans, African-Americans, Hispanic-Americans, and Asian-Americans should all be treated the same? Shouldn't they all be afforded the same rights and laws, the same decency in society, and the same equal opportunities? I think so. So naturally, they should all be treated the same.

Treating one group better than another is discriminatory, no matter how you slice it. If you treat men better than women or women better than men, it's sexism; likewise, if you treat whites better than blacks or blacks better than whites, it's racism. So the only answer is to treat everyone in a gender-neutral and racially-neutral fashion.

I really don't see any other way around the problem. Using race as a deciding factor is discrimination of the highest order. I could potentially see SES as a method in which to assist the decision-making process, but the final decision would still have to rest on merit.

It's not treating someone better than another. Take for example if you are a parent to a son and daughter. As a fair and loving parent you love them equally, yes? Does that mean that whatever you do for your son, you must also do for your daughter? No. Their needs are going to be different. Even if you have two sons, they each have their individual needs. You can't just do exactly the same things with one as to the other to ensure equality - that's a very myopic understanding of equality.

Or perhaps, the socialist/communist kind of equality

Good point. And I'm the one who gets labelled a communist around here.

[Ban Hammer 13,352]

i often think of this as an example for how some of our liberal minded think:

someone who is a minority gets into medical school due to this diversity appeal some love so much, then passes with average grades and goes on to be in all likelihood a mediocre brain surgeon.

someone who gets into medical school based on merit, with race and sex not playing a part at all, and odds are, goes on to have excellent grades and has a stellar reputation as a brain surgeon.

furthermore, both charge the exact same amount for every procedure. which person do you think the liberal minded would choose when if and when they should need brain surgery? it's not the first one listed.......

I wonder if there is any specific proof that this is the case - firstly that diversity programme are that widespread, secondly that school/college/university places are awarded largely, if not solely according to race; and thirdly, that "diversity" applicants amount to less skilled professional workers.

I think all of those assumptions are distortive over-generalisations.

perhaps, but it can happen. so which one would you pick?

Most medical decisions amount to pot-luck I thought, in the private system. Assuming you have the luxury of choosing your neurologist, you have nothing substantive to attest to his/her performance. I'll throw the question back on you - how would you realistically make that determination?

nice dodge. but i'd choose the one that is the most qualified, regardless of race or sex. i'm just wondering if you are that sincere in your desire for affirmative action that you'd choose a lesser qualified surgeon. my thoughts are that you'd not.

Of course I wouldn't - but how would I choose the "more qualified surgeon", and what are you basing the assumption on that the minority candidate is "less qualified"?

easily - by asking questions. they do allow you to ask questions about your surgeon's track record even in the uk, don't they? i'm not basing anything on race, i'd be asking questions of the person's peers to see who has a better record. who has more respect among their peers. and that's easy to do, btw.

you've still dodged the question. are your convictions so strong that you'd bypass a more qualified surgeon for a mediocre minority in this case?