Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » White men need not apply. (Page 1)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 10 pages: 1  2  3  4  ...  8  9  10   
Author Topic: White men need not apply.
cherrypoptart
Member
Member # 3942

 - posted      Profile for cherrypoptart     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070329/us_nm/usa_harvard_dc


Getting into Harvard gets even harder

Harvard, whose former president Lawrence Summers was criticized for controversial remarks about women, said just over half of those admitted to the Class of 2011 were women, while the number of ethnic minorities hit a record high.

Nearly 20 percent of those accepted are Asian, 10.7 percent are black and 10.1 percent are Latino. The class would also be its most economically diverse, Harvard said, with 26 percent eligible for a new financial aid program.

------------------------------------------

There is no way to tell from these numbers how many white males got into Harvard, but it is fascinating that white men are the only group not important enough to give statistics for. I guess we just don't matter anymore. Sigh... I'm just going to go into a dark quiet corner right now, curl up in a fetal position, and gently bang my head against the wall until I fall asleep or unconscious.

Posts: 7675 | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RickyB
Member
Member # 1464

 - posted      Profile for RickyB   Email RickyB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Awwwwww, you're breaking our hearts, here. Can you be any more of a clich'e? PLease notice that while Asians are accepted to Harvard at a much higher rate than their share of the population, both African-Americans and Hispanic Americans are still slightly UNDER-represented at Harvard. Also, as for women - just over 50% is exactly their share of the population.
Posts: 19145 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
cherrypoptart
Member
Member # 3942

 - posted      Profile for cherrypoptart     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
What's your point? Is it right to blatantly discriminate against white men then? Is it legal?

Obviously yes on both counts.

Okay, back into my dark corner... I'm sure I've done plenty to deserve this punishment though I can't remember exactly what.

Posts: 7675 | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RickyB
Member
Member # 1464

 - posted      Profile for RickyB   Email RickyB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Nobody's discriminating against anyone. Many Asians work harder at school, and so qualify at greater numbers. The other two groups are slightly under represented at Harvard.

Also, whites aren't the only group not mentioned. What about Jews? Muslims? Kids of Arab descent? Aboriginies? [Smile]

At Grambling University the rate of black students is probably 80-90% So? You gonna sue them?

This pretending that white kids are disadvantaged is ludicrous.

Posts: 19145 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Are you really trying to suggest that because this Reuters article doesn't mention any stats for white males, Harvard is discriminating against them?

I think Harvard does employ some form of affirmative action, but it wasn't mentioned either in the article or in your comments. You just come off as whinging about not having your team mentioned in the sports column.

Cry me a river.

BTW, did you notice the article doesn't mention the percentage of white women accepted either? Or, for that matter, the number of asian men, black men or hispanic women?

Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NSCutler
Member
Member # 1403

 - posted      Profile for NSCutler   Email NSCutler   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
And besides, it's Harvard, so who really cares? They may think of themselves as The Duke of the North but really they're just a second rate divinity school obsessed with the size of their own endowment.

[Sorry, but with both the men's and women's teams out of the tourney, a Blue Devil's only pleasure is disparaging Harvard [Smile] ]

Posts: 789 | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Don't worry, NS. We're all Yale men here. [Smile]
Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
J.B
Member
Member # 3572

 - posted      Profile for J.B         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Harvard Public Health Study
July 7, 2006

White Racism's Effect On Black Health:

By age 45, Keith Hartgrove had undergone emergency surgery for a quadruple bypass. His story, chronicled in the documentary The Angry Heart: The Impact of Racism on Heart Disease Among African Americans , aired at HSPH on June 5 as part of a training about racism and health disparities sponsored by the Cherishing Our Hearts and Souls Coalition (COHS). The five-year-old coalition educates communities, providers, and public policy makers about the intersection of racism and health. The Program to Eliminate Health Disparities at HSPH is the central coordinating organization for COHS.

Participants leaned forward in their seats as they watched the film, sometimes thumping fists on tables in adamant agreement as Hartgrove and public health professionals in the film discussed a gap between African Americans and whites in rates of heart disease and in the quality of health care delivered to patients.

"Not only do we die in greater numbers proportionately, but we also die at younger ages," said Paula Johnson, associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, in the film. A number of studies have sought "to figure out...is it socioeconomic status, is it risk factors? It's probably some combination, but no one can explain away the total difference by looking at those factors."

After the screening, COHS Director Brian K. Gibbs explained that, "COHS and CHOICE recognize that experiences with racism are significant sources of stress and ill health among African-Americans ." Gibbs, an HSPH senior research scientist, added that, "By sponsoring events like this, we aim to empower people of color to make a stronger commitment to their health and, in doing so, diminish the impact of racism as well as create a personal agency to address related injustices by putting the issues on the table for everyone to see."
"This kind of training offers participants tools and confidence to label racism, focus on the institutional issues, and counter its negative impact,"
"This kind of training offers participants tools and confidence to label racism, focus on the institutional issues, and counter its negative impact," agreed Deborah Prothrow-Stith, associate dean for faculty development and professor of public health practice at HSPH. "This can help those who are mistreated minimize the negative consequences on their health."

Applause erupted when participants shared the commitments they had made in their break-out sessions: from remaining active in the coalition, to engaging in more cross-race conversations about racism, to getting more students involved in the issue.

"Trainings like this can turn providers, practitioners, and others in positions of influence and power into allies," Prothrow-Stith said, "working to recognize and eliminate the systemic manifestations of racism."

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/now/20060707/cohs.html

Whitey + Racism = Murder?

Posts: 389 | Registered: Jan 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Richard Dey
Member
Member # 1727

 - posted      Profile for Richard Dey   Email Richard Dey   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I don't think anybody would argue that Harvard's undergraduate studies are so superior that "endowment" would be of much more than convenience. And Harvard does have its conveniences.

But the supremacy of its graduate schools, where endowment does indeed matter, is hardly a moot point.

To this challenge, one must find a scalpel fine enough to separate Harvard and its next-door neighbor M.I.T. They are entwined liked Abelard and Heloise. Together they have more than $30 billion to back up their swagger, more than ten times as much as Duke.

1. Harvard University (Cambridge, Mass.) $25,221,804,000
2. Yale University (New Haven, Conn.) 15,091,021,000
3. Stanford University (Stanford, Calif.) 12,205,035,000
4. Princeton University (Princeton, N.J.) 11,200,000,000
5. Univ. of Texas System Administration (Austin, Tex.) 11,101,608,088
6. Massachusetts Institute of Technology (Cambridge, Mass.) 6,712,400,000

Duke is somewhere at 18, with half as much as MIT -- which, unlike Stanford, has no great need for an endowment.

But endowment should not be looked upon as something like the Vatican Bank. Endowment is not always an asset of pride but often a liability of shame. Look what the Harvard did to public schools in our country -- all because the public who ran public education concluded that the Harvard Garduate School of Education was as rich as Kroesos and thus a great success and, therefore, could advise poor school districts how to become successful!

Well, you can say, stoopit public school districts for focusing on money! instead of education! Well, poor school districts are obliged to focus on money. That's one of the things that's wrong with public education no comma.

Endowment is not a good thing if it is used to leverage blind arrogance, stupefying stupidity, and pie-in-the-sky "initiatives in implementation" when all the kids needs is (1) reading, writing, and arithmetic; (2) literature, communication, and mathematics; (3) science, technology, and more science.

Instead, Harvard's SoE thinks children should wander around art museums and then return to the classroom to express their feelings about what they've seen. Art museums are, or ought to be, expressions of the most-complicated visual communications that man can conceive of. Instead, they have to spend their money for stuff that any grammar-school kid can comprehend. That's not an art museum, that's a children's museum.

The irony of Harvard's educational endowment to me is that it has produced childish solutions to serious adult problems -- and such overserious solutions to children's problems that child education has been adulterated.

Perhaps Harvard should get out of the education business altogether [Mad] , and concentrate on what it does best: showing off [Big Grin] , and fending off criticisms of the less-endowed.

Well, now with a woman of no endowment driving the bus, perhaps things will change.

Posts: 7866 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
cherrypoptart
Member
Member # 3942

 - posted      Profile for cherrypoptart     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Regardless of how much it may be just whining and crying, and thanks are in order for putting it so politely, the fact still remains that the only people it is still legally and morally permissible to discriminate against is white men.

As most of these posts show, it's also quite popular.

By the way, what we have today is not affirmative action. It's just affirmative racism.

Affirmative action is reaching out to and finding equally qualified minorities. Affirmative racism is giving preference to people based on race regardless of qualification. Nowadays the latter is usually accepted as the former though the difference is really not so nuanced that it shouldn't be more noticeable.

Posts: 7675 | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
If polite is that important to you, you might want to lose the hyperbole, sarcasm and abrasiveness.
Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rallan
Member
Member # 1936

 - posted      Profile for Rallan   Email Rallan   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Wait, J.B., you're pointing out that people who constantly cop stress for the colour of their skin are likely to have worse health than people who don't have that stress in their lives? You must've reformed since the last time I met you, because you didn't used to be such a champion of the cause of opressed minorities.
Posts: 2570 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RickyB
Member
Member # 1464

 - posted      Profile for RickyB   Email RickyB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
You're not being discriminated against. You're simply not being discriminated ***for***.

Get the difference? If you're on a class field trip and some of your fellow students are temporarily having difficulties, and they get help say climbing hills, and you don't - you're not being discriminated against. You don't need the help.

Now, I for one think that some affirmative action programs, especially ones concerning educational admissions, need to be shifted from race to class. Theo Huxtable does not need a leg up. Jim-Bob from West Bubblefock deep in the applachians does.

However, even if the application of the leg-up is not fine tuned or is downright misguided, "whites" are not being discriminated against. Other than the world of Hip-Hop and the NBA, I'm hard pressed to think of fields where having white skin hinders your chances at anything.

Posts: 19145 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
canadian
Member
Member # 1809

 - posted      Profile for canadian   Email canadian       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
A good cop beating?
Posts: 5362 | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
cherrypoptart
Member
Member # 3942

 - posted      Profile for cherrypoptart     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
> RickyB

> You're not being discriminated against. You're simply not being discriminated ***for***.

> Get the difference?

Um.....

No.

Maybe that's why I'm not smart enough to ever get into a school like Harvard.

[Crying]

Posts: 7675 | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
canadian
Member
Member # 1809

 - posted      Profile for canadian   Email canadian       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
In other words, no one is excluding you, you're already set. They just happen to be including others.
Posts: 5362 | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
cherrypoptart
Member
Member # 3942

 - posted      Profile for cherrypoptart     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It feels like seeing things "through the looking glass" to me.

If a white student scores 100 points higher on the SAT but they accept a black student instead, that's not discriminating against the white student?

Okay........

For the record, I do realize that Asians often have to score higher than even whites to be admitted. I'm against that too.

One funny thing about that is that Clinton once remarked that if that wasn't the case, some of our universities would be filled with just about only Asians. The funny thing is that he didn't think they would then be diverse.

Why is that funny?

Well, because the various Asian cultures in America are more diverse amongst each other than white, black, and Hispanic are amongst the three.

But some people see diversity in terms only of color instead of culture, like we are all just a bunch of jelly beans or M&Ms and the right proportion of each must always be in each bag.

[ March 31, 2007, 02:26 PM: Message edited by: cherrypoptart ]

Posts: 7675 | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Haggis
Member
Member # 2114

 - posted      Profile for Haggis   Email Haggis   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
For those white males out there who are tired of being held back by the man, I ask you this:

Would you rather be black?

Please be honest.

Posts: 1771 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Gaoics79
Member
Member # 969

 - posted      Profile for Gaoics79   Email Gaoics79   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
However, even if the application of the leg-up is not fine tuned or is downright misguided, "whites" are not being discriminated against. Other than the world of Hip-Hop and the NBA, I'm hard pressed to think of fields where having white skin hinders your chances at anything.
I have seen this argument used before to rationalize affirmative action. It is a critically flawed argument, because it ignores the reality that there are always a finite number of places in any school, a finite number of resources. Giving a leg-up is almost always synonymous with a corresponding "leg-down" to someone else. If a black person gets a spot at a university that he wouldn't have gotten but for AA, then it is nearly certain that someone else not black lost a spot that he wouldn't have lost but for AA.

It is irrelevent to the issue whether or not whites generally do better or are better off by virtue of being white. Racist policy cannot be made not racist by virtue of other types of existing racism.

Posts: 7629 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Richard Dey
Member
Member # 1727

 - posted      Profile for Richard Dey   Email Richard Dey   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
N.B., Ricky, it is not "whites" that Harvard is discriminating for but Jewish whites, from the radio announcers on WHRB, Jewish whites from Longggisland -- and, whilst you're at it, just read the faculty lists. Hey, the squeaky wheel gets the grease [Big Grin] . It didn't hurt Harvard or its status one iota. You know the joke:

"Harvard is Sephardic. Brandeis is only Azhkenazi."

And when it comes to Jewish women, it's Boston University.

If you're not Jewish or foreign or minority, you go to Northeastern; but does Northeastern have a bias for whites or against anybody else? No -- blacks, Jews, Asiatics, Hispanics, lesbians, and foreigners wouldn't think of applying to it. You have to work no matter who or how smart you are at Northeastern.

If you're Irish, you go to Suffolk University or Boston College. If you're artsy you go to Emerson or RISDI. If you're a lesbian or a golddigger, of course, you go to Wellesley; and if you're gay you flee to Europe screaming idiots! idiots! -- and they may be right.

But if you're just plain smart, regardless of race, sex, class, nationality, or preference, you go to Tufts! Even their medical school is better than Harvard's, IMHO.

Or you can wing it, like Gore Vidal. When asked where he went to college, he replied. "I didn't." Asked why such a smart man as he didn't go to college, he replied, "I didn't need to."

Ergo, anybody who goes to any college is dumbo [Big Grin] , and any company that hires on the basis of an undergraduate degree is paying too much [Smile] .

Posts: 7866 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rallan
Member
Member # 1936

 - posted      Profile for Rallan   Email Rallan   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Haggis:
For those white males out there who are tired of being held back by the man, I ask you this:

Would you rather be black?

Please be honest.

Totally dude. Everyone knows that blacks are the luckiest men and women in America. They get obligation-free welfare payments for life, ACLU and NAACP lawyers who'll acquit them of any crime they ever commit against a white man, and they can get any college position or lucrative job they want by ticking "African American" on their application form. Why before you know it they'll be rounding us God-fearing whiteys up and putting us in Re-blackucation camps!

Seriously dude, The Man is holding us back! And it's obvious to see. I mean who do you think a system ran almost entirely by rich white guys is gonna discriminate against? That's right, white men. Because um... well... stage 3 is profit?

Nah I just can't keep this line of sheer stupidity up. Would CherryPoptart or J.B. care to gimme the powers of cognitive dissonance I'll need so I can pretend to believe that the system has a vested interest in holding back whitey? [Smile]

Posts: 2570 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Adam Masterman
Member
Member # 1142

 - posted      Profile for Adam Masterman   Email Adam Masterman   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Giving a leg-up is almost always synonymous with a corresponding "leg-down" to someone else. If a black person gets a spot at a university that he wouldn't have gotten but for AA, then it is nearly certain that someone else not black lost a spot that he wouldn't have lost but for AA.

It is irrelevent to the issue whether or not whites generally do better or are better off by virtue of being white. Racist policy cannot be made not racist by virtue of other types of existing racism.

I can see this argument from others here, but I'm suprised to see it from you, jason. Surely you aren't telling me that you are unaware of how AA can correct for systematic racism, at least in the abstract.

Adam

Posts: 4823 | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Zyne
Member
Member # 117

 - posted      Profile for Zyne   Email Zyne   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
just over half of those admitted to the Class of 2011 were women
That means just under half of those admitted to the Class of 2011 were men.

quote:
Nearly 20 percent of those accepted are Asian, 10.7 percent are black and 10.1 percent are Latino. The class would also be its most economically diverse, Harvard said, with 26 percent eligible for a new financial aid program.
That means 58.6% of those accepted are not Asian, not black and not Latino. And that 74% of those accepted were not eligible for that new financial aid program.

quote:
it is fascinating that white men are the only group not important enough to give statistics for.
I'm sorry, in what you quoted, I don't see any stats on white women, black men, black women, asian men, asian women, hispanic men or hispanic women. Or Unicorns, or faeries, earthquakes, or bricks.

Even without knowing race or gender, I can see why you didn't get in ... Perhaps you ought to take a pen light into that dark corner, and begin to learn to read and think critically. Seriously.

quote:
If a white student scores 100 points higher on the SAT but they accept a black student instead, that's not discriminating against the white student?
It is, if the playing field going into the test is level. That's the premise you seem to be taking, and it's fallacious at best (malicious at worst).
Posts: 4003 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
FiredrakeRAGE
Member
Member # 1224

 - posted      Profile for FiredrakeRAGE   Email FiredrakeRAGE   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Zyne -

It's an objective test. If the question is 'What does 2+2 equal', the answer will be '4' regardless of the identity of the responder. The tests are scored by a computer - you cannot ask for a more impartial arbitrator.

What exactly is not level with the SAT?

Posts: 3538 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
FiredrakeRAGE
Member
Member # 1224

 - posted      Profile for FiredrakeRAGE   Email FiredrakeRAGE   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Adam Masterman said:
quote:
I can see this argument from others here, but I'm suprised to see it from you, jason. Surely you aren't telling me that you are unaware of how AA can correct for systematic racism, at least in the abstract.
Yes, it can. When you have more people integrating with those of other races, racism will decline. Nonetheless, I do not know that affirmative action is particularly useful. Either someone is qualified, or they're not qualified. Only in cases where applicants have the same qualifications could race be a factor. Even then, if one canidate comes across as more on-the-ball in an interview, would you want the other applicant working for you simply because of their race?

Hardly.

Posts: 3538 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Zyne
Member
Member # 117

 - posted      Profile for Zyne   Email Zyne   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
2+2=4, but, even assuming all questions present only numbers, math is only a [art of the current SAT.

Economic, race and gender biases in the SAT questions are well documented. Wikipedia covers it pretty well (from both sides -- for the record, I do not agree with everything in the article): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SAT#Criticism . Too many questions are bad -- it does not matter how impartial the grader is if the question assumes knowledge to which the test-takers do not have equal access.

I'm sure you're aware that the quality of primary and secondary education differs dramatically between schools, neighborhoods, and areas.

Posts: 4003 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Adam Masterman
Member
Member # 1142

 - posted      Profile for Adam Masterman   Email Adam Masterman   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
FDR,

Honestly? You don't know about testing bias? How about the famous SAT question that used oarsman:regatta as part of its analogy? The SAT is a piss-poor tool as it is currently used; I went to an excellent, competitive college (Bates) which does not use it, and consequently has a more diverse student body without sacrificing academic standards.

http://www.fairtest.org/facts/satfact.htm

Adam

Posts: 4823 | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Adam Masterman
Member
Member # 1142

 - posted      Profile for Adam Masterman   Email Adam Masterman   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Only in cases where applicants have the same qualifications could race be a factor.
Thats not true. "Qualifications" aren't objective measures; consequently, they are every bit as subject to systematic racial bias as anything else. What you may have meant to say is "cases where the applicants have equal aptitude to perform the job in question". But in that case, in contemporary american society, the white applicant would probably have better qualification indicators. And the gap is wide enough that there are many situations where the minority has MORE aptitude to perform said job, but has worse qualifications. AA is intended, in part, to acknowledge this social reality, and give the job to the person best able to perform it. Employers benefit because they get the best person for the job despite systemic racism that deflates the percieved ability of African Americans. In any case, its hardly as simple as your abstract scenario, which completely ignores the reality of institutional racism.

Adam

Posts: 4823 | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Richard Dey
Member
Member # 1727

 - posted      Profile for Richard Dey   Email Richard Dey   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
A-Z: this isn't alpha to omega, you know!

What the hell, Adam, is systematic racism? What passes for institutionalized antiracism?

You can't have a serious introduction to political correction here without reference to sexism -- you know, how Harvard failed to submit to Radcliffe's offer that couldn't be refused?

Is Harvard ageist because undergraduates >65 are regularly denied entry?

Where are you going with this preposterous attack? Harvard is a bogus institution. It is immune to bogus arguments.

And ye gods and goddesses, black and white, what human being of any sort is applying to Harvard or, save lives, Yale! who doesn't comprehend sculling? For what other purpose does one go Harvard but the Head of the Charles!

I really do get the impression that a lot of people are being denied entry into something that has no meaning to them -- and still wouldn't have any meaning after four years of intimate relationship.

I mean! You guys dump on nepotism and old-school ties like you're against family values or something [Big Grin] ! Harvard has always prided itself in being a family.

Posts: 7866 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Gaoics79
Member
Member # 969

 - posted      Profile for Gaoics79   Email Gaoics79   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I can see this argument from others here, but I'm suprised to see it from you, jason. Surely you aren't telling me that you are unaware of how AA can correct for systematic racism, at least in the abstract.
Even if I accepted the premise that there is "systemic racism" at the college/university level (which I don't), what you are arguing is classic ends justify means. You rationalize one type of racism to correct for another type of racism. For me this wouldn't be a problem, because I actually believe that the ends do justify the means, but I'm betting you don't [Smile]

Incidentally, I don't even accept that "systemic racism" can exist, ever. A "system" can't be racist. People working in a system can be racist, but this begs the question: if there are racists running our colleges and universities, why not just go after them?

The answer is fairly simple. There probably aren't racists running our universities. "Systemic" is a euphemism to mask something somewhat different: the simple fact that because blacks don't do as well, they wouldn't normally get into college as much as whites on their merits. You can speculate that this underachievement is the result of racism, but now you're already going back beyond the point where the "racism" actually meets the "system". What it boils down to is: blacks don't do as well, so we're gonna do a little "tinkering" with the numbers in order to ensure that reality matches our idea of what a "diverse" and "equal" world should look like.

I don't accept that the solution to black underachievemtn is messing up the merit-based system with AA programs that implicitly brand an entire group of people as inferior. AA is, ironically, the closest thing that comes to "systemic racism" in our universities. It not only knocks perfectly worthy asian and white applicants out in favour of less worthy black applicants (which is racist), it also taints every single black applicant, because thanks to AA, every time a black person succeeds, there will always be the question in someone's mind "did he really get into Harvard, or did he have a little "help"? That's racist too. The implicit presumption of inferiority is also racist.

Posts: 7629 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Richard Dey
Member
Member # 1727

 - posted      Profile for Richard Dey   Email Richard Dey   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I always follow your arguments, JR; and I agree, there really is no reason to introduce Alcoholics Anonymous meetings at Harvard, despite the binge drinking [Wink] . Perhaps Addicts Anonymous ...?

And here's a case to illustrate the absurdities which can result from Affirmative Action:

White coalminer's boy (DLM) from West Virginia escapes to big city (Baltimore I think it was), is taken in by lonely white woman. She makes DLM go to school where he does rather well.

DLM applies to all colleges in neighborhood: Johns Hopkins, U MD, Georgetown, but only Howard accepts him.

Howard is in shock! DLM is chalk white! But DLM does well, and applies to graduate schools all over the country. M.I.T. accepts him because he has a Howard degree!

Harvard Joint Center accepts DLM because they figure he's black!

And on up the ladder until DLM is one of the last single-mansion owners in the Back Bay! I can't find a pic of the Endicott House in the Back Bay, but this was their cottage in the burbs:

http://www.iacconline.org/images/members/6813/EndicottHouse.jpg

Affirmative Reaction threw all kinds of obstructions into DLM's way -- from a dank coal mine to the gasping heights of Boston society! but breeding will tell, and one would be shocked at quickly he adjusted to aristocratic family life.

He and his wife owned a resort in the Caribbean at one time (once owned by McCormack Reapers of Chicago), but they didn't like having so many guests around -- so now just have friends down.

Indirectly, I have greatly appreciated Affirmative Action -- but so far only when it hasn't work right [Big Grin] .

Posts: 7866 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Gaoics79
Member
Member # 969

 - posted      Profile for Gaoics79   Email Gaoics79   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
heh
Posts: 7629 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
One thing to remember is that admittance to Harvard, or just about any university, is not based solely on SAT scores and/or race. There is a whole slew of other factors.

Being a child of an alumni gives you points. Having certain althelic abilities gives you points. Being from part of the country where they don't get many students gives you points. Extracurricular activities gives you points. There are others.

Is it fair if a kid who scored 100 points more on the SAT than an alumni's son doens't get in? Is it fair if a kid who scored 100 points more than a star quarterback doesn't get in? It it fair if a kid with who scored 100 points more than a kid from California doesn't get in?

It is fair for two kids with the same score on the SAT, but one who was a Class President get in?

Race is just one more criteria for who gets in, and its not, and never has been, based solely on ability. If a university can base part of its entrance criteria on geographic location, why can't it base some of it on race, if the university feels it is important?

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Richard Dey
Member
Member # 1727

 - posted      Profile for Richard Dey   Email Richard Dey   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Such a crisis this has created in Ye Olde South! The bejeweled ceremonial mace at UoS is 'broken' i.e., politically incorrect and unusable!. Somebody might associate the stars and bars with the old South!

http://www.leonidaspolk.org/Colleges%20suffer%20identity%20crisis%20%20ajc_com.htm

So now they have a 'gypsy stick' in its stead:

http://www.leonidaspolk.org/Colleges%20suffer%20identity%20crisis%20%20ajc_com.htm

"I'm not marrying her for her estates and title and her silver, Algnernon!" Pours some sherry, flips his tails, and looks pleased with himself.

"Then just why, if you don't mind my asking, are you marrying her at all?"

"For her four millions pounds in the trusts, of course."

When one chooses an alma mater, should one be so lucky, one must consider the whole of her. If you don't like the fact that the Middlesex sheriff is going to march you to success, then you don't go to Harvard. If you can't stand the tune "Ramblin' Wrecks", you don't go to Georgia Tech.

If somebody wants a collegiate Metco program, one goes to a state college. Going to a characterless high-school for collegiate degrees is the price one pays for not paying a lot.

Posts: 7866 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
J.B
Member
Member # 3572

 - posted      Profile for J.B         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Rallan:
Wait, J.B., you're pointing out that people who constantly cop stress for the colour of their skin are likely to have worse health than people who don't have that stress in their lives? You must've reformed since the last time I met you, because you didn't used to be such a champion of the cause of opressed minorities.

I think the "Harvard study" is a joke.

But I like this quote from the article:
"as they watched the film, sometimes thumping fists on tables in adamant agreement"

Not only do blacks have high rates of heart disease, other species do to:

Check it out:
Creighton Doctors Perform Heart Test On Zoo Gorilla

March 8, 2007

OMAHA, Neb. -- Heart disease isn't just the leading cause of death in humans but also threatens the lives of gorillas.

At the Henry Doorly Zoo in Omaha on Wednesday, a local cardiac team initiated a procedure that was the result of a nationwide research project, reported KETV in Omaha.

The project could eventually prevent gorilla deaths, and because the unique heart lesion the group is focused on has also showed up populations of humans in east Africa , the research could eventually benefit people.

http://www.wmur.com/family/11202368/detail.html

Posts: 389 | Registered: Jan 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
J.B
Member
Member # 3572

 - posted      Profile for J.B         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Whites need not apply

The Wall Street Journal

Michelle, a straight-A student from a humble background, first applied to Camp Planet Earth, a summer environmental science program run by Texas A&M University with funding from the National Science Foundation. She was a finalist in 1994, but during an interview it emerged that she wasn't eligible to participate. The program is for "minorities" only, and Michelle is white.
http://www.cir-usa.org/articles/27.html

Posts: 389 | Registered: Jan 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Adam Masterman
Member
Member # 1142

 - posted      Profile for Adam Masterman   Email Adam Masterman   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Even if I accepted the premise that there is "systemic racism" at the college/university level (which I don't), what you are arguing is classic ends justify means. You rationalize one type of racism to correct for another type of racism. For me this wouldn't be a problem, because I actually believe that the ends do justify the means, but I'm betting you don't [Smile]
A couple of points. First of all, the systematic racism I was referring to isn't specifically at the universities, its everything students experience leading up to university. The "qualifications" that people unthinkingly assume are objective simply aren't. Grades, test scores, NHS membership, all are demonstrably influenced by race, and thus cannot be taken at face value, if one truly desires to find the most able applicants.

Second, Affirmative Action is not racism, and indeed, its a pretty useless definition of racism that includes AA. When you dumb down the idea of racism to include any situation that acknowledges race, you basically rob it of any import. The defining characteristic of racism is that it is in error. People falsely attribute qualities to different races, based on a misunderstanding of the biological reality. In other words, I falsely think that Jews are greedy, so I avoid doing business with them. I falsely think that black men are inherently suited to manual labor, so I protest admitting them to public schools.

Nowhere in that definition does it say that one must ignore the social reality of race. Just because I know that people's race doesn't determine their aptitude for learning, that doesn't mean I must pretend that race is not a cultural and social reality in this country. AA is based on the true premise that racial groups in this country, specifically African Americans, are social disadvantaged because of real historical events. It has nothing to do with racism because it says nothing about the relative superiority of any race. Indeed, AA is based on the assumption that the races are inherently equal.

The argument you seem to be making is that, of two students with equal qualifications, when AA dictates that the minority is chosen, that is a racist decision. If the rationale for such a choice were that minority races are inherently superior, then you would be right. However, the actual rationale is that, since it is more difficult for minorities to achieve the same qualifications as whites, the minority student must therefore have more aptitude, and is therefore the superior choice. If we accept, for the moment, that it is indeed harder for a minority to achieve the same qualifications, can you deny that it is rational to select the minority?

As for whether it actually is harder for minorities to achieve the same qualifications, well, its not hard to find the research. I'm not going to bother to try to prove it to you with hundreds of links; instead I'll ask the following: do you deny that, prior to the civil war, there were structural disadvantages preventing African Americans from succeeding (yes, this is mildly sarcastic)? If so, do you really believe that only a handful of generations later, all of those disadvantages have been entirely eradicated, so that its literally just as easy for an African American to succeed as a white American? If so, then I guess we just aren't going to agree here.

Incidentally, the afore referenced centuries of chattel slavery are an excellent example of systematic racism, which you claim cannot exist. All it means is that society is structured in such a way as to disadvantage people of a certain race. The degree of racism of any particular slaveholder could vary, but the system itself perpetuated racial disadvantage. Are we not allowed to even have a word describing such a common phenomena? By your rationale, there is no such thing as culture, society, nations, etc., only individuals. That doesn't make any sense.

quote:
The implicit presumption of inferiority is also racist.
I'm glad we agree on this. Tell me, if African Americans perform worse of standardized tests, and (according to you) it can't be blamed on any social and cultural disadvantages, who exactly is presuming one group to be inferior to another?


Adam

Posts: 4823 | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Gaoics79
Member
Member # 969

 - posted      Profile for Gaoics79   Email Gaoics79   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
A couple of points. First of all, the systematic racism I was referring to isn't specifically at the universities, its everything students experience leading up to university. The "qualifications" that people unthinkingly assume are objective simply aren't. Grades, test scores, NHS membership, all are demonstrably influenced by race, and thus cannot be taken at face value, if one truly desires to find the most able applicants.
Like I said, you are rationalizing a racist admission system that discriminates against individuals based on some fuzzy-minded assumptions about group experiences up to (but not including university) that may or may not even apply. And incidentally, I see no basis for the assumption you make that grades and standardized tests are not objective, let alone influenced by race, unless you are making the all-too-common and totally idiotic argument that by virtue of the fact that some races do worse than others, this is evidence that the system must be racist. This is classic circular reasoning.

quote:
Second, Affirmative Action is not racism, and indeed, its a pretty useless definition of racism that includes AA. When you dumb down the idea of racism to include any situation that acknowledges race, you basically rob it of any import. The defining characteristic of racism is that it is in error. People falsely attribute qualities to different races, based on a misunderstanding of the biological reality. In other words, I falsely think that Jews are greedy, so I avoid doing business with them. I falsely think that black men are inherently suited to manual labor, so I protest admitting them to public schools.
The easiest way to dispel this kind of rationalizing BS is to just reverse the colour of the applicants' skin. If a school had a policy that, say, only a certain number of Jews could get into a program, or for that matter, that non-Jews or whites were given "points" by virtue of being white, then the racism would be so obvious that no one would even seriously try to debate it.

To the asian or white person with a B+ who gets turned down by a school while the black person with the same qualifications but a B- gets in, it looks pretty darned racist. Judging applicants based on their race is the essence of racism. Again, you are engaging in classic ends justify means thinking. Except the end you want (proportionate admission for blacks) will never be achieved through cheating and monkeying with the numbers.

quote:
Nowhere in that definition does it say that one must ignore the social reality of race. Just because I know that people's race doesn't determine their aptitude for learning, that doesn't mean I must pretend that race is not a cultural and social reality in this country. AA is based on the true premise that racial groups in this country, specifically African Americans, are social disadvantaged because of real historical events. It has nothing to do with racism because it says nothing about the relative superiority of any race. Indeed, AA is based on the assumption that the races are inherently equal.
It actually says precisely that: that blacks are inferior. This is the conclusion that underlies the AA system. It's the conclusion that can't be avoided as long as blacks are given this kind of tainted "help". And since you put so much stock in social reality, let's therefore acknowledge the reality: that as long as AA exists, no person is going to be able to look at a black applicant without wondering if that applicant with the Harvard degree really earned that degree, or if he was "assisted" by AA. Far from making blacks equal, it brands them with inferiority.

quote:
The argument you seem to be making is that, of two students with equal qualifications, when AA dictates that the minority is chosen, that is a racist decision. If the rationale for such a choice were that minority races are inherently superior, then you would be right. However, the actual rationale is that, since it is more difficult for minorities to achieve the same qualifications as whites, the minority student must therefore have more aptitude, and is therefore the superior choice. If we accept, for the moment, that it is indeed harder for a minority to achieve the same qualifications, can you deny that it is rational to select the minority?
quote:
I'm glad we agree on this. Tell me, if African Americans perform worse of standardized tests, and (according to you) it can't be blamed on any social and cultural disadvantages, who exactly is presuming one group to be inferior to another?
Yes, I can deny that it is rational to choose the minority. You are operating under a mistaken assumption that just because blacks do worse because of historical racism (which I think is probably true) it therefore means that they are not actually worse. This is false. It reminds me of the biblical story of exodus. The Jews who escaped from slavery got away from Egypt, but they couldn't get away from being slaves. The slave mentality was ingrained on them. Was it their fault that they had this mentality? No. It was caused by slavery. But that didn't change the fact that they were not suited to be free people. The old generation had to die off so that the new, free generation could thrive, free of their parents' handicaps.

The answer to blacks being equal is not pretending that a black person who scores a B- is really scoring an A because of racism. The answer is to eliminate overt racism and let blacks do what Jews, asians, and other oppressed minorities have been doing forever: succeed on their own terms, because they were superior, not because of some patronizing racist cheating AA program. And if blacks can't do it on their own? Then I guess that means they really are inferior and don't deserve to be equal.

Posts: 7629 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jesse
Member
Member # 1860

 - posted      Profile for Jesse   Email Jesse   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
jason, I think you're a bit fuzzy on how Ivy League admissions work.

Let's start with a simple premise.

In 1960, virtually 100% of Harvard graduates were white.

Given that letters of recomendation from graduates hold great weight, and that legacies are given preference, how would ANY black person have a level playing field while seeking admission?

I'm not talking about "affirmative action" in general. I'm talking about Harvard.

Can you agree that if Harvard decided to continue to give recomendations from alumni great weight, and to give the children of alumni preference, that without some counterbalance that system was effectively racist?

Posts: 11410 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
J.B
Member
Member # 3572

 - posted      Profile for J.B         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Affirmative Action laws try to make up for nature's "racism".
Posts: 389 | Registered: Jan 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 10 pages: 1  2  3  4  ...  8  9  10   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1