EPTSCOTUS case: Fisher v. Texas (Affirmative Action) - Page 18
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
datcirclejerk
89 Posts
| ||
|
bugser
61 Posts
On June 25 2013 07:33 Stratos_speAr wrote: My bad, misread your post. Yea, forgive us if we don't believe some 2-post forum lurker that presents zero proof and then claims that it's solely based on "student potential" (implying that black students don't have as much potential as whites, which is an inherently racist claim). If you want us to believe you and take your racist-at-face-value claims seriously, give us some hard evidence. "Those sibling differences [in IQ] are due mostly to the genetic differences among siblings, because their genotypes correlate only 0.5 on average... [The exceptions are identical twins. Their IQ's are much more similar because their genomes are the same.] Large IQ differences among siblings in turn produce large differences among them in school achievement and life outcomes. Those differences, in fact, are almost as large as those found between strangers whose IQs differ to the same degree." Equal potential: A collective fraud. Society, 37(5), 19-28(PDF) On June 25 2013 07:43 Judicator wrote: You are ignorant as hell if you think potential is what's keeping people from failing out of high school. Instruction? You honestly think that single version instruction is suitable for every student each with a different learning style? You aren't asking people to build the space shuttle, you are asking them to graduate high school, so calm down with potential. For example, in an attempt to incorporate technology into their course work, schools have gone to the "use a computer" to do assignments to educate students on the use of computers since you can't be competitive in the job market if you don't have computer skills. Yet, somehow they expect the same students who probably can't afford a computer to be able to afford things like internet access on top of not having computers in schools that are easily accessible. So how the hell do you expect the students are you suppose to be helping to finish the assignment away from the classroom? Also, please stop talking out of your ass, you clearly have done 0 research on the topic, and just spitting BS based on how you feel. That funding gap myth was disproved only exposed how stupidly terrible the American public education system was on handling issues. It's not (always) the amount of money being spent, but it was how it was being spent. Edit: How do I know all of this? I work in a federally funded program on a college campus that helps first generation/under represented students, helping someone put together their literature for their thesis regarding retainment among groups of students, and actually sit in on meetings regarding these topics. "How do [you] explain the fact that Black students from families with incomes of $80,000 to $100,000 score considerably lower on the SAT than White students from families with $20,000 to $30,000 incomes? "How do [you] explain why social class factors, all taken together, only cut the Black-White achievement gap by a third? "Culture-only theory cannot predict these facts; often its predictions are opposite to the empirical results." Rushton, J. P., & Jensen, A. R. (2005). Wanted: More race-realism, less moralistic fallacy. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 11, 328-336. | ||
|
harlock78
United States94 Posts
If you were good enough, you would get into the university you wish. The world is quite unfair, for most people, and being bitter about it won't help you. Now whether or not affirmative action is justified or beneficial for society is a valid question. The answer would differ depending on the country, how it deals with inequalities of life chances, and how society is structured. But personal resentment is quite pathetic. | ||
|
bugser
61 Posts
On June 25 2013 08:10 harlock78 wrote: A lot of the crying about affirmative action I am reading sounds like balance whine in gold league. If you were good enough, you would get into the university you wish. The world is quite unfair, for most people, and being bitter about it won't help you. Now whether or not affirmative action is justified or beneficial for society is a valid question. The answer would differ depending on the country, how it deals with inequalities of life chances, and how society is structured. But personal resentment is quite pathetic. "Is discrimination on the basis of race justified or beneficial for society?" Doesn't sound like a valid question to me. The answer is "no". | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On June 25 2013 08:10 harlock78 wrote: A lot of the crying about affirmative action I am reading sounds like balance whine in gold league. If you were good enough, you would get into the university you wish. The world is quite unfair, for most people, and being bitter about it won't help you. Now whether or not affirmative action is justified or beneficial for society is a valid question. The answer would differ depending on the country, how it deals with inequalities of life chances, and how society is structured. But personal resentment is quite pathetic. I wouldn't blame people for thinking that it's bullshit that they were denied entry to a school or a job simply because they have the wrong skin color. It really isn't better than when whites universally discriminated against other races in scholastic admissions and employment. The only difference is the reason for the policy. Affirmative action exists to make up for a historical wrong, and nothing more. This "good intention" doesn't change the fact that it is a rather shitty policy for those who get screwed by it. | ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On June 25 2013 03:46 NEOtheONE wrote: This is the primary issue with AA. It tries to treat a symptom without addressing the real problem. The real issue is that schools are grossly disproportionate in level of funding due to the primary source of funding coming from the local level. Low income neighborhoods have low income schools, which have underfunded education programs. The education system is "going to hell in a hand basket" in the US. And it will continue to get worse until we change how public schools are funded. I can't say that I buy the funding argument, at least not in MA. One of the best education systems in the world too, according to TIMSS (for example). Here social issues seem to be the bigger challenge. | ||
|
Judicator
United States7270 Posts
On June 25 2013 08:28 JonnyBNoHo wrote: I can't say that I buy the funding argument, at least not in MA. One of the best education systems in the world too, according to TIMSS (for example). Here social issues seem to be the bigger challenge. It's not as much as social issues, but how the education system sometimes make 0 fucking sense. @Bugser Did you actually read that pretty awful article? It refused to cite the stuff you posted despite citing everything else. Then using African studies where education is probably not that high on the priorities list all the time. Then on top of suggesting from limited studies that there's an 80-20 split. It doesn't look at the methods of any of the studies and assumes they're well designed studies. I have no clue how robust the social sciences statistics are, but it seems to be especially loose in that article which makes me question how the hell anyone can draw any kind of conclusions from what they're looking at. | ||
|
remedium
United States939 Posts
Salient points: - Strict scrutiny is the standard of review (most difficult standard for govt to show validity of law) - Race may be used as a factor (per precedent), but it may not be a quota or ratio, and it must meet strict scrutiny in both practice and implementation - The 5th Cir. Ct. App. erred in its decision by "deferring" to the University's expertise and good faith, when it should have required a strict scrutiny analysis - The Court may be hinting that it is open to striking down Grutter, but it needs a petitioner who actually asks the right questions THIS IS THE IMPORTANT POINT: Many (many!) media outlets have reported that the Court "punted" on affirmative action by vacating the 5th Cir. opinion and remanding this case. This shows a lack of understanding on behalf of the media. The Supreme Court will almost always rule as narrowly as possible - if they can avoid a broad constitutional issue and strike at a technical one, they will do it. In this case, the standard of review was incorrect, and that gave the Court the narrow decision it typically looks for. The "case" at hand is actually the result of cross-motions for summary judgment - that is to say, both parties told the district court that the other side 'has no case' and is substantially unlikely to prevail at trial. The district court agreed with the University of Texas, e.g. the defendant (district court), e.g. the respondent (Supreme Court), and dismissed the plaintiff's (Fisher) case. This case has never gone to trial on the merits. The result of the remand is that a lower court will now be obliged to rule on the facts of the case and make a determination based on the standard articulated in the Supreme Court's opinion - a standard of strict scrutiny. Let me be very clear: strict scrutiny is an incredibly difficult standard for the government to meet. + Show Spoiler [ relevant quotes from the opinion] + pg 9-10 Grutter made clear that racial “classifications are consti- tutional only if they are narrowly tailored to further com- pelling governmental interests.” 539 U. S., at 326. And Grutter endorsed Justice Powell’s conclusion in Bakke that “the attainment of a diverse student body . . . is a consti- tutionally permissible goal for an institution of higher education.” 438 U.S., at 311–312 (separate opinion). Thus, under Grutter, strict scrutiny must be applied to any admissions program using racial categories or classifications. pg 10 Narrow tailoring also requires that the reviewing court verify that it is “necessary” for a university to use race to achieve the educational benefits of diversity. Bakke, supra, at 305. This involves a careful judicial inquiry into whether a university could achieve sufficient diversity without using racial classifications. Although “[n]arrow tailoring does not require exhaustion of every conceivable race-neutral alternative,” strict scrutiny does require a court to examine with care, and not defer to, a university’s “serious, good faith consideration of workable race-neutral alternatives.” pg 11 The reviewing court must ultimately be satisfied that no workable race-neutral alternatives would produce the edu- cational benefits of diversity. If “‘a nonracial approach . . . could promote the substantial interest about as well and at tolerable administrative expense,’” Wygant v. Jackson Bd. of Ed., 476 U. S. 267, 280, n. 6 (1986) (quoting Greenawalt, Judicial Scrutiny of “Benign” Racial Prefer- ence in Law School Admissions, 75 Colum. L. Rev. 559, 578–579 (1975)), then the university may not consider race. pg 11 Rather than perform this searching examination, how- ever, the Court of Appeals held petitioner could challenge only “whether [the University’s] decision to reintroduce race as a factor in admissions was made in good faith.” 631 F. 3d, at 236. And in considering such a challenge, the court would “presume the University acted in good faith” and place on petitioner the burden of rebutting that presumption. Id., at 231–232. The Court of Appeals held that to “second-guess the merits” of this aspect of the University’s decision was a task it was “ill-equipped to perform” and that it would attempt only to “ensure that [the University’s] decision to adopt a race-conscious ad- missions policy followed from [a process of] good faith consideration.” Id., at 231. The Court of Appeals thus concluded that “the narrow-tailoring inquiry—like the compelling-interest inquiry—is undertaken with a degree of deference to the Universit[y].” Id., at 232. Because “the efforts of the University have been studied, serious, and of high purpose,” the Court of Appeals held that the use of race in the admissions program fell within “a constitution- ally protected zone of discretion.” Id., at 231. pg 12 In Grutter, the Court approved the plan at issue upon concluding that it was not a quota, was sufficiently flexible, was limited in time, and followed “serious, good faith consideration of workable race-neutral alternatives.” 539 U. S., at 339. As noted above, see supra, at 1, the parties do not challenge, and the Court therefore does not consider, the correctness of that determination. (emphasis added) pg 12 The District Court and Court of Appeals confined the strict scrutiny inquiry in too narrow a way by deferring to the University’s good faith in its use of racial classifica- tions and affirming the grant of summary judgment on that basis. The Court vacates that judgment, but fairness to the litigants and the courts that heard the case requires that it be remanded so that the admissions process can be considered and judged under a correct analysis. See Adarand, supra, at 237. Unlike Grutter, which was decided after trial, this case arises from cross-motions for sum- mary judgment. In this case, as in similar cases, in de- termining whether summary judgment in favor of the University would be appropriate, the Court of Appeals must assess whether the University has offered sufficient evidence that would prove that its admissions program is narrowly tailored to obtain the educational benefits of diversity. (emphasis added) Whether this record—and not “simple . . . as- surances of good intention,” Croson, supra, at 500—is sufficient is a question for the Court of Appeals in the first instance. pg 13 Strict scrutiny must not be “ ‘strict in theory, but fatal in fact,’” Adarand, supra, at 237; see also Grutter, supra, at 326. But the opposite is also true. Strict scrutiny must not be strict in theory but feeble in fact. In order for judi- cial review to be meaningful, a university must make a showing that its plan is narrowly tailored to achieve the only interest that this Court has approved in this context: the benefits of a student body diversity that “encompasses a . . . broa[d] array of qualifications and characteristics of which racial or ethnic origin is but a single though im- portant element.” Bakke, 438 U. S., at 315 (opinion of Powell, J.). The judgment of the Court of Appeals is va- cated, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. | ||
|
Livelovedie
United States492 Posts
On June 25 2013 08:15 xDaunt wrote: I wouldn't blame people for thinking that it's bullshit that they were denied entry to a school or a job simply because they have the wrong skin color. It really isn't better than when whites universally discriminated against other races in scholastic admissions and employment. The only difference is the reason for the policy. Affirmative action exists to make up for a historical wrong, and nothing more. This "good intention" doesn't change the fact that it is a rather shitty policy for those who get screwed by it. This isn't true... Affirmative action exists to also have a representative sample of an area. | ||
|
Deleted User 3420
24492 Posts
On June 25 2013 08:02 bugser wrote: "Those sibling differences [in IQ] are due mostly to the genetic differences among siblings, because their genotypes correlate only 0.5 on average... [The exceptions are identical twins. Their IQ's are much more similar because their genomes are the same.] Large IQ differences among siblings in turn produce large differences among them in school achievement and life outcomes. Those differences, in fact, are almost as large as those found between strangers whose IQs differ to the same degree." Equal potential: A collective fraud. Society, 37(5), 19-28(PDF) "How do [you] explain the fact that Black students from families with incomes of $80,000 to $100,000 score considerably lower on the SAT than White students from families with $20,000 to $30,000 incomes? "How do [you] explain why social class factors, all taken together, only cut the Black-White achievement gap by a third? "Culture-only theory cannot predict these facts; often its predictions are opposite to the empirical results." Rushton, J. P., & Jensen, A. R. (2005). Wanted: More race-realism, less moralistic fallacy. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 11, 328-336. wait wait wait, let's say this is correct and that your 2nd paragraph actually correlates to the first you are suggesting we should limit opportunities based on generalities? otherwise what is your purpose in posting this, to stir shit up? anyone who thinks there are no difference in the brain makeup of one race compared to another is naive and/or ignorant. however, that is incredibly poor justification for enacting or changing policy that limits the opportunities for an individual of that race. There are plenty of geniuses from any given race, just like there are plenty of idiots of any given race. There are countless potentially exceptional black kids from the ghetto who maybe could have done a little bit better in school if they were brought up in a different household. Affirmative action is about opportunity. The question is about whether or not the 're-balancing' of opportunity is fair. This racist crap you are talking about is irrelevant. | ||
|
Jerubaal
United States7684 Posts
| ||
|
Livelovedie
United States492 Posts
On June 25 2013 09:37 Jerubaal wrote: It's easy to look at this as strictly a racial issue, but really it points to the horribleness of the college admission process. Admission should be based on academic merit and dedication, not who can concoct the best sob story for their admissions essay. Why? The kids with the best grades aren't always the most successful. No other thing in life is purely objective so why should college admissions be? | ||
|
FabledIntegral
United States9232 Posts
On June 25 2013 09:42 Livelovedie wrote: Why? The kids with the best grades aren't always the most successful. No other thing in life is purely objective so why should college admissions be? It is however, one of the best possible defining signals that one can go off of, and at the same time is probably the most economically feasible. You expect a one on one interview with each applicant or something? | ||
|
bugser
61 Posts
On June 25 2013 09:35 travis wrote: wait wait wait, let's say this is correct and that your 2nd paragraph actually correlates to the first you are suggesting we should limit opportunities based on generalities? otherwise what is your purpose in posting this, to stir shit up? I'm saying everyone should be treated fairly without regard to their race. My purpose in posting evidence that equal outcomes wouldn't exist in a completely fair meritocratic society is to demonstrate just that. On June 25 2013 09:35 travis wrote: anyone who thinks there are no difference in the brain makeup of one race compared to another is naive and/or ignorant. however, that is incredibly poor justification for enacting or changing policy that limits the opportunities for an individual of that race. I agree. Laws (such as affirmative action, or disparate impact) which permit or even mandate racial discrimination are completely indefensible. On June 25 2013 09:35 travis wrote: There are countless potentially exceptional black kids from the ghetto who maybe could have done a little bit better in school if they were brought up in a different household. Regardless of how heartwarming it is to imagine such a thing--or even watch hollywood movies with a fictional portrayal of it--reality does not bear this out. The IQ of African-Americans does not improve at all when adopted by middle class White families. Adopted children actually have no correlation at all to their adoptive parents. Their correlation to their genetic parents is just as strong as it would be if they were actually raised by them. I know how disheartening this can be to some people. I myself grappled with the disappointment that comes from learning about genetics and heritability. It's like the difference between believing that you live forever in paradise after you die (wishful thinking) and accepting that you just decay and stop functioning (reality). No matter how unfortunate or disappointing reality is, we should tackle it head on. Basing policy on fantasy is awful. Imagine how you would feel if a politician advocated killing people on the basis that they "go to a better place" (heaven). That is how I feel when I see people advocate racial discrimination (affirmative action, disparate impact) on the basis that we should have equal outcomes. On June 25 2013 09:35 travis wrote: Affirmative action is about opportunity. The question is about whether or not the 're-balancing' of opportunity is fair. This racist crap you are talking about is irrelevant. Affirmative action is about outcomes. Fair treatment is about opportunity. | ||
|
Phael
United States281 Posts
On June 25 2013 09:42 Livelovedie wrote: Why? The kids with the best grades aren't always the most successful. No other thing in life is purely objective so why should college admissions be? That's why there's a whole bunch of other requirements when filling out a college application. The personal statement/essay, recommendations, SAT scores, etc. I know that if I were to have applied with only my grades as proof of my intelligence, I'd have been denied from almost every school I apped to. anyone who thinks there are no difference in the brain makeup of one race compared to another is naive and/or ignorant. however, that is incredibly poor justification for enacting or changing policy that limits the opportunities for an individual of that race. There are plenty of geniuses from any given race, just like there are plenty of idiots of any given race. There are countless potentially exceptional black kids from the ghetto who maybe could have done a little bit better in school if they were brought up in a different household. Affirmative action is about opportunity. The question is about whether or not the 're-balancing' of opportunity is fair. This racist crap you are talking about is irrelevant. Well, this is only anecdotal data, but I think it's somewhat relevant. I TA'd for four years in the College of Engineering @ UC Berkeley, arguably the top engineering university in the world (well, right up there with MIT & CalTech at least), and of the few hundred students we accepted each year, I'd at least (visually) see about 90% of them. In those 4 years and thousands of the brightest students in the world, I met exactly one black kid - he actually was in my class - and he flunked out after the first semester. Logically, I recognize that there may be outliers for any sample of data, and maybe I was just (un)lucky enough to never have met a black genius, but the school would have been much poorer if there were a quota of the number of blacks required to be admitted. Why should standards be lowered for a specific race, just because they tend to perform poorly? The baskets in NBA games don't get lowered automatically when an Asian is in possession of the ball, and the 100 meter dash doesn't get shortened to 95 meters for white competitors. Why is school so different? | ||
|
Jerubaal
United States7684 Posts
On June 25 2013 09:42 Livelovedie wrote: Why? The kids with the best grades aren't always the most successful. No other thing in life is purely objective so why should college admissions be? The impossibility of perfection is no excuse for awfulness. The current system is literally whoever can bullshit the best wins. Part of the problem is that, especially for Liberal Arts, there is no way to differentiate yourself. You are forced to participate in useless activities like Model U.N. and Student Council to beef up your resume. Who cares if you're read every Faulkner book? The school can't fail everyone who can barely stagger through To Kill a Mockingbird to make you look comparatively better. | ||
|
S:klogW
Austria657 Posts
| ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On June 25 2013 09:16 Livelovedie wrote: This isn't true... Affirmative action exists to also have a representative sample of an area. No, that's the more recent cop out (more accurately, the cop out is that affirmative action exists for the sake of ensuring diversity -- not even representative diversity -- in an academic environment). Affirmative action started as a social justice tool and continues to exist as a social justice tool. EDIT: What I am saying isn't any big secret. Anyone who has a graduate education or has otherwise spent a lot of time with the smug assholes running higher academia know all of this to be self-evident. They brag about it openly. They think that they are doing something good, so they go out of their way to pat each other on the back. It's really sick. | ||
|
zbedlam
Australia549 Posts
On June 25 2013 09:59 Phael wrote: That's why there's a whole bunch of other requirements when filling out a college application. The personal statement/essay, recommendations, SAT scores, etc. I know that if I were to have applied with only my grades as proof of my intelligence, I'd have been denied from almost every school I apped to. Well, this is only anecdotal data, but I think it's somewhat relevant. I TA'd for four years in the College of Engineering @ UC Berkeley, arguably the top engineering university in the world (well, right up there with MIT & CalTech at least), and of the few hundred students we accepted each year, I'd at least (visually) see about 90% of them. In those 4 years and thousands of the brightest students in the world, I met exactly one black kid - he actually was in my class - and he flunked out after the first semester. Logically, I recognize that there may be outliers for any sample of data, and maybe I was just (un)lucky enough to never have met a black genius, but the school would have been much poorer if there were a quota of the number of blacks required to be admitted. Why should standards be lowered for a specific race, just because they tend to perform poorly? The baskets in NBA games don't get lowered automatically when an Asian is in possession of the ball, and the 100 meter dash doesn't get shortened to 95 meters for white competitors. Why is school so different? Because minorities have been raging about being oppressed by evil white people for a long time now, and colleges want to look good by showing how philanthropic they are by representing said minorities. Giving opportunities to minorities is a great idea, but assimilation and removal of ghettos is a far better option than this. | ||
|
Judicator
United States7270 Posts
On June 25 2013 09:54 bugser wrote: I'm saying everyone should be treated fairly without regard to their race. My purpose in posting evidence that equal outcomes wouldn't exist in a completely fair meritocratic society is to demonstrate just that. I agree. Laws (such as affirmative action, or disparate impact) which permit or even mandate racial discrimination are completely indefensible. Regardless of how heartwarming it is to imagine such a thing--or even watch hollywood movies with a fictional portrayal of it--reality does not bear this out. The IQ of African-Americans does not improve at all when adopted by middle class White families. Adopted children actually have no correlation at all to their adoptive parents. Their correlation to their genetic parents is just as strong as it would be if they were actually raised by them. I know how disheartening this can be to some people. I myself grappled with the disappointment that comes from learning about genetics and heritability. It's like the difference between believing that you live forever in paradise after you die (wishful thinking) and accepting that you just decay and stop functioning (reality). No matter how unfortunate or disappointing reality is, we should tackle it head on. Basing policy on fantasy is awful. Imagine how you would feel if a politician advocated killing people on the basis that they "go to a better place" (heaven). That is how I feel when I see people advocate racial discrimination (affirmative action, disparate impact) on the basis that we should have equal outcomes. Affirmative action is about outcomes. Fair treatment is about opportunity. So, yeah. You should do some research before making claims about genetics and heritable traits. The stuff your spewing is pretty laughable among neurobiologists. Whatever revolutionary breakthrough you underwent while discovering behaviorism is what everyone already went through with Skinner, you aren't breaking any new ground, so slow down there. Also, it would be wise to post actual decent evidence and not that pretty flimsy piece you posted earlier. | ||
| ||
