(December 27, 2018 at 11:39 am)Grandizer Wrote: Still dismissing the reality of systemic discrimination, I see.
Anyway, who assigned you as the authority on these matters? You act like you know more than the people who have been devoting their lives to working on solutions to these problems.
Cherry-picking posts to support your prejudices toward me is bad manners. I've explicitly agreed that there's real race-based discrimination.
As for authority-- this is a forum thread, and this is the direction it has gone. We are here to share ideas-- of which, given how important you seem to think the subject is, you've had a pretty profound lack.
I could list (and have) at least half a dozen strategies for addressing the clusterfuck of stats that are weighted against the black demographic, while not requiring racial profiling as an essential mechanism. And this is the biggest danger of racial profiling at the point of entry (say into Harvard)-- it's a piss-poor substitute for the very important programs and incentives which would be required to make a general change in real achievement levels which would actually wipe out those biases. What the US needs is to be pumping out young black Einsteins, not to ignore a kid for 17 years and then shoo him into Harvard on a race-based balancing policy.
Do you think prospective employers are saying, "Well, gee golly, a Harvard degree. We'd be lucky to have this guy!" or are they thinking, "Hmmmm. . . how can we get our hands on this guy's SAT scores to see if he was shooed in on a balancing policy?" Or. . . more likely. . . they've just going to steer clear because they don't know if the guy's credentials match real academic ability?
Sure, you'll cry racism again, and you won't be wrong. But policies that are based on racial profiling are going to compound the effect, because real achievements, when they are made, will be clouded by doubts about their legitimacy, and that should be painfully and immediately obvious to anyone who has a brain-- "authority" or not.
