Is tolerance intolerant?

[Angrboda]

[bennyboy]

[GrandizerII]

Did you forget the link I posted in the Peterson thread to a study that showed race-based affirmative action was necessary to address racial inequalities in certain contexts? You even kudos'd that post, lol

[bennyboy]

Did you forget the link I posted in the Peterson thread to a study that showed race-based affirmative action was necessary to address racial inequalities in certain contexts? You even kudos'd that post, lol

Yeah, I had forgotten that.  I'll go check it out again.

-edit-
Okay, I remember it now.  

I gave you kudos for providing that paper, which was the best attempt we've seen so far to find numerical support for affirmative action.  The long and short is that if the goal of the program is racial diversity, ideally one where college makeup matches that of the general population, then SES-based A.A. doesn't arrive at that goal.

I found it strange because it was published by ETS, which is strange because they are the makers / administrators of the TOEFL test of English.  They make HUGE money in Asia, as their test is used to establish English proficiency scores for universities, English-speaking elite private high-schools, and so on.  Behind every international student at MIT filling a spot at MIT or in Harvard, there are probably a half-dozen ETS-administered tests.  Ironic!

Also ironic are the following lines from that paper:

These dimensions may include not only race or SES, but also academic interests, extracurricular talents, geography, and other
factors. For example, colleges may want to boost enrollment in an undersubscribed major or program or find talented players for their sports teams.

I sniff some serious implications  here-- because it's possible that it won't even be the best-achieving black students who are accepted, but the best running-backs for a sports team. What a win for the institution-- you get to fill your quota, and justify the presence of an academically weak athlete on the basis of "urban difficulties" or whatever. More power to the kids who get accepted on that basis, but it's unlikely to do much to change the position of black Americans overall.


There's a lot of nastiness behind the failure of SES policies-- but it's not all implied racism, which is why I've said that SES affirmative action needs to be from the cradle to the Harvard application.  It's not just enough to have policies at the college level to turn away Asian applicants and accept black ones instead-- that's racist, and serves as an impediment to those who end up being rejected to THEIR pursuit of opportunity and eventual happiness. I really feel that an academic institution should use grades and test scores as their main criteria for acceptance.

[Angrboda]

I've been somewhat more irritable than normal lately, possibly due to a cold. Rather than make enemies I don't want to make, I'm bowing out of this discussion until I'm feeling more confident of my tone.

[bennyboy]

I've been somewhat more irritable than normal lately, possibly due to a cold.  Rather than make enemies I don't want to make, I'm bowing out of this discussion until I'm feeling more confident of my tone.

I admire your restraint-- it's something I'm trying to develop as well, and will probably be a resolution next year.  In this case, if you're talking about me, I know that you and a couple others have strong feelings about the issue.  I'll give you open season for a couple posts if you want to tell me what's on your mind-- no offense taken.

[Amarok]

. What I don’t agree with is forced, unmerited equality.

Which isn't affirmative action 

[bennyboy]

. What I don’t agree with is forced, unmerited equality.

Which isn't affirmative action 

Establishing merit is very difficult indeed.

For example, who deserves more merit-- the one of thousands of Asian middle-class kids who study 8 hours a day, or the relatively small percentage of poor kids who manage to get good grades and get (reasonably) competitive test scores, who probably wouldn't have had time to study that much due to harder circumstances?

That's part of the problem, though-- without a good definition of the merits which deserve acceptance, schools will twist that definition to their own needs.  My guess is most schools will take a couple of token black academic students, most likely rich ones like the Obama kids, and a bunch of black athletes, and pat themselves on the back condescendingly for being such good sports. The rest will probably fall through the cracks due to poor SAT scores.

To me real affirmative action starts at about age 3 and goes up to about age 10, when more than half of adult intelligence is in place. After that, I think it's probably a cultural issue-- falloff in academic interest due to a general disrespect toward learning in poorer communities. "I think we got ourselves a BOOK READER!" *kid gets pushed in a mud puddle because of sweater vest and bowtie*

[Amarok]

This is all rubbish sorry benny but the cult of Anti SJW's benedictions don't work on the immune

[tackattack]

Benny is explaining it far better than I have. I'm fine with the goals and ideals of stated affirmative action. The problem lies in RL practical application. Schools, Business, and people twist the definition of merit to their own. A school gets sponsorship from sports so it behaves them to have good sports members. Should this increase the weight of a players application? Well they're being self-seeking but that's not necessarily bad and I'm actually OK with this kind of wiggle room. The problem in this is that if 2 equally skillful players are differing races, why would the minority skin tone have more value?

Case in point, I've been a part of the hiring process at some places I worked. When the boss hands you a stack in a specific order, then tells you to just make sure the top 3 are good enough but interview everyone, then that's discrimination, not equal opportunity or affirmative action. Affirmative action breaks in practice because if you don't have proper definitions and limits in place, you're just combating discrimination with discrimination with discrimination, intolerance with intolerance, bigotry with bigotry.

Race, culture, sex alone shouldn't be determining factors because their merit (while adding to diversity of types of people) doesn't actually add diversity to opinion and skillsets, which I believe is the goal.