Is tolerance intolerant?

[Angrboda]

I'll respond to your post later, if at all, but off the top I'll note two things.  First, you didn't provide citations for all the claims that they were requested for.  And second, you claimed that Asian test scores were an order of magnitude better than that of black affirmative action recipients, not that it is only a fair bit better than those recipients.  So, first of all, you've moved the goalposts.

Unless you really think I was saying Asian scores are 10x better than those of black students, then it should have been pretty clear that I was just emphasizing that the scores are very different.  If your kid said, "OMG I have a million pages of homework!" would you accuse them of lying?

Since you haven't even substantiated your general argument and your use of the Harvard citation, it's a bit of a moot point until you do. If you're saying that you are regularly exaggerating things to make your argument look better than it actually is, then I will take that under advisement. You said what you said. If you meant something different than that, we could have had that discussion instead. (Still can.)

And second, it's not clear that the facts in the Harvard case are a consequence of an explicit or even implicit program of affirmative action.  More troubling is the fact that African-American acceptance rates being high is not necessarily related to the average SAT score of African-American applicants as a whole, so your citation doesn't even show us what you apparently think it does.  The question is whether affirmative action recipients at Harvard have substantially lower scores than Asian acceptees, not whether the average applicant of Asian descent has a higher SAT score than the average applicant of African-American descent.  It would appear that, at first blush, you have some reading comprehension issues.

Apparently you do, too.  I said the AVERAGE APPLICANT of Asian descent has better scores than the AVERAGE ACCEPTEE of African-American descent, by about 20 points.  If you compare acceptee to acceptee, the difference is 63 points.

Well, I apologize for not noting the figures noted on the graph. The text didn't mention the figures in the graph. What you said was that African-American admissions' scores were substantially lower than that of Asian "kids" (not applicants or admits, just kids), implying that African-American students were being accepted over higher admission scores from Asian students solely on consideration of race. The data you've provided doesn't show that, and as far as I know, no judge has ruled thusly so far. Your claim was that you believed that African-American students were being accepted in place of Asian students who had scores that were "a fair bit better," based on the race of African-Americans, which you so far haven't demonstrated. This debate is about affirmative action, not aggregate test scores. As anyone reading the news can attest, Harvard is claiming that the differential is based upon factors other than SAT scores. Your article doesn't settle that debate. Moreover, it's not clear that your citation is even relevant, as the charge against Harvard is not that what Harvard admissions was doing was a program of affirmative action for African-Americans, but rather that it was unintentional race based discrimination against Asians. Since we're not suggesting that uncontrolled and illegal race based discrimination against specific unfavored groups be implemented, the Harvard example, even if true, isn't relevant. What appears to be the case is that Harvard admissions people non-systematically employed racist ideas about Asian students in assessing their performance on criteria not related to test scores. That isn't at all about affirmative action based upon the race of African Americans or on their relative test scores. So, fail.

PS. I had a bad night as a result of some sleep issues and was not at my best when I read and responded to your post, and as I hastily read your citation. My overlooking the graph was neither intentional nor a problem with reading comprehension. I'll try to be less irritable in future.

[bennyboy]

The issue is that schools are allowed to look at students "holistically," i.e. to arbitrate acceptance without depending solely on grades. Community service, leadership capacity, diversity, and so on. What they aren't required to do, so far as I know, is to define any of those non-academic contributing factors or establish any reasonable metric for them. So far as I can tell, it pretty much means that schools can select whoever they want, so long as they aren't stupid enough to say "We're not going to accept you because we already have way too many Asian students."

Try to look at it from the perspective of an Asian student. You can have a 4.5 GPA and a great SAT score, a burning desire to learn and a dream for the future, and not get into a top school. You've studied 8 hours a day for years with a single dream in mind, and you are not going to be given a clear metric for success in your goal of acceptance into a top school. Maybe the interviewer doesn't think you have a dynamic, "leadership" personality or that you provide enough "cultural diversity" or (fill-in-racist-euphemism-for-not-Asian here).

I don't mind changing the metrics. But I think all students should have an expectation of having metrics which are under their control, and not based on RNG.

[Angrboda]

The issue is that schools are allowed to look at students "holistically," i.e. to arbitrate acceptance without depending solely on grades.  Community service, leadership capacity, diversity, and so on.  What they aren't required to do, so far as I know, is to define any of those non-academic contributing factors or establish any reasonable metric for them.  So far as I can tell, it pretty much means that schools can select whoever they want, so long as they aren't stupid enough to say "We're not going to accept you because we already have way too many Asian students."

That's fine, benny, but even if true, that's not an argument against affirmative action unless you're arguing that admissions (or job hiring) should only be based on quantitatively measurable metrics. When you do that, you're not making an argument against affirmative action but simply asserting a preference you have, and one that would mean ignoring any qualitative traits a candidate might possess, or how doing so might negatively impact perfectly justifiable societal goals. You're not arguing against affirmative action per se, but rather that you think other things are preferrable to it. So far, and I still haven't read a lot of your response, your argument is largely ipse dixit and ignores very real factors in maintaining racial disparity (such as prenatal inequity, which your "pay to play" suggestion earlier sounds abhorrent at best, unethical, and likely to simply further racial disparity and inequity than reduce it [primarily by making intelligence contingent upon black mothers giving something back in exchange for correcting social inequities, in addition to making children pay for their mothers' choices]).

[bennyboy]

The issue is that schools are allowed to look at students "holistically," i.e. to arbitrate acceptance without depending solely on grades.  Community service, leadership capacity, diversity, and so on.  What they aren't required to do, so far as I know, is to define any of those non-academic contributing factors or establish any reasonable metric for them.  So far as I can tell, it pretty much means that schools can select whoever they want, so long as they aren't stupid enough to say "We're not going to accept you because we already have way too many Asian students."

That's fine, benny, but even if true, that's not an argument against affirmative action unless you're arguing that admissions (or job hiring) should only be based on quantitatively measurable metrics.  When you do that, you're not making an argument against affirmative action but simply asserting a preference you have, and one that would mean ignoring any qualitative traits a candidate might possess, or how doing so might negatively impact perfectly justifiable societal goals.  You're not arguing against affirmative action per se, but rather that you think other things are preferrable to it.  So far, and I still haven't read a lot of your response, your argument is largely ipse dixit and ignores very real factors in maintaining racial disparity (such as prenatal inequity, which your "pay to play" suggestion earlier sounds abhorrent at best, unethical, and likely to simply further racial disparity and inequity than reduce it [primarily by making intelligence contingent upon black mothers giving something back in exchange for correcting social inequities]).

Remember that when I said those things, it was at your request to consider the Republican position.  But let's walk through it in a less one-sided way.

The idea with an explicit contract is to make the one thing some single moms can do, raise a baby, her job.  She's not meant to be seen as a stupid and valueless citizen whose offspring is a burden to society.  She should be seen as a producer of a future American: a soldier, a tax-payer, a future citizen-producer.  She is quite literally a productive member of society.

I don't mean this euphemistically.  I have a vested interest in seeing America maintain its global influence-- the day China overtakes the US is the day I'm out of a job. It's quite frustrating watching America dick around with demented party politics while China builds warships.

[Angrboda]

That's fine, benny, but even if true, that's not an argument against affirmative action unless you're arguing that admissions (or job hiring) should only be based on quantitatively measurable metrics.  When you do that, you're not making an argument against affirmative action but simply asserting a preference you have, and one that would mean ignoring any qualitative traits a candidate might possess, or how doing so might negatively impact perfectly justifiable societal goals.  You're not arguing against affirmative action per se, but rather that you think other things are preferrable to it.  So far, and I still haven't read a lot of your response, your argument is largely ipse dixit and ignores very real factors in maintaining racial disparity (such as prenatal inequity, which your "pay to play" suggestion earlier sounds abhorrent at best, unethical, and likely to simply further racial disparity and inequity than reduce it [primarily by making intelligence contingent upon black mothers giving something back in exchange for correcting social inequities]).

Remember that when I said those things, it was at your request to consider the Republican position.  But let's walk through it in a less one-sided way.

The idea with an explicit contract is to make the one thing some single moms can do, raise a baby, her job.  She's not meant to be seen as a stupid and valueless citizen whose offspring is a burden to society.  She should be seen as a producer of a future American: a soldier, a tax-payer, a future citizen-producer.  She is quite literally a productive member of society.

I don't mean this euphemistically.  I have a vested interest in seeing America maintain its global influence.  That means utilizing all its human resources.

You missed a point as I was posting it while you were replying. In addition to whatever else might be said about your suggestion, you're suggesting that children should pay for their mothers' choices, something I find highly unethical. Whatever else you might say about what a mother's ideal role and contribution to society should be, you're making one person pay for the crimes of another, and that's just flatly wrong.

[bennyboy]

Remember that when I said those things, it was at your request to consider the Republican position.  But let's walk through it in a less one-sided way.

The idea with an explicit contract is to make the one thing some single moms can do, raise a baby, her job.  She's not meant to be seen as a stupid and valueless citizen whose offspring is a burden to society.  She should be seen as a producer of a future American: a soldier, a tax-payer, a future citizen-producer.  She is quite literally a productive member of society.

I don't mean this euphemistically.  I have a vested interest in seeing America maintain its global influence.  That means utilizing all its human resources.

You missed a point as I was posting it while you were replying.  In addition to whatever else might be said about your suggestion, you're suggesting that children should pay for their mothers' choices, something I find highly unethical.  Whatever else you might say about what a mother's ideal role and contribution to society should be, you're making one person pay for the crimes of another, and that's just flatly wrong.

Adding support is not removing support.  My goal is to legitimize motherhood as a respected role and job in a productive society, not to more deeply impoverish children whose mothers are irresponsible.  Remember, it is through (a) economic production and (b) a change in views on roles by which I'm hoping to change race perceptions.

Numerically, black people have it bad in pretty much every possible metric, and parenthood is one of them.  66% of black kids are in single-parent families.  So, either the mom is unemployed, in which case the kid is likely to be suffering from malnutrition, or she works, in which case-- what?  The kid is probably sitting at home in front of a TV.

PC is pretty good at saying this or that right should be the focus of the day.  It's not very good, in my opinion, at reconciling multiple rights or the responsibilities that maintain them.  For example, a young black woman has a perfect right to keep a baby if she's pregnant.  And there is no shortage of poor black women who exercise that right multiple times, with multiple partners.  But now what?  What about the rights of the children to a stable and fostering environment?

Should the state, realizing that the mom is going to persistently make poor life choices that perpetuate the clusterfuck correlations that end up in low achievement levels in life, step in?  Should we have state-run gymnasiums teaching kids to march in step?  Sterilization programs for welfare moms with more than three kids?

In essence, this is my position-- if you can't stop people from doing this shit, you might as well own it.  Make it a feature instead of a bug.

[The Grand Nudger]

Harvard's position as I see it 

...that's nice, sweetheart......and?

I shouldn't have to quote myself from earlier in thread..right, you already know? You are wrong about literally everything you've commented on in this thread. More embarrassingly, you are wrong in exactly the way that sheet wearing sister fuckers are wrong.

It's hard to be wrong in a sillier way.

Now..imma go down into my basement and make a pecan bedframe, while you find some creative way to get something else wrong. Back in a few....and gl.

[bennyboy]

Harvard's position as I see it 

...that's nice, sweetheart......and?

I shouldn't have to quote myself from earlier in thread..right, you already know?  You are wrong about literally everything you've commented on in this thread.  More embarrassingly, you are wrong in exactly the way that sheet wearing sister fuckers are wrong.

It's hard to be wrong in a sillier way.

Now..imma go down into my basement and make a pecan bedframe, while you find some creative way to get something else wrong.  Back in a few....and gl.

Please quote the full line:

Harvard's position as I see it is that there's a ceiling effect-- that the scores of so many students are sufficient to demonstrate they can complete the Harvard program, that the extra 60 points can be safely disregarded.

. . . and then read what Harvard says about it:

"Given the extraordinary pool of applicants, many of whom have the ability to succeed academically at Harvard, the admissions process is designed to identify those students who manifest the qualities, academic and otherwise, that suggest they will become engaged participants and leaders in an increasingly diverse, complex society."

I don't know why me saying that would do anything but elicit agreement from you, since it is pretty much the definition of affirmative action. In that post, I was playing devil's advocate for a moment, and clarifying your position with the quote from Harvard. People don't usually do that-- take the time to actually consider and clarify opposing opinions-- so I'm not surprised you didn't catch it. But that's what it was.

Anyway, is it really an "increasingly diverse, complex society" though? Or is it that Harvard would like to avoid being branded for what it still mainly is-- a puppy mill for enfranchised rich kids? You want to talk about equal representation? How about demanding that every income group has proportional representation!

[Amarok]

The idea with an explicit contract is to make the one thing some single moms can do, raise a baby, her job.  She's not meant to be seen as a stupid and valueless citizen whose offspring is a burden to society.  She should be seen as a producer of a future American: a soldier, a tax-payer, a future citizen-producer.  She is quite literally a productive member of society.

Holy hell .....

[GrandizerII]

The idea with an explicit contract is to make the one thing some single moms can do, raise a baby, her job.  She's not meant to be seen as a stupid and valueless citizen whose offspring is a burden to society.  She should be seen as a producer of a future American: a soldier, a tax-payer, a future citizen-producer.  She is quite literally a productive member of society.

Holy hell .....

Yep, that's the woman's job, indeed. Make productive babies for the nation. She doesn't have to do anything else. Forget about what she herself wants, it's all about the men and what they can do for the country.

---

One solution would be to limit the timeframe.

Enough with your damn "solutions".

"There is no solid basis. . . " Well, white kids do in fact do better than black ones. I asked you before to look at some specific questions from entrance tests. They seemed culturally neutral, except for one factor-- they would require a high reading level. Specific test-preparation aside (I accept that as a claim against Asian scores, and also as proof that the concept of the IQ test is broken).

I said, if you set aside the impact of systemic discrimination and white privilege, it's not really clear that white students do better than black students.

And I already said before it's not about any set of specific questions on the tests that indicate bias, but the whole test is culturally biased because of the reason I stated at least two times now.