|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
Now its Emory too? What happened there?
I would agree that there are several things on that list that are pretty outlandish buried in reasonable requests. Seems like this is how its done. Its almost like a contract negotiation in that everyone goes to the extreme demands then work back down from there. I highly doubt they truly expect them to do everything on that list.
|
The more reasonable request is for the school to release demographic information on its applications for departments and to confirm they hire the same % of minorities that they receive in applications. This is over course on average across all departments and over time. Then if the school is not receiving applications from a specific demographic for specific positions, they are aware and can address it.
Of course, if releasing this information could reveal that they don't hire specific demographics even when they receive a lot of applications from them. Which is why I don't' expect it to happen.
|
On November 12 2015 12:37 Slaughter wrote:Now its Emory too? What happened there? I would agree that there are several things on that list that are pretty outlandish buried in reasonable requests. Seems like this is how its done. Its almost like a contract negotiation in that everyone goes to the extreme demands then work back down from there. I highly doubt they truly expect them to do everything on that list.
Literally nothing happened. They're just standing "in solidarity" with Yale and Mizzou.
There was an incident where our prez cited the 3/5 compromise as an example of compromise, which was admittedly pretty stupid. There was a big to-do about it, but that was like 2 years ago.
|
On November 12 2015 12:59 Plansix wrote:
The more reasonable request is for the school to release demographic information on its applications for departments and to confirm they hire the same % of minorities that they receive in applications. This is over course on average across all departments and over time. Then if the school is not receiving applications from a specific demographic for specific positions, they are aware and can address it.
Of course, if releasing this information could reveal that they don't hire specific demographics even when they receive a lot of applications from them. Which is why I don't' expect it to happen.
That standard makes no sense. Why would you accept equal numbers based on the race of those applying? Doesn't that just incentivize under-qualified persons from underrepresented races to apply to your school?
|
United States43598 Posts
On November 12 2015 12:13 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2015 11:40 KwarK wrote:
Hell, imagine a ranking of problems in importance from 1 to 10, 10 being the most urgently pressing. A bunch of white landowners got together and they said "We really need to separate church and state. The old country was a theocracy and that was some bullshit that routinely ignored the rights of the white landowners. Let's stop that." And don't get me wrong, that's really important, that was like a 9. I'm really into that. But if you'd asked a slave at the time what the pressing issue was he'd probably have mentioned slavery. Slavery was like a 10. And if you only had enough ink for one of them I hope you'd agree it probably should have been the slavery thing and then we could have dealt with the church and state issue 90 years later.
White men were in charge for fucking ever, all the things they experience as 10s, 9s, 8s, hell, even 3s, have already been dealt with. We're scraping the bottom of the barrel. Whereas women and minorities still have a bunch of 7s bothering them. The reason we hear so much about their shit is because they have more of it going on. So the racism in Mizzou is a 7?
Nah, it's not a 7 but it's certainly ahead of whatever "Starbucks cups are the wrong colour" is.
|
On November 12 2015 13:07 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2015 12:59 Plansix wrote:
The more reasonable request is for the school to release demographic information on its applications for departments and to confirm they hire the same % of minorities that they receive in applications. This is over course on average across all departments and over time. Then if the school is not receiving applications from a specific demographic for specific positions, they are aware and can address it.
Of course, if releasing this information could reveal that they don't hire specific demographics even when they receive a lot of applications from them. Which is why I don't' expect it to happen. That standard makes no sense. Why would you accept equal numbers based on the race of those applying? Doesn't that just incentivize under-qualified persons from underrepresented races to apply to your school?
If the school/firm has no problems with race, it should be hiring the same percentage of minorities it receives resumes from on average of a period of time. If it receives 15% applications/resumes from blacks, it should be hiring around 15% blacks over an extended period. That should be the goal. If school/firm is not, then they should look into why. Are the people applying not qualified enough? Are they offered the positions but don't accept?
This is a way to solve the problem, not some weird hiring quota. If a minority makes up 25% of the population and 0% of a college professors, there is a reason. If the reason is that school isn't' getting qualified applications, they can find people who are qualified to apply. If its another reason, they can address that. The same goes for women. If a school only receives 20% applications from women over 5 year period for all positions, they are not attracting enough applications from women since they are 50% of the population.
Unless you think they shouldn't make any effort at all and just hope that their staff will become more diverse through attrition. Personally, I don't think that is likely.
|
....Just damn... Only in racist land is Mizzou students being threatened not to show up or be shot is overblown, and something called "operation wetback" considered a humane effort.
Thank goodness what's racist isn't determined by racist statement making white people. You all can keep telling yourselves "we don't think it's racist, so it's not".
|
There's no really good reason to expect the % of minorities accepted/hired overall to be equal to the % of minorities unless you think that minorities are equally as likely to apply for difficult to obtain positions as non-minorities (which I'm not sure is a reasonable assumption at most universities, especially depending on who gets categorized as a minority).
You would think this problem would be dead and gone better understood after UC Berkely.
Of course, if they are applying at equal rates to all departments and there's discrimination or if after you correct for that they're underrepresented there's a problem.
If minorities are more likely to apply for a position in department X than non-minorities, and department X only takes 1% of its applicants because it is in high demand while department Y that everyone applies to equally takes 10%, you'll "underhire" minorities if you judge out of total applicants, but you're not discriminating at all.
|
I never referenced the general population and its demographic, expect with the example of women. Only that the % of minorities applying to reflect the % of minorities hired over a reasonable period of time.
|
On November 12 2015 13:23 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2015 13:07 cLutZ wrote:On November 12 2015 12:59 Plansix wrote:
The more reasonable request is for the school to release demographic information on its applications for departments and to confirm they hire the same % of minorities that they receive in applications. This is over course on average across all departments and over time. Then if the school is not receiving applications from a specific demographic for specific positions, they are aware and can address it.
Of course, if releasing this information could reveal that they don't hire specific demographics even when they receive a lot of applications from them. Which is why I don't' expect it to happen. That standard makes no sense. Why would you accept equal numbers based on the race of those applying? Doesn't that just incentivize under-qualified persons from underrepresented races to apply to your school? If the school/firm has no problems with race, it should be hiring the same percentage of minorities it receives resumes from on average of a period of time. If it receives 15% applications/resumes from blacks, it should be hiring around 15% blacks over an extended period. That should be the goal. If school/firm is not, then they should look into why. Are the people applying not qualified enough? Are they offered the positions but don't accept? This is a way to solve the problem, not some weird hiring quota. If a minority makes up 25% of the population and 0% of a college professors, there is a reason. If the reason is that school isn't' getting qualified applications, they can find people who are qualified to apply. If its another reason, they can address that. The same goes for women. If a school only receives 20% applications from women over 5 year period for all positions, they are not attracting enough applications from women since they are 50% of the population. Unless you think they shouldn't make any effort at all and just hope that their staff will become more diverse through attrition. Personally, I don't think that is likely.
On November 12 2015 13:50 Plansix wrote:
I never referenced the general population and its demographic, expect with the example of women. Only that the % of minorities applying to reflect the % of minorities hired over a reasonable period of time.
Your hypotheticals make no sense to posit as questions because we have the pre and post prop 209 University of California stats. If you are hiring at a high end school, its because there aren't enough qualified applicants, if you are at a mid-low tier school, its because there aren't enough qualified applicants because of affirmative action at the high end universities.
|
On November 12 2015 13:57 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2015 13:23 Plansix wrote:On November 12 2015 13:07 cLutZ wrote:On November 12 2015 12:59 Plansix wrote:
The more reasonable request is for the school to release demographic information on its applications for departments and to confirm they hire the same % of minorities that they receive in applications. This is over course on average across all departments and over time. Then if the school is not receiving applications from a specific demographic for specific positions, they are aware and can address it.
Of course, if releasing this information could reveal that they don't hire specific demographics even when they receive a lot of applications from them. Which is why I don't' expect it to happen. That standard makes no sense. Why would you accept equal numbers based on the race of those applying? Doesn't that just incentivize under-qualified persons from underrepresented races to apply to your school? If the school/firm has no problems with race, it should be hiring the same percentage of minorities it receives resumes from on average of a period of time. If it receives 15% applications/resumes from blacks, it should be hiring around 15% blacks over an extended period. That should be the goal. If school/firm is not, then they should look into why. Are the people applying not qualified enough? Are they offered the positions but don't accept? This is a way to solve the problem, not some weird hiring quota. If a minority makes up 25% of the population and 0% of a college professors, there is a reason. If the reason is that school isn't' getting qualified applications, they can find people who are qualified to apply. If its another reason, they can address that. The same goes for women. If a school only receives 20% applications from women over 5 year period for all positions, they are not attracting enough applications from women since they are 50% of the population. Unless you think they shouldn't make any effort at all and just hope that their staff will become more diverse through attrition. Personally, I don't think that is likely. Show nested quote +On November 12 2015 13:50 Plansix wrote:
I never referenced the general population and its demographic, expect with the example of women. Only that the % of minorities applying to reflect the % of minorities hired over a reasonable period of time. Your hypotheticals make no sense to posit as questions because we have the pre and post prop 209 University of California stats. If you are hiring at a high end school, its because there aren't enough qualified applicants, if you are at a mid-low tier school, its because there aren't enough qualified applicants because of affirmative action at the high end universities.
I was mostly speaking in general times nation wide, but sure. I am not an expert is the specific problems facing that school.
|
On November 12 2015 14:05 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2015 13:57 cLutZ wrote:On November 12 2015 13:23 Plansix wrote:On November 12 2015 13:07 cLutZ wrote:On November 12 2015 12:59 Plansix wrote:
The more reasonable request is for the school to release demographic information on its applications for departments and to confirm they hire the same % of minorities that they receive in applications. This is over course on average across all departments and over time. Then if the school is not receiving applications from a specific demographic for specific positions, they are aware and can address it.
Of course, if releasing this information could reveal that they don't hire specific demographics even when they receive a lot of applications from them. Which is why I don't' expect it to happen. That standard makes no sense. Why would you accept equal numbers based on the race of those applying? Doesn't that just incentivize under-qualified persons from underrepresented races to apply to your school? If the school/firm has no problems with race, it should be hiring the same percentage of minorities it receives resumes from on average of a period of time. If it receives 15% applications/resumes from blacks, it should be hiring around 15% blacks over an extended period. That should be the goal. If school/firm is not, then they should look into why. Are the people applying not qualified enough? Are they offered the positions but don't accept? This is a way to solve the problem, not some weird hiring quota. If a minority makes up 25% of the population and 0% of a college professors, there is a reason. If the reason is that school isn't' getting qualified applications, they can find people who are qualified to apply. If its another reason, they can address that. The same goes for women. If a school only receives 20% applications from women over 5 year period for all positions, they are not attracting enough applications from women since they are 50% of the population. Unless you think they shouldn't make any effort at all and just hope that their staff will become more diverse through attrition. Personally, I don't think that is likely. On November 12 2015 13:50 Plansix wrote:
I never referenced the general population and its demographic, expect with the example of women. Only that the % of minorities applying to reflect the % of minorities hired over a reasonable period of time. Your hypotheticals make no sense to posit as questions because we have the pre and post prop 209 University of California stats. If you are hiring at a high end school, its because there aren't enough qualified applicants, if you are at a mid-low tier school, its because there aren't enough qualified applicants because of affirmative action at the high end universities. I was mostly speaking in general times nation wide, but sure. I am not an expert is the specific problems facing that school.
But you are making a serious error by telling colleges, at their professional hiring stage of people with Ph.Ds (typically age 30+) to counteract trends within the population that are readily apparent well before middle school begins.
|
On November 12 2015 14:10 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2015 14:05 Plansix wrote:On November 12 2015 13:57 cLutZ wrote:On November 12 2015 13:23 Plansix wrote:On November 12 2015 13:07 cLutZ wrote:On November 12 2015 12:59 Plansix wrote:
The more reasonable request is for the school to release demographic information on its applications for departments and to confirm they hire the same % of minorities that they receive in applications. This is over course on average across all departments and over time. Then if the school is not receiving applications from a specific demographic for specific positions, they are aware and can address it.
Of course, if releasing this information could reveal that they don't hire specific demographics even when they receive a lot of applications from them. Which is why I don't' expect it to happen. That standard makes no sense. Why would you accept equal numbers based on the race of those applying? Doesn't that just incentivize under-qualified persons from underrepresented races to apply to your school? If the school/firm has no problems with race, it should be hiring the same percentage of minorities it receives resumes from on average of a period of time. If it receives 15% applications/resumes from blacks, it should be hiring around 15% blacks over an extended period. That should be the goal. If school/firm is not, then they should look into why. Are the people applying not qualified enough? Are they offered the positions but don't accept? This is a way to solve the problem, not some weird hiring quota. If a minority makes up 25% of the population and 0% of a college professors, there is a reason. If the reason is that school isn't' getting qualified applications, they can find people who are qualified to apply. If its another reason, they can address that. The same goes for women. If a school only receives 20% applications from women over 5 year period for all positions, they are not attracting enough applications from women since they are 50% of the population. Unless you think they shouldn't make any effort at all and just hope that their staff will become more diverse through attrition. Personally, I don't think that is likely. On November 12 2015 13:50 Plansix wrote:
I never referenced the general population and its demographic, expect with the example of women. Only that the % of minorities applying to reflect the % of minorities hired over a reasonable period of time. Your hypotheticals make no sense to posit as questions because we have the pre and post prop 209 University of California stats. If you are hiring at a high end school, its because there aren't enough qualified applicants, if you are at a mid-low tier school, its because there aren't enough qualified applicants because of affirmative action at the high end universities. I was mostly speaking in general times nation wide, but sure. I am not an expert is the specific problems facing that school. But you are making a serious error by telling colleges, at their professional hiring stage of people with Ph.Ds (typically age 30+) to counteract trends within the population that are readily apparent well before middle school begins.
I think you are confused by what I said, or simply are attempting to argue against a point I didn't make. Or we are both doing a really poor job of explaining.
|
I don't understand your point, possibly.
Here is simply what I am saying: < Means dependent on +.
College Prof. Hiring < Ph.D. Completion < Ph.D. Acceptance < University Completion < University Admission < High School Graduation/ Standardized testing scores. Things prior to that are hard to directly state causally, be we understand that student performance at very low ages is very indicative of all the things we can actually measure well. When you talk about racial inequality in University hiring, what your are actually talking about is things that are several steps outside of their control. And, so long as affirmative action exists at any point in the system, the steps after will face the option of either accepting the best candidates or accepting a racial % ~= to those applying for a position.
|
So part 2 at Emory:
Student protesters literally blocked the road to a hospital. Again. Like literally what the fuck.
(they did this last time too)
|
On November 12 2015 13:24 GreenHorizons wrote:
....Just damn... Only in racist land is Mizzou students being threatened not to show up or be shot is overblown, and something called "operation wetback" considered a humane effort.
Thank goodness what's racist isn't determined by racist statement making white people. You all can keep telling yourselves "we don't think it's racist, so it's not".
It was from the 50s, and Caesar Chavez used that word himself to describe people coming and undermining his strikes. No one would use it today.
|
On November 12 2015 15:25 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2015 13:24 GreenHorizons wrote:
....Just damn... Only in racist land is Mizzou students being threatened not to show up or be shot is overblown, and something called "operation wetback" considered a humane effort.
Thank goodness what's racist isn't determined by racist statement making white people. You all can keep telling yourselves "we don't think it's racist, so it's not". It was from the 50s, and Caesar Chavez used that word himself to describe people coming and undermining his strikes. No one would use it today.
Did you hear that? It was the point whizzing by your head.
|
On November 12 2015 15:27 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2015 15:25 Introvert wrote:On November 12 2015 13:24 GreenHorizons wrote:
....Just damn... Only in racist land is Mizzou students being threatened not to show up or be shot is overblown, and something called "operation wetback" considered a humane effort.
Thank goodness what's racist isn't determined by racist statement making white people. You all can keep telling yourselves "we don't think it's racist, so it's not". It was from the 50s, and Caesar Chavez used that word himself to describe people coming and undermining his strikes. No one would use it today. Did you hear that? It was the point whizzing by your head.
and something called "operation wetback" considered a humane effort
nah, I got it perfectly. The name has precisely zero to do with its humanity or racist quotient.
|
On November 12 2015 15:35 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2015 15:27 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 12 2015 15:25 Introvert wrote:On November 12 2015 13:24 GreenHorizons wrote:
....Just damn... Only in racist land is Mizzou students being threatened not to show up or be shot is overblown, and something called "operation wetback" considered a humane effort.
Thank goodness what's racist isn't determined by racist statement making white people. You all can keep telling yourselves "we don't think it's racist, so it's not". It was from the 50s, and Caesar Chavez used that word himself to describe people coming and undermining his strikes. No one would use it today. Did you hear that? It was the point whizzing by your head. nah, I got it perfectly. The name has precisely zero to do with its humanity or racist quotient.
The name is merely symbolic of the racist action. Your arguing over the name knowing damn well the operation was racist as all hell fits you perfectly.
|
On November 12 2015 15:39 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2015 15:35 Introvert wrote:On November 12 2015 15:27 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 12 2015 15:25 Introvert wrote:On November 12 2015 13:24 GreenHorizons wrote:
....Just damn... Only in racist land is Mizzou students being threatened not to show up or be shot is overblown, and something called "operation wetback" considered a humane effort.
Thank goodness what's racist isn't determined by racist statement making white people. You all can keep telling yourselves "we don't think it's racist, so it's not". It was from the 50s, and Caesar Chavez used that word himself to describe people coming and undermining his strikes. No one would use it today. Did you hear that? It was the point whizzing by your head. and something called "operation wetback" considered a humane effort nah, I got it perfectly. The name has precisely zero to do with its humanity or racist quotient. The name is merely symbolic of the racist action. Your arguing over the name knowing damn well the operation was racist as all hell fits you perfectly.
I know, to hell with all context! You can't just pluck the name out now and try to use it that way. That's disingenuous. I wasn't even arguing about the program itself.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
