Current Events > Trump Administration to Rescind Obama Guidelines on Race in College Admissions

(+) Yeah! (+)

_RETS_ posted...

You've yet to specify what codified advantages white people have.

I have high lighted this over and over, in this topic .
---

cjsdowg posted...

_RETS_ posted...

You've yet to specify what codified advantages white people have.

I have high lighted this over and over, in this topic .

No you haven't. A dude with a black sounding name not getting a job isn't codified in any policy. It may be. social issue, but it isn't mandated discrimination. What law or policy specifically singles out a race for different treatment for better or worse?

_RETS_ posted...

No you haven't. A dude with a black sounding name not getting a job isn't codified in any policy. It may be. social issue, but it isn't mandated discrimination. What law or policy specifically singles out a race for different treatment for better or worse?

So you overlook de facto racism, even when the effects are the same. Typical.
---

cjsdowg posted...

_RETS_ posted...

No you haven't. A dude with a black sounding name not getting a job isn't codified in any policy. It may be. social issue, but it isn't mandated discrimination. What law or policy specifically singles out a race for different treatment for better or worse?

So you overlook de facto racism, even when the effects are the same. Typical.

I'm not overlooking anything. I don't think what I outlined is right nor should it be socially accepted, but I asked a specific question and you can't provide a specific answer. The question is what codified discrimination (like the guidelines on race for college admissions) exists that you disagree with?

It should be an easy question to answer.

The reason you don't want merit based admission is because you are confident your peers would have merit. That's not a great mindset.

Legacy admissions and admissions on the basis of past financial contributions shouldn't be considered either. It should be based on individual merit. Anything else is just appeasing whining failures.

_RETS_ posted...

I'm not overlooking anything. I don't think what I outlined is right nor should it be socially accepted, but I asked a specific question and you can't provide a specific answer. The question is what codified discrimination (like the guidelines on race for college admissions) exists that you disagree with?

It should be an easy question to answer.

The reason you don't want merit based admission is because you are confident your peers would have merit. That's not a great mindset.

Legacy admissions and admissions on the basis of past financial contributions shouldn't be considered either. It should be based on individual merit. Anything else is just appeasing whining failures.

I have highlighted how many other factors people look into . From living on the right side of the tracks to going to the right high school. Like touched on before for every one black person who under performs and gets in there are many white people who get in. And here is the thing. You want to stop AA the thing that effects the less amount of people before stopping the things that let MORE people.

Think of it as race. White people were already spotted 4 laps, and you are complaining because someone spots a black person one lap. Yelling that isn't fair while nothing shit all about the 4 lap head start.
---

cjsdowg posted...

_RETS_ posted...

I'm not overlooking anything. I don't think what I outlined is right nor should it be socially accepted, but I asked a specific question and you can't provide a specific answer. The question is what codified discrimination (like the guidelines on race for college admissions) exists that you disagree with?

It should be an easy question to answer.

The reason you don't want merit based admission is because you are confident your peers would have merit. That's not a great mindset.

Legacy admissions and admissions on the basis of past financial contributions shouldn't be considered either. It should be based on individual merit. Anything else is just appeasing whining failures.

I have highlighted how many other factors people look into . From living on the right side of the tracks to going to the right high school. Like touched on before for every one black person who under performs and gets in there are many white people who get in. And here is the thing. You want to stop AA the thing that effects the less amount of people before stopping the things that let MORE people.

Think of it as race. White people were already spotted 4 laps, and you are complaining because someone spots a black person one lap. Yelling that isn't fair while nothing shit all about the 4 lap head start.

False equivalency.

Spotting black people a lap doesn't have to take the form of mandating equal outcomes. More efforts in fixing shitty schools, more focus on mending black families, more social change is the way to do everything you're talking about. Not legislating someone less qualified getting ahead of someone more qualified regardless of color.

If fewer white people end up in college or in good jobs because they are less qualified than competing blacks, then that is great because it is meritocracy at work.

You are happy with the bar being so much lower for black people because you have no faith in them to get over the bar if it is set at the same height as everyone else.

Blacks succeed now more than ever despite what you insist to be insurmountable odds.

southcoast09 posted...

President Trump is undeniably ending (some) systematic racism by doing this.

Uh..so are you going to address that fake ass shit you posted about women building that bridge in Florida or nah?
---

_RETS_ posted...

You are happy with the bar being so much lower for black people because you have no faith in them to get over the bar if it is set at the same height as everyone else.

As I have proven more than once in this topic, the bar for black people is higher.

Spotting black people a lap doesn't have to take the form of mandating equal outcomes. More efforts in fixing s***ty schools, more focus on mending black families, more social change is the way to do everything you're talking about. Not legislating someone less qualified getting ahead of someone more qualified regardless of color.

Yet this happen already just the benefits is not black people. How about this the people who already have the 4 leaps give those up before complaining about the person with 1 leap.
---

cjsdowg posted...

_RETS_ posted...

You are happy with the bar being so much lower for black people because you have no faith in them to get over the bar if it is set at the same height as everyone else.

As I have proven more than once in this topic, the bar for black people is higher.

Spotting black people a lap doesn't have to take the form of mandating equal outcomes. More efforts in fixing s***ty schools, more focus on mending black families, more social change is the way to do everything you're talking about. Not legislating someone less qualified getting ahead of someone more qualified regardless of color.

Yet this happen already just the benefits is not black people. How about this the people who already have the 4 leaps give those up before complaining about the person with 1 leap.

The bar for college admission is absolutely not higher for black people. The standards of merit should be the same regardless of the race of the individual.

Only fools argue in favor of equal outcome.

_RETS_ posted...

The standards of merit should be the same regardless of the race of the individual.

Pure merit doesn't exist in a system so infused with the matthew effect.
---

Where is the evidence that the ones that get through aren't qualified.
---

COVxy posted...

_RETS_ posted...

The standards of merit should be the same regardless of the race of the individual.

Pure merit doesn't exist in a system so infused with the matthew effect.

But looking at two applicants and being able to reasonably determine who is more qualified does exist.

Some people with every advantage fail, some with every disadvantage succeed. So the best way is going on qualification as objectively as possible regardless of race, sex, orientation, religion, etc.

KStateKing17 posted...

Where is the evidence that the ones that get through aren't qualified.

If there are quotas that have to be .et on basis of skin color, it is a guarantee

I've never been a fan of AA, especially in schools. There are instances where it's necessary but it goes too far in order to address "issues" . Because Trump is a flaming racist I'm not sure I'd want him to get rid of it altogether, but I wouldn't mind if it was changed. Part of the reason our left wing politics are a cluster fuck is due to messy policies like these.

That said, this doesn't seem to be a large change. It doesn't even seem to broach AA.
---

Sephiroth1288 posted...

So Trump wants to do away with racial discrimination.

Why is this a bad thing

---

A victory for Asian Americans
---

_RETS_ posted...

And you keep saying leap (or lap) with absolutely no way to quantify any kind of a head start. At what point is the debt paid and can everyone be considered equal? What's your standard for that? At what actual, realistic and tangible point would you be happy?

At what point , you act like things are equal now they are not. Not even close, like I said I have pointed out how white criminals have the same shot at getting a job as black guy with no record, I have pointed out how a black sounding makes get your resume thrown in the pin. And you act like black people are making out like bandits. I pointed out how in Michigan 85 black people got in who were did worse then this girl who was suing while 1400 white people who did worse got in.

Fuck you talking about fucking debt being paid . I have not even really went into detail on the historical bull shit that still give white people an advantage.
---

This is actually good.

Nomadic View posted...

scorpion41 posted...

Only backwater people would think this is a negative thing

You approve of racially discriminating?

That's exactly what affirmative action is though.
---

LethalAffinity posted...

That's exactly what affirmative action is though.

no it is not.
---

cjsdowg posted...

_RETS_ posted...

And you keep saying leap (or lap) with absolutely no way to quantify any kind of a head start. At what point is the debt paid and can everyone be considered equal? What's your standard for that? At what actual, realistic and tangible point would you be happy?

At what point , you act like things are equal now they are not. Not even close, like I said I have pointed out how white criminals have the same shot at getting a job as black guy with no record, I have pointed out how a black sounding makes get your resume thrown in the pin. And you act like black people are making out like bandits. I pointed out how in Michigan 85 black people got in who were did worse then this girl who was suing while 1400 white people who did worse got in.

Fuck you talking about fucking debt being paid . I have not even really went into detail on the historical bull shit that still give white people an advantage.

So you have no answer to two very simple questions. What codified discrimination is there that limits black opportunity? Why is mandating equal outcomes your answer to injustice?

I didn't say any debt is paid. I asked you at what point you would consider the historical injustices atoned for? What tangible standard do you have to consider the mission accomplished.

I suspect the answer is that you don't, and you would rather black people continue to be crippled by dependency so you can excuse your own failures in life. You wear your victimhood like a badge of honor. The blacks that don't do that succeed despite the odds that you insist are insurmountable without legislated equal outcome. They deserve to succeed and contribute an enormous amount to society. People with your mindset, white black or otherwise, do not.

And there absolutely is equal opportunity by law now. If there isn't, you should be able to pretty easily point to a law or policy that illustrates otherwise.

_RETS_ posted...

So you have no answer to two very simple questions. What codified discrimination is there that limits black opportunity? Why is mandating equal outcomes your answer to injustice?

And there absolutely is equal opportunity by law now. If there isn't, you should be able to pretty easily point to a law or policy that illustrates otherwise.

I have literally post studies that show the racism that black people face.

I didn't say any debt is paid. I asked you at what point you would consider the historical injustices atoned for? What tangible standard do you have to consider the mission accomplished.

That is the point we don't have to go to history to see injustices happening. And to answer there is nothing that can undo what happen. The GI bill, the Homestead act ect built the middle class in America Black people were actively pushed out of this. Redlining forced black people in bad parts of town, it was super hard to get business load. I could keep going on and on. But yeah lets forget that can complain because black guy got 16 points added to his application. While someone else got 35 points added but were black so it doesn't matter.
---

cjsdowg posted...

_RETS_ posted...

So you have no answer to two very simple questions. What codified discrimination is there that limits black opportunity? Why is mandating equal outcomes your answer to injustice?

And there absolutely is equal opportunity by law now. If there isn't, you should be able to pretty easily point to a law or policy that illustrates otherwise.

I have literally post studies that show the racism that black people face.

I didn't say any debt is paid. I asked you at what point you would consider the historical injustices atoned for? What tangible standard do you have to consider the mission accomplished.

That is the point we don't have to go to history to see injustices happening. And to answer there is nothing that can undo what happen. The GI bill, the Homestead act ect built the middle class in America Black people were actively pushed out of this. Redlining forced black people in bad parts of town, it was super hard to get business load. I could keep going on and on. But yeah lets forget that can complain because black guy got 16 points added to his application. While someone else got 35 points added but were black so it doesn't matter.

Your studies are completely IRRELEVANT. I asked you what specific law or policy is in place that discriminates against blacks. You and I agree that the racism you're talking about shouldn't happen. But the way to fix that is to 1) provide equal opportunity UNDER THE LAW and 2) work to socially address the issue.

Number 1 is already done, which is my whole point. Number 2, I don't believe the solution is legislating equal outcome. The solution is already happening. Social change. It is happening as evident by the fact that black people are better equipped to succeed and/or get rich now than ever before in this country and probably the world.

Affirmative action has served it's purpose. I think blacks are well equipped and perfectly capable and willing to take it from here. It's a shame you don't believe in them.

_RETS_ posted...

I think blacks are well equipped and perfectly capable and willing to take it from here. It's a shame you don't believe in them.

I wish dishonesty were moddable.
---

COVxy posted...

_RETS_ posted...

I think blacks are well equipped and perfectly capable and willing to take it from here. It's a shame you don't believe in them.

I wish dishonesty were moddable.

I don't think that? CJ has a lazy defeatist mindset and thinks the beat way for blacks to succeed is AA. I disagree.

The ones who don't have his mindset succeed, despite the setbacks he talks about.

Now, we all agree those setbacks shouldn't happen. But I disagree with how it should be changed.

It's pointless to ask for a specific law or policy that discriminates against blacks in this day in age, Jim Crow is dead, what matters is the intent and the subsequent effects of these laws in this day and age. Changes in voting rights laws is not discriminatory on paper but in effect it is since it's peculiar how it always affects areas that are largely populated by blacks. When NY had stop and frisk it was not discriminatory on paper but police were stopping black and brown people all over the city to a combined 88 percent in 2011, only 9 percent of whites were stopped and 88 percent of all total stops that year there was nothing on the persons being detained.
---

Taharqa_ posted...

It's pointless to ask for a specific law or policy that discriminates against blacks in this day in age, Jim Crow is dead, what matters is the intent and the subsequent effects of these laws in this day and age. Changes in voting rights laws is not discriminatory on paper but in effect it is since it's peculiar how it always affects areas that are largely populated by blacks. When NY had stop and frisk it was not discriminatory on paper but police were stopping black and brown people all over the city to a combined 88 percent in 2011, only 9 percent of whites were stopped and 88 percent of all total stops that year there was nothing on the persons being detained.

And crime rates plummeted in New York, didnt they?

If young black men are more likely to perpetrate violent crime and crime with a firearm, would it not make sense to stop them more often than other demographics?

Probably saved more black lives than the ones it inconvenienced.

And the second question was at what point is the battle considered to be won? A "when everyone lives in racial harmomy" answer isn't going to do.

If it isn't on paper, but things are still being rigged against a demographic, the best course of action is through awareness, social change, and voting offenders out of office. That is already working by the fact that again, blacks are far more successful now than ever before and have more ways to achieve that success. Is that "well enough"? No. But the method of getting to that is our point of disagreement.

_RETS_ posted...

Taharqa_ posted...

It's pointless to ask for a specific law or policy that discriminates against blacks in this day in age, Jim Crow is dead, what matters is the intent and the subsequent effects of these laws in this day and age. Changes in voting rights laws is not discriminatory on paper but in effect it is since it's peculiar how it always affects areas that are largely populated by blacks. When NY had stop and frisk it was not discriminatory on paper but police were stopping black and brown people all over the city to a combined 88 percent in 2011, only 9 percent of whites were stopped and 88 percent of all total stops that year there was nothing on the persons being detained.

And crime rates plummeted in New York, didnt they?

If young black men are more likely to perpetrate violent crime and crime with a firearm, would it not make sense to stop them more often than other demographics?

Probably saved more black lives than the ones it inconvenienced.

Actually crime in NYC has been on a decline for the last 27 years or so.

Like I said, 88 percent of people stopped during the time of Stop and Frisk had done nothing wrong. If cops were searching for drugs or illegal weapons then a nearly 90 percent rate of no hits is not something that was working.
---

_RETS_ posted...

COVxy posted...

_RETS_ posted...

I think blacks are well equipped and perfectly capable and willing to take it from here. It's a shame you don't believe in them.

I wish dishonesty were moddable.

I don't think that? CJ has a lazy defeatist mindset and thinks the beat way for blacks to succeed is AA. I disagree.

The ones who don't have his mindset succeed, despite the setbacks he talks about.

Now, we all agree those setbacks shouldn't happen. But I disagree with how it should be changed.

It's dishonest. Cutting off your leg and saying that I'm the one truly not being discriminatory by putting you in the same race as everyone else is asinine. You know this. You just wanted to play the "well well well well, who's the racist now?" card.
---

Taharqa_ posted...

_RETS_ posted...

Taharqa_ posted...

It's pointless to ask for a specific law or policy that discriminates against blacks in this day in age, Jim Crow is dead, what matters is the intent and the subsequent effects of these laws in this day and age. Changes in voting rights laws is not discriminatory on paper but in effect it is since it's peculiar how it always affects areas that are largely populated by blacks. When NY had stop and frisk it was not discriminatory on paper but police were stopping black and brown people all over the city to a combined 88 percent in 2011, only 9 percent of whites were stopped and 88 percent of all total stops that year there was nothing on the persons being detained.

And crime rates plummeted in New York, didnt they?

If young black men are more likely to perpetrate violent crime and crime with a firearm, would it not make sense to stop them more often than other demographics?

Probably saved more black lives than the ones it inconvenienced.

Actually crime in NYC has been on a decline for the last 27 years or so.

Like I said, 88 percent of people stopped during the time of Stop and Frisk had done nothing wrong. If cops were searching for drugs or illegal weapons then a nearly 90 percent rate of no hits is not something that was working.

Sure, but how many black lives were likely saved by the 10% of time it worked? In exchange for being stopped by police. If pale red heads had a high likelihood of perpetrating violent crime, I wouldn't mind an occasional random pat down if it meant violent ones were getting caught by that method.

But even so, if the law isn't being used fairly, the change isn't more legislation. Is Is social change and awareness for voters.

Race should never be used by colleges for anything
---

COVxy posted...

_RETS_ posted...

COVxy posted...

_RETS_ posted...

I think blacks are well equipped and perfectly capable and willing to take it from here. It's a shame you don't believe in them.

I wish dishonesty were moddable.

I don't think that? CJ has a lazy defeatist mindset and thinks the beat way for blacks to succeed is AA. I disagree.

The ones who don't have his mindset succeed, despite the setbacks he talks about.

Now, we all agree those setbacks shouldn't happen. But I disagree with how it should be changed.

It's dishonest. Cutting off your leg and saying that I'm the one truly not being discriminatory by putting you in the same race as everyone else is asinine. You know this. You just wanted to play the "well well well well, who's the racist now?" card.

I don't think he is a racist, I think he has a defeatist victimhood mentality and that black people who don't are in a much much better position to succeed.

Asians being overlooked from college didn't cut black people's legs off. They are outperforming but having the bar set artificially high just so more black people can be on campus.

_RETS_ posted...

Taharqa_ posted...

_RETS_ posted...

Taharqa_ posted...

It's pointless to ask for a specific law or policy that discriminates against blacks in this day in age, Jim Crow is dead, what matters is the intent and the subsequent effects of these laws in this day and age. Changes in voting rights laws is not discriminatory on paper but in effect it is since it's peculiar how it always affects areas that are largely populated by blacks. When NY had stop and frisk it was not discriminatory on paper but police were stopping black and brown people all over the city to a combined 88 percent in 2011, only 9 percent of whites were stopped and 88 percent of all total stops that year there was nothing on the persons being detained.

And crime rates plummeted in New York, didnt they?

If young black men are more likely to perpetrate violent crime and crime with a firearm, would it not make sense to stop them more often than other demographics?

Probably saved more black lives than the ones it inconvenienced.

Actually crime in NYC has been on a decline for the last 27 years or so.

Like I said, 88 percent of people stopped during the time of Stop and Frisk had done nothing wrong. If cops were searching for drugs or illegal weapons then a nearly 90 percent rate of no hits is not something that was working.

Sure, but how many black lives were likely saved by the 10% of time it worked? In exchange for being stopped by police. If pale red heads had a high likelihood of perpetrating violent crime, I wouldn't mind an occasional random pat down if it meant violent ones were getting caught by that method.

But even so, if the law isn't being used fairly, the change isn't more legislation. Is Is social change and awareness for voters.

As a melanated person I'd rather not be racially profiled by law enforcement.
---

If you support race based admissions, you support institutional discrimination. Please die.

Signed - brown person

_RETS_ posted...

COVxy posted...

_RETS_ posted...

COVxy posted...

_RETS_ posted...

I think blacks are well equipped and perfectly capable and willing to take it from here. It's a shame you don't believe in them.

I wish dishonesty were moddable.

I don't think that? CJ has a lazy defeatist mindset and thinks the beat way for blacks to succeed is AA. I disagree.

The ones who don't have his mindset succeed, despite the setbacks he talks about.

Now, we all agree those setbacks shouldn't happen. But I disagree with how it should be changed.

It's dishonest. Cutting off your leg and saying that I'm the one truly not being discriminatory by putting you in the same race as everyone else is asinine. You know this. You just wanted to play the "well well well well, who's the racist now?" card.

I don't think he is a racist, I think he has a defeatist victimhood mentality and that black people who don't are in a much much better position to succeed.

Asians being overlooked from college didn't cut black people's legs off. They are outperforming but having the bar set artificially high just so more black people can be on campus.

Idk if I'd consider an asian kid with personal tutors with a 4.0 GPA as outperforming a black kid without these resources from the inner city with a 3.4 HS GPA.
---

COVxy posted...

_RETS_ posted...

COVxy posted...

_RETS_ posted...

COVxy posted...

_RETS_ posted...

I think blacks are well equipped and perfectly capable and willing to take it from here. It's a shame you don't believe in them.

I wish dishonesty were moddable.

I don't think that? CJ has a lazy defeatist mindset and thinks the beat way for blacks to succeed is AA. I disagree.

The ones who don't have his mindset succeed, despite the setbacks he talks about.

Now, we all agree those setbacks shouldn't happen. But I disagree with how it should be changed.

It's dishonest. Cutting off your leg and saying that I'm the one truly not being discriminatory by putting you in the same race as everyone else is asinine. You know this. You just wanted to play the "well well well well, who's the racist now?" card.

I don't think he is a racist, I think he has a defeatist victimhood mentality and that black people who don't are in a much much better position to succeed.

Asians being overlooked from college didn't cut black people's legs off. They are outperforming but having the bar set artificially high just so more black people can be on campus.

Idk if I'd consider an asian kid with personal tutors with a 4.0 GPA as outperforming a black kid without these resources from the inner city with a 3.4 HS GPA.

Well shit, you're right. It's perfectly acceptable to discriminate against Asians on the basis of race then.

Pretty broad brush to paint Asians with as well. The ones who do well do so because of (all these reasons) and not because they worked hard and come from a culture that places extreme emphasis on education. They do well because of advantage, not merit. Alright bud. God damn Asian privilege

You've missed the point for the 10th time in this topic. "Merit" based metrics are sullied by privilege. By not considering circumstance you are, in fact, doing a poorer job at estimating merit.
---

COVxy posted...

You've missed the point for the 10th time in this topic. "Merit" based metrics are sullied by privilege. By not considering circumstance you are, in fact, doing a poorer job at estimating merit.

There is a reason kids have to submit entrance letters you know. There's no need to assess race as a separate issue.
---

COVxy posted...

You've missed the point for the 10th time in this topic. "Merit" based metrics are sullied by privilege. By not considering circumstance you are, in fact, doing a poorer job at estimating merit.

You are missing the point. Considering race isn't considering circumstance. It is considering race for diversity. They can still account for circumstances without race brig a factor at all.

Race being in the equation gets middle class or well off blacks in over poor asians/whites/whatever. The quota is pointless. If you want to consider circumstances, do so socioeconimically for the individual not "they are black they must be poor and be crippled by disadvantage".

P4wn4g3 posted...

COVxy posted...

You've missed the point for the 10th time in this topic. "Merit" based metrics are sullied by privilege. By not considering circumstance you are, in fact, doing a poorer job at estimating merit.

There is a reason kids have to submit entrance letters you know. There's no need to assess race as a separate issue.

Okay. Now imagine you have 50,000 applications to review. Having a couple of good filtering heuristics is likely to help, no?

And race, like it or not, is going to be a good heuristic for this.
---

_RETS_ posted...

COVxy posted...

You've missed the point for the 10th time in this topic. "Merit" based metrics are sullied by privilege. By not considering circumstance you are, in fact, doing a poorer job at estimating merit.

You are missing the point. Considering race isn't considering circumstance. It is considering race for diversity. They can still account for circumstances without race brig a factor at all.

Race being in the equation gets middle class or well off blacks in over poor asians/whites/whatever. The quota is pointless. If you want to consider circumstances, do so socioeconimically for the individual not "they are black they must be poor and be crippled by disadvantage".

Idk where you are getting the idea about quotas...
---

COVxy posted...

_RETS_ posted...

COVxy posted...

You've missed the point for the 10th time in this topic. "Merit" based metrics are sullied by privilege. By not considering circumstance you are, in fact, doing a poorer job at estimating merit.

You are missing the point. Considering race isn't considering circumstance. It is considering race for diversity. They can still account for circumstances without race brig a factor at all.

Race being in the equation gets middle class or well off blacks in over poor asians/whites/whatever. The quota is pointless. If you want to consider circumstances, do so socioeconimically for the individual not "they are black they must be poor and be crippled by disadvantage".

Idk where you are getting the idea about quotas...

There is no point in race being a factor if diversity quotas aren't encouraged.

_RETS_ posted...

There is no point in race being a factor if diversity quotas aren't encouraged.

That doesn't make any sense...
---

COVxy posted...

P4wn4g3 posted...

COVxy posted...

You've missed the point for the 10th time in this topic. "Merit" based metrics are sullied by privilege. By not considering circumstance you are, in fact, doing a poorer job at estimating merit.

There is a reason kids have to submit entrance letters you know. There's no need to assess race as a separate issue.

Okay. Now imagine you have 50,000 applications to review. Having a couple of good filtering heuristics is likely to help, no?

And race, like it or not, is going to be a good heuristic for this.

Sounds like you're saying race doesn't account for people's life experiences and is therefore a bad way to screen people. I agree.
---

COVxy posted...

_RETS_ posted...

COVxy posted...

_RETS_ posted...

COVxy posted...

_RETS_ posted...

I think blacks are well equipped and perfectly capable and willing to take it from here. It's a shame you don't believe in them.

I wish dishonesty were moddable.

I don't think that? CJ has a lazy defeatist mindset and thinks the beat way for blacks to succeed is AA. I disagree.

The ones who don't have his mindset succeed, despite the setbacks he talks about.

Now, we all agree those setbacks shouldn't happen. But I disagree with how it should be changed.

It's dishonest. Cutting off your leg and saying that I'm the one truly not being discriminatory by putting you in the same race as everyone else is asinine. You know this. You just wanted to play the "well well well well, who's the racist now?" card.

I don't think he is a racist, I think he has a defeatist victimhood mentality and that black people who don't are in a much much better position to succeed.

Asians being overlooked from college didn't cut black people's legs off. They are outperforming but having the bar set artificially high just so more black people can be on campus.

Idk if I'd consider an asian kid with personal tutors with a 4.0 GPA as outperforming a black kid without these resources from the inner city with a 3.4 HS GPA.

That's not true though and is a huge generalization. I'm South Asian and grew up low income and also faced specific hurdles that 99% of people will never go through. With all that and basically no help at all from anyone I did really well academically.

Now whenever I'm applying for jobs (and upcoming grad school applications) I'm automatically discriminated against based on the fact I'm considered an "over-represented" minority.

I agree that many people grow up disadvantaged and there should be something to help, but it really has to be income based and not race based since people in my boat get screwed over the hardest by far.
---

P4wn4g3 posted...

COVxy posted...

P4wn4g3 posted...

COVxy posted...

You've missed the point for the 10th time in this topic. "Merit" based metrics are sullied by privilege. By not considering circumstance you are, in fact, doing a poorer job at estimating merit.

There is a reason kids have to submit entrance letters you know. There's no need to assess race as a separate issue.

Okay. Now imagine you have 50,000 applications to review. Having a couple of good filtering heuristics is likely to help, no?

And race, like it or not, is going to be a good heuristic for this.

Sounds like you're saying race doesn't account for people's life experiences and is therefore a bad way to screen people. I agree.

Sounds like I'm saying it's useful in the application review process.
---

TaZa92 posted...

I agree that many people grow up disadvantaged and there should be something to help, but it really has to be income based and not race based since people in my boat get screwed over the hardest by far.

Idk why you people are assuming some sort of quota system. Or anything beyond having that information available for committees to review and rereview.
---

COVxy posted...

P4wn4g3 posted...

COVxy posted...

P4wn4g3 posted...

COVxy posted...

You've missed the point for the 10th time in this topic. "Merit" based metrics are sullied by privilege. By not considering circumstance you are, in fact, doing a poorer job at estimating merit.

There is a reason kids have to submit entrance letters you know. There's no need to assess race as a separate issue.

Okay. Now imagine you have 50,000 applications to review. Having a couple of good filtering heuristics is likely to help, no?

And race, like it or not, is going to be a good heuristic for this.

Sounds like you're saying race doesn't account for people's life experiences and is therefore a bad way to screen people. I agree.

Sounds like I'm saying it's useful in the application review process.

The nazis would agree with you. I don't. There are plenty of good reasons to leave race out of things.
---

COVxy posted...

_RETS_ posted...

There is no point in race being a factor if diversity quotas aren't encouraged.

That doesn't make any sense...

Sure it does. Why even have race on applications if there isn't a push to get more of certain races on your campus?

COVxy posted...

TaZa92 posted...

I agree that many people grow up disadvantaged and there should be something to help, but it really has to be income based and not race based since people in my boat get screwed over the hardest by far.

Idk why you people are assuming some sort of quota system. Or anything beyond having that information available for committees to review and rereview.

There are literal loose "quota" systems for internal companies though. HR sets policies that they wants at least "X% of under-represented minorities" (it's usually a minimum 30%) in specific regions and even host recruiting events for such and I know this for a fact.

So I don't get your argument. It's 100% more difficult for me based on my race when applying to jobs and schools despite my much tougher-than-average upbringing and that's not fair at all.

An affirmative action type system based on income, rather than race, would be way more beneficial and would still help many of the underrepresented minorities and others who really started the race of life with a 30 second delay behind everyone else.
---