"Discrimination".

Robert Roeser wrote: You're side stepping the question of why it is ok to take money from one group of people and give it to another by force. It's not ok to take someones life by force, it's not ok to take someone's liberties by force, than why can you take someone's property by force? What's the point he got fired; problem solved. Do we need a new special law that will waste money - so the politicians can show they are doing something about the problem? Should we create a task force, and a witch hunt? Should we water board him until he thinks its ok for black and white people to get married? Maybe its because there isn't enough black judges? Maybe there are black judges out there that don't like black men marring white women... - or - if the government didn't control marriage people would be free to marry whom ever they wanted? Why should we ever let anyone decide what we should do with our lives?

Robert:

The issue of taking money from one group to give to another by force works both ways. Some of your tax dollars goes to support the poor and some of your tax dollars go to support super-wealthy corporations. Certain people only seem to get upset when the money goes to the less fortunate.

It is okay in certain circumstances to take somebody's life by force. That can range from justifiable homicide to the imposition of the death penalty by the state.

It is okay in certain circumstances to take somebody's liberty by force. That is commonly called incarceration by either a state or the federal government. Heck, INS can hold you for awhile without even having to level a charge against you.

It is okay in certain circumstances to take your property by force (as Ron pointed out) and that is called eminent domain.

Your proposed solutions to the "injustice of peace" sounds a lot like the attitude and policies of the last administration. If you really do not like anyone deciding what you should do, then I would recommend that you buy your own island and live on it by yourself. In a world of people living together, structures get created that do exactly what you complain about. That can range from a dating relationship to a government.

Regards,

Marc Abrams

That can range from a dating relationship to a government.

I'm not sure which one of those is easier to control...

Best,
Ron

Ron Tisdale wrote: No, I am not. I presented a view that maybe it's time to re-evaluate some things, and I supported another poster's suggestion that is may be time to look at presenting opportunities to people based on need. Not taking money away from people...universities award grants from a pool of money that is most likely from a combination of sources. If they allocate that money based simply on economic need...exactly who is getting money "taken away from them"?

From tax payers...for wars, welfare, gov't largess, foreign 'aid', etc. A private entity (person, university, charity, non-profit) giving away money of there own free will is fine, but no one should force you. If it's a public university then the entrance criteria should be equal for everyone.

Ron Tisdale wrote: If I chose to discuss the topic at hand in a sensitive manner, how is that "sidestepping"? Even if it is...what is wrong with sidestepping, per se? We do it in martial arts all the time. Sometimes it's quite effective.

In order to give money to someone based on economics or race it has to be taken from someone else. People always address the giving, but never the taking.

Ron Tisdale wrote: Good question...why don't you ask the supremes about immenent domain? Let me know their answer...

Emminet domain is spelled out in the fifth amendment, and they have to provide just compensation. It's limited to public use. They can't take your land, give you nothing, and than give the land to Haliburton, or Acorn. The gov't can tax income on you because of the 16th amendment. My understanding is that it was originally passed on the promise that it was only used to tax rich people, after the Supreme Court found income taxes unconsititutional. However they are still only supposed to spend money on the general welfar (ie, everyone) which they don't....How is giving aid money to pakistan the general welfare?

Ron Tisdale wrote: Uh, actually, re-read the article...he has not been fired yet.

I thought I read today that Gov. Jindal fired him. Sorry.

Ron Tisdale wrote: I suggest you are using hyperbole because your arguement is weak. Otherwise, it would stand on it's own without drawing in other (in your view, more button pushing) issues.

It's not hyperbole. It's in the Declaration of Indepence:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Which pretty much lifted from Locke:
"All mankind... being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty or possessions."

I'm not pushing buttons, I want to know why people think it's ok? Locke didn't, and he was certainly influencetion with the founders.

Ron Tisdale wrote: Good point...let anarchy reign.

The legitatment function of the US government is to protect your liberties. That doesn't mean 'let anarchy reign'. If what you are doing infringes on the liberties of others the government, which is force, has the duty to protect those liberties (like fire that judge). It doesn't however have the right to tell you what to do or think.

Later,
Robert

Well, I am certainly not smart enough to answer all the ills of America in this one thread. How 'bout we stick to the Affirmative Action portion of the current discussion?

It's not hyperbole. It's in the Declaration of Indepence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Your current quote is...your previous statements were not. I don't think we have much disagreement there.

I'm not pushing buttons, I want to know why people think it's ok? Locke didn't, and he was certainly influencetion with the founders.

Well simply ask, and if I can, I will answer.

I think it is ok for the government, in some limited cases, to address wrongs committed during the time that government was in power (I am referring to the overall power structure, not a particular time one party or another was in power). Things like that which come to mind are racial discrimination as in slavery and its aftermath and the confinement of American citizens to camps during WWII. The govenment actively supported those things for many years. It FAILED to do what (according to those recent quotes) it should have done. In so failing, it fostered an environment that in my mind, NECESSITATED remediation. I think this is evidenced by how long those conditions continued even in the face of slowly changing mores.

BUT...when does the time for such remediation (especially at the expense of others not at fault, who are not even beneficiaries of the flawed system) end?

I personally find that to be a valid and interesting topic for discussion, and an area where it is likely some change is needed.

It doesn't however have the right to tell you what to do or think.

Hmmm, no one seems to be telling either of us what to think. What to do however...until the tax man is out of our pockets...that one is problematic. Not to mention that some actions the govenment proscribes as harmfull to society I personally have no problem with what so ever. Oh well...life is hard.

Gotta run take care of the parents, have a good night!

Best,
Ron

Marc Abrams wrote: The issue of taking money from one group to give to another by force works both ways. Some of your tax dollars goes to support the poor and some of your tax dollars go to support super-wealthy corporations.

[/quote]
How about we stop using force to give money to either groups of people?

Marc Abrams wrote: Certain people only seem to get upset when the money goes to the less fortunate.

I don't. Corpritism and the welfare state go hand and hand.

Marc Abrams wrote: It is okay in certain circumstances to take somebody's life by force. That can range from justifiable homicide to the imposition of the death penalty by the state. It is okay in certain circumstances to take somebody's liberty by force. That is commonly called incarceration by either a state or the federal government. Heck, INS can hold you for awhile without even having to level a charge against you.

Of course you have a right to defend yourself. If I do something that infringes on someones natural rights I should punished. A far as the death penalty goes, I'm not a fan. I don't there is ever a good reaon for taking a life, unless you have to defend yourself.

Marc Abrams wrote: Your proposed solutions to the "injustice of peace" sounds a lot like the attitude and policies of the last administration.

No. I don't want marriage to be an issue of the state. There is no reason to give out a marriage license other then control or income. If two guys, two women, black guy/white girl, whatever want to get married, I don't care. It's not my business.

Marc Abrams wrote: If you really do not like anyone deciding what you should do, then I would recommend that you buy your own island and live on it by yourself. In a world of people living together, structures get created that do exactly what you complain about. That can range from a dating relationship to a government.

Or I respect people's choices, and as long as they don't infringe on my liberties I don't care what they do? The difference between dating, and the government is I entire into the 'contract' of my own free will, and can leave of my own free will. The government does serve a legitimate function but being a 'parent' is not one of them.

Later,
Robert

Marc Abrams wrote: The issue of taking money from one group to give to another by force works both ways. Some of your tax dollars goes to support the poor and some of your tax dollars go to support super-wealthy corporations.

[/quote]
How about we stop using force to give money to either groups of people?

Marc Abrams wrote: Certain people only seem to get upset when the money goes to the less fortunate.

I don't. Corpritism and the welfare state go hand and hand.

Marc Abrams wrote: It is okay in certain circumstances to take somebody's life by force. That can range from justifiable homicide to the imposition of the death penalty by the state. It is okay in certain circumstances to take somebody's liberty by force. That is commonly called incarceration by either a state or the federal government. Heck, INS can hold you for awhile without even having to level a charge against you.

Of course you have a right to defend yourself. If I do something that infringes on someones natural rights I should punished. A far as the death penalty goes, I'm not a fan. I don't there is ever a good reaon for taking a life, unless you have to defend yourself.

Marc Abrams wrote: Your proposed solutions to the "injustice of peace" sounds a lot like the attitude and policies of the last administration.

No. I don't want marriage to be an issue of the state. There is no reason to give out a marriage license other then control or income. If two guys, two women, black guy/white girl, whatever want to get married, I don't care. It's not my business.

Marc Abrams wrote: If you really do not like anyone deciding what you should do, then I would recommend that you buy your own island and live on it by yourself. In a world of people living together, structures get created that do exactly what you complain about. That can range from a dating relationship to a government.

Or I respect people's choices, and as long as they don't infringe on my liberties I don't care what they do? The difference between dating, and the government is I entire into the 'contract' of my own free will, and can leave of my own free will. The government does serve a legitimate function but being a 'parent' is not one of them.

Later,
Robert

Robert Roeser wrote: Why is it ok to take money from one group of people by force and give it to another group of people?

Why is it ever ok for anyone to impose their will on anyone else? Yet we do it all the time and call it ok; good even. We as a nation impose our wills upon all sorts of places all across the globe...and in the name of the greater good. Is the greater good more valuable than individual good? Most people only seem to think so when it suits their individual purposes. That's probably a little cynical on my part, but I'll be a monkey's uncle if I don't see almost every day.
I think it is a dangerous action to redistribute wealth, but dangerous isn't always bad. I can see how government funds, money which is already taken by force through taxes, could be applied to help people who are born into a situation where they have less means. I believe the only authentic purpose of government is to ensure some standard of living and I believe that where people are found to be lacking in that regard, it should make efforts to help. Perhaps there is a better way than using money, but I look right here in the Rainier Valley areas of the Seattle School Dist. where my wife (a teacher) was given a 50.00 materials fee after paying 25.00 into the PTA (as I recall) and compare that to the significantly higher amount given at the wealthier school she dealt with, and I have to wonder why the kids who live in a poorer neighborhood must have less resources. Clearly that's not an equal playing field.
If anything, I tend to believe those places need more resources than the wealthy neighborhoods in order to combat the relative hole these kids start out in compared to their wealthier neighbors...not to mention the other negative influences which tend to infest relatively impoverished areas so readily.

Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. --George Washington

And yet he was our first president president (and has the best birthday I might add). So government is somewhat nefarious and yet he supported it by acting as one of its most powerful agents. If anything I think you're making my point for me that we can engage in dangerous activities for a greater good. It's dangerous sure, but it can be good too. The devil is in the details and I submit the problem isn't a matter of whether government is involved, it's a matter of social ethics...not taking more than you need, or at least giving what can be spared when you see someone else who is in greater need than you.
BUT...that's my belief. I believe for a society to be strong it must have a strong other-regarding set of behaviors or it ceases to be social and as I see it, the only reason mankind has progressed as far as it has is because of our ability to work and learn together.
Anyhow, before I get to rambling on tangents...
Cheers,
Matt

BTW.... here's a good example of what "equality" always comes out to be:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle6879553.ece

Mike Sigman wrote: BTW.... here's a good example of what "equality" always comes out to be: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle6879553.ece

A Perfect example of discrimination on your part...Where I come from the Clinical Term and Logical Fallacy is known as Selective Perception and is typical of most internet debates....You ignore any data/facts that does not support your side of the argument and voice your "side" as an absolute aka "ALWAYS comes out to be"...All good Debates give the speakers the ability to argue BOTH sides of the topic (That made debates such a blast in college...you never knew what side of the debate you were going to be judged on first and always had to argue both sides!!! LOL)

Thank God we have a policy maker in the White House and master of finding fact through his use of the Trivium to explore solutions to such issues as health care.

The Last President thought the Trivium was a three cheese pizza.

Now if you're goal was to illustrate the fact folks use absolute rhetorical phrases as a means to proof their arguments and that is a form of discrimination well....

I dig what you're saying man.

William Hazen

Robert Roeser wrote: A private entity (person, university, charity, non-profit) giving away money of there own free will is fine, but no one should force you.

Does this mean you want the US and Europe to repay South America and Africa for the gold and the people that were forcefully taken from them? Should the U.S. give all of its land back to the Native Americans?
How far back do you want to go to right all the wrongs that have been committed? Or do we forget about the past and be thankful we're on the rich side of the fence?

Ron Tisdale wrote: I think it is ok for the government, in some limited cases, to address wrongs committed during the time that government was in power (I am referring to the overall power structure, not a particular time one party or another was in power). Things like that which come to mind are racial discrimination as in slavery and its aftermath and the confinement of American citizens to camps during WWII. The government actively supported those things for many years. It FAILED to do what (according to those recent quotes) it should have done. In so failing, it fostered an environment that in my mind, NECESSITATED remediation. I think this is evidenced by how long those conditions continued even in the face of slowly changing mores.

When the US govt payed the Japanese reparations they gave it directly to the people effected. Not the ancestors of the people effected from ancestors of people that did something horrible. If we're going to blame ancestors why not go back, and demand money from the Dutch, Portuguese, and British? Should we give people of Irish decent money for the horrible treatment the received during the 1800's?

Later,
Robert

Robert Roeser wrote: Should we give people of Irish decent money for the horrible treatment the received during the 1800's?

Yes please! No wait . . . let's see my Dutch and British parts would have to pay my Irish part? I think my Native American part might have a few words to say about that . . . my German and Scottish parts appear to be planning something as well but I can't determine what just yet.

Robert Roeser wrote: When the US govt payed the Japanese reparations they gave it directly to the people effected. Not the ancestors of the people effected from ancestors of people that did something horrible. If we're going to blame ancestors why not go back, and demand money from the Dutch, Portuguese, and British? Should we give people of Irish decent money for the horrible treatment the received during the 1800's? Later, Robert

Does that mean I won't get mine? You see, people from Europe were routinely captured & sold into slavery by African's back in the day: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/140...cm_rdp_product, & I was hoping to get some.

Please note that *I* did not mention reparations as in MONEY specifically. Remediation is correcting a situation which is incorrect. How people choose to do that MAY involve money, or it may not. If it involves money, it MAY involve paying money to individuals, or it may not.

I like the way you guys put words in other peoples mouths. If you don't want to have a serious conversation, but just to give the White Man's Gripe, just say so. Otherwise...

Best,
Ron

Robert Roeser wrote: When the US govt payed the Japanese reparations they gave it directly to the people effected. Not the ancestors of the people effected from ancestors of people that did something horrible. If we're going to blame ancestors why not go back, and demand money from the Dutch, Portuguese, and British? Should we give people of Irish decent money for the horrible treatment the received during the 1800's? Later, Robert

I don't think it's about blame. This isn't punitive. This is recognizing that groups of people were put in a bad situation over such a long period of time that simply removing the negative bias isn't enough for returning them to a "fair" state. Obviously the specifics of what that means are debatable, but the simple fact is that in some groups poverty is as heavily pervasive as it is because they were sytematically attacked and stolen from. When after two hundred years or more of overt and subversive discrimination those groups remain the poorest people in the nation, I believe it's not unreasonable to suggest extra resources come from the national collective that is said to be our government. Native reservations are one such example of a set of cultures which I believe deserve reparation-minded action.

Another possible factor to the "why" of AA, albeit a more off-topic one, is crime, which always seems to manifest more readily in poor areas because opportunism becomes a more accepted M.O. So many people think more cops equals less crime and I firmly disagree (knowing a small variety of criminals). It curbs crime a bit, but is a band-aid solution at best. Make it so these economically poor groups have more means than they do (which equates to more resources, including educational systems most notably) and I believe the perceived necessity of crime, and thus it's relative states of tolerance from within those same social groups, will go down.

Matthew Gano wrote: I don't think it's about blame. This isn't punitive. This is recognizing that groups of people were put in a bad situation over such a long period of time that simply removing the negative bias isn't enough for returning them to a "fair" state.

Well, wait a minute.... many Asians who immigrated to the U.S. went through *centuries* of adverse conditions, slavery, and so forth. What about them? Yet statistically, Asians seem to excel by dint of hard work, and so forth. Should we discriminate against them, as in the original post, because we have favorite groups we want to pay back, and so on? In other words, when exactly do you figure to honestly start treating everyone equally and expecting the same work ethic from everyone? Give me a time estimate.

Also there seems to be an undercurrent of "balancing the books". Shouldn't we look at the contributions and costs totally on all sides?

Lastly is the bit about "slavery". In the long view, slavery happened to many peoples, but it's long since gone in the U.S. However, it's still common in Africa, as it has been for centuries. Heck, even various American Indian groups kept slaves from other tribes, if it comes to that, but what about nowadays? Why is it that slavery is so horrible, yet almost no one tries to eradicate it from African countries where it still goes on? Almost not a peep. The topic dies in silence every time it's brought up (as I expect will happen this time... no one truly wants to crusade against slavery, do they?).

My point in the original post was that here are Asians who underwent the worst of conditions yet have worked the hardest and brightest in their efforts and are therefore discriminated against. Did you know that "minorities" are under-represented in the medical doctor ranks in California... because there are so many Asian medical doctors that the politically-correct police decided it was better to count them as "white" so they wouldn't distort the numbers? It's not about discrimination... it's about peoples' favorite causes, which have all the zealotry of religious fundamentalism.

My 2 cents.

Mike Sigman

Mike Sigman wrote: Well, wait a minute.... many Asians who immigrated to the U.S. went through *centuries* of adverse conditions, slavery, and so forth. What about them? Yet statistically, Asians seem to excel by dint of hard work, and so forth...Give me a time estimate.

The specific amount of time isn't the point. Are you saying you don't think the protracted history of racism against different groups of people isn't partly to blame for the general state individuals may find themselves in? I couldn't say exactly why Asians statistically seem to have done better. Do those statistics differentiate between relatively new arrivals and those who have been here for those hundreds of years? Do they articulate anything about what kind of hardship those particular asians endured if any? Ultimately I don't think race should be a factor in accepting applicants to university or anything else, but I am willing to accept the possibility of arguments which address why one might consider it. I think if we're going to attempt to create laws that improve traditionally impoverished groups we need to base the criteria on the present state of individual need.

Should we discriminate against them, as in the original post, because we have favorite groups we want to pay back, and so on? In other words, when exactly do you figure to honestly start treating everyone equally and expecting the same work ethic from everyone?

Certainly not. Demand the same work ethic, absolutely, but find ways to provide adequate access to adequate resources. I'm also saying where we see people in need, let alone whole societies in need (or subcultures/whatever depending on how one wants to classify things), I think it is smart to invest in their wellfare for a variety of reasons.

Also there seems to be an undercurrent of "balancing the books". Shouldn't we look at the contributions and costs totally on all sides?

I'm all for looking at the costs and contributions on all sides and evaluating the proper response based on that. I couldn't say what exactly is the right thing to do. Give one man 10 bucks and he'll use it productively and perhaps learn charity; give it to another man and he learns how to pan-handle; we ought account for both eventualities.

It's not about discrimination... it's about peoples' favorite causes, which have all the zealotry of religious fundamentalism.

I tend to agree. People do like to feel good about themselves and many have little understanding of some of their favorite causes, let alone how they compare to others'.

Matthew Gano wrote: The specific amount of time isn't the point. Are you saying you don't think the protracted history of racism against different groups of people isn't partly to blame for the general state individuals may find themselves in?

Well, I dunno. We have a history in the U.S. of people arriving here with terrible histories of persecution, poor living conditions, etc., and in one generation becoming quite successful. I.e., in one generation people can pull themselves up to the top of the society in the US. Are you suggesting that not all people can do this? I.e., not all people are as able as others? What's that going to do to the theory that everyone is equal? Are you trying to throw a wrench into a close-held belief that people are not like animals but are uniformly capable across the species???

I couldn't say exactly why Asians statistically seem to have done better.

For whatever reason, it's a known fact that they do. Some groups tend to do better on tests (i.e., they figure out the right answers) than others. Should we discriminate against them or 'hold them back' for some politically correct reason which, in effect, discriminates against them and is a slap in the face response to all the hard work they did? Many liberals believe that this is exactly what should be done. Remember, it was liberal institutions that enacted Jewish quotas in our Ivy League colleges.

Do those statistics differentiate between relatively new arrivals and those who have been here for those hundreds of years? Do they articulate anything about what kind of hardship those particular asians endured if any?

There used to be a lot of argument about that in attempts to rationalize it, but ethnic neutral testing seems to indicate that Asians in Asian and emigrants to other countries, not just the U.S. tend to score better than whites and other groups, with the exception of the Ashkenzis Jews. But that information is a digression from the topic at hand. You appear to be looking for a way to justify discriminating against the Asian guy who couldn't get into the college he wanted, despite having scored higher than others who got in.

Ultimately I don't think race should be a factor in accepting applicants to university or anything else, but I am willing to accept the possibility of arguments which address why one might consider it. I think if we're going to attempt to create laws that improve traditionally impoverished groups we need to base the criteria on the present state of individual need.

And effort and ability. Already there are studies showing that letting people in with low admissions scores ultimately doesn't do them a lot of good if they can't compete, can't graduate, can't pass a bar-exam, medical boards, etc. Maybe if we just turned a blind eye to color and let the people who can succeed succeed in whatever field they choose to follow?

I tend to agree. People do like to feel good about themselves and many have little understanding of some of their favorite causes, let alone how they compare to others'.

I think many people don't/can't reason about issues, but instead base their insistences on their beliefs. In some cases the belief is a religious one. In other cases it is a partisan belief which they hold strongly.... but that's just as much a religion as the other one, because they will *insist* that others follow their beliefs.

YMMV

Mike Sigman

True, this is normal for Democrat-controlled Chicago, but it's the sort "equality" stuff that a lot of crooked behavior hides behind:

http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2...champaign.html

Hi Mike,

Lastly is the bit about "slavery". In the long view, slavery happened to many peoples, but it's long since gone in the U.S. However, it's still common in Africa, as it has been for centuries. Heck, even various American Indian groups kept slaves from other tribes, if it comes to that, but what about nowadays? Why is it that slavery is so horrible, yet almost no one tries to eradicate it from African countries where it still goes on? Almost not a peep. The topic dies in silence every time it's brought up (as I expect will happen this time... no one truly wants to crusade against slavery, do they?).

There are groups that DO try to eradicate it. I don't know how wide spread the knowledge of that is, but those groups and individuals are out there, and there are many people who want to crusade against it.

One of the worst parts of what goes on now, is that underage girls become slave concubines in many parts of western Africa. Quite frankly, it is despicable, and should be eradicated.

But that really is not the topic of this particular thread...the question here seems to be what actions, if any, are justified in the US to remediate the damage done to specific communities impacted by not only slavery, but years of legal discrimination afterward, up to and including the burning down of entire African American towns.

I'm not sure that comparisons between the misery of groups is really at the crux of the arguments. The question is, of the groups that remain disadvantaged today, what sorts of things can government and society do that make sense?

Personally, paying money to individuals doesn't seem like the way to go. Rewarding the Black middle class through the current Affirmative Action programs doesn't make much sense either.

That's why I agreed with an earlier poster about looking at programs to help specifically economically disadvantaged individuals obtain education.

Best,
Ron

Ron Tisdale wrote: There are groups that DO try to eradicate it. I don't know how wide spread the knowledge of that is, but those groups and individuals are out there, and there are many people who want to crusade against it.

Sure, there are few small groups and some number of individuals who are interested in actually trying to stop slavery, but that percentage of the black population who is so outraged at slavery that they get involved in the effort is miniscule, wouldn't you agree? I.e., the horrific idea of "slavery" seems almost a rallying call than something most people are worried about. The "poor" and "economically disadvantaged"... I dunno. I feel sorry and want to help some percentage of those people and I do. People who got there by their own bad choices, decision not to work, to not finish school, etc., I don't feel particularly sorry for. If you put out a safety-net that rewards poor choices, you'll never correct the amount of non-productive people relying on the work of others. Should everyone in your dojo be given a shodan even though they didn't do the work?

One of the worst parts of what goes on now, is that underage girls become slave concubines in many parts of western Africa. Quite frankly, it is despicable, and should be eradicated.

I agree. Now how about that Asian guy who busted his butt but got passed over in favor of people who didn't put in the amount of hard work he did... or who weren't as smart? Is that a fair situation?

But that really is not the topic of this particular thread...the question here seems to be what actions, if any, are justified in the US to remediate the damage done to specific communities impacted by not only slavery, but years of legal discrimination afterward, up to and including the burning down of entire African American towns.

"Remediate"? Shouldn't we do a full accounting of how much has been done to whom and how much it has cost society, etc., if we're going to talk about balancing the books? Should we do reparations to Asians who get passed over by Yugoslavians who get into colleges when they didn't do the work? How much reparations has already been done, BTW? It appears that you're talking about blacks getting some form of reparations. I think most blacks in this country are not really derived from blacks whose ancestors were slaves in America... should all blacks get reparations? Tricky topic. Maybe it would be worth developing on another thread. I'm more interested in the selective definition of what "discrimination" is. It seems to be a matter of whose ox is being gored, doesn't it?

I'm not sure that comparisons between the misery of groups is really at the crux of the arguments. The question is, of the groups that remain disadvantaged today, what sorts of things can government and society do that make sense?

What can they do themselves, those groups? Let's compare the performance of various groups to the same groups overseas and compare the success ratios in order to be sure what the problem is. In the case of the Asians (particularly Chinese and Japanese), their performance as a group seems to be uniformly high all over the world.

Personally, paying money to individuals doesn't seem like the way to go. Rewarding the Black middle class through the current Affirmative Action programs doesn't make much sense either.

There's no easy answer, Ron. I could argue either side, but there still wouldn't be an easy answer. In terms of humans as animals and looking at adaptive survival mechanisms, there's obviously going to be some differents between groups that evolved in different areas, each group as survival as possible for the given conditions. I think what the problem is is that there is an almost religious belief that "evolutions works but it doesn't really apply to humans". Until society works that out, there will always contention. BTW, what's interesting is how various countries handle this problem; not just the U.S.

FWIW

Mike

Mike Sigman wrote: Given the number of times I've seen the word "racist" on AikiWeb, I thought this would be a good thought-starter about the scope of what "racism", "racist", and "discrimination" mean. In my opinion, the use of personally-directed words of emotional-index is usually an attempt at coercion. Note the remarks about the Jewish quotas that were in place until relatively recently in many "liberal" elite colleges. I remember reading about those quotas, but I never saw any uproar from the liberal side of the spectrum... and that's telling. http://volokh.com/2009/10/17/asian-a...her-education/ If nothing else, I'm glad to see that some more clinical discussion of the factual issues is beginning to surface.

Mike:

If you are not talking about IT stuff, you seem to be trying to instigate issues because of your clear distaste for liberals, democrats....

In this thread you would like to speak about discrimination and would like to hear more "clinical discussion of factual issues." Step away from your cozy, one-sided intellectual arguments that you proffer and share with us your PERSONAL experiences of discrimination. I would like to hear from you what you have suffered through; what it was like for you; and what you took away from it.

Regards,

Marc Abrams

Marc Abrams wrote: If you are not talking about IT stuff, you seem to be trying to instigate issues because of your clear distaste for liberals, democrats....

So Marc.... why are you trying to change the topic to being about me personally? Do you have something against me personally, or do you think a good way to make an argument is to shift it to ad hominem? If you aren't interested in the subject at hand, that's fine. If you feel that you have to start a discussion about me personally, there are other ways to do it.

Regards,

Mike Sigman

I feel compelled to post on this. FWIW I spent a lot of years working for a company that developed, validated, etc. employment tests. The reason this is relevant is the original article -- stories of people with high scores being turned away in favor of others with lower scores. In the 17 years I worked there there was not one legal challenge to any test I was involved with. None. That was due to rigorous development methods, validation, but also making sure clients using the instruments were doing so in the correct context and didn't forget the "bigger picture".

We have no bigger picture here WRT to the claim here that Asians with higher scores are passed over for admission. Anecdotes are interesting, but you absolutely have to have a more fleshed out picture to scream discrimination.

The first point is that there are *always* many factors involved in selection. Testing is one. One of many. And usually the test is used as a sort of hurdle. What I mean is this -- it isn't that a person with the highest score is absolutely going to be accepted and then you just count backwards until all slots are filled. What it means is that when all the applications arrive the school will likely automatically send "we're sorry, but..." letters to all those below a certain cut score. Voila, the test has done its job -- they just saves hundreds if not thousands of hours dropping out all those who didn't really have a chance anyway. In other words, they didn't make it over the first hurdle. Period. But once you make it over that hurdle of acceptable score, well, then you start looking at all the other things. At this point the the people selecting are now looking at everything else. The scores are no longer all that relevant if at all.

To give an example of a guy I had experience with at a company who was using one of our tests... The guy was irate -- he got a perfect score on the test. So he figured that meant he should be hired right away. But people who had lower scores were taken over him. Why? Well, his interview didn't go well. He was abrasive and rude. Now considering the job was going to involve extensive projects involving collaborative work with a wide variety of people and personalities... that wasn't good.

So could he say the test said he was the most qualified for the job? Sure. If you *only* look at the scores -- absolutely. But no one only looks at the test scores because they're only one part of a much larger picture. If you look at all the job requirements he was actually very poorly suited. It was a shame because he was very talented in the particular area of technical work. But it doesn't matter how good you are if you can't play well with others, especially when playing well with others is also a necessary condition for the job.

Also there is the issue of discrimination (meaning differentiating performance) at very high score levels. The difference between a high score and a really high score isn't all that much usually in terms of predicting success in most any endeavor. Once you get up past a certain point the predictive ability of the test to discriminate among fine levels goes away. So there is a very real question is a score of, say, the 99th percentile on a standardized test is really all that much better than a score of the 90th. The reality is that they both did vastly better than those who scored at or below the 50th percentile. But should we expect that the 99th percentile person is really better than the 90th percentile guy? In terms of the test itself, sure. But in terms of the thing we're testing for, well, all the other factors will overwhelm any differences here. So in reality all those other factors necessary for success in life become vastly more important in order to predict success.

Anyway, I cringe whenever I hear people start to talk about test scores and notions of discrimination. I spent a lot of years doing studies on the very topic and it can be extremely difficult to pinpoint what is really going on because there are simply many more variables involved. Now of course this does not mean discrimination (in a negative sense) isn't happening. Just that it ain't always so "black and white".

So to the original posted article my first question would be "what are *all* the criterion used for admission?" A guy with a super high test scores but shows zero social skills, zero participation in clubs/etc., submits a sample of their writing that shows zero creativity or depth may very well be denied admission in favor of someone with lower test scores but with stellar records otherwise. His high score allowed him to make the initial cut. But once he made the initial cut those test scores may no longer be relevant since other factors come into play. We can discuss whether participation in social clubs, community activities, sports, etc. should be relevant. But those things are taken into account. As are references. As are writing samples. As are transcripts. As are things like "this person rose from horrible adversity and managed to get this far -- what a great choice." sorta deals.

We all knew the geeks in school with zero social skills. And zero street smarts. Often those super high scores would get them better access to higher education, but not always. It's more about getting the foot in the door initially, but after that, there are no guarantees. Especially when there is a huge number to choose from. Educational institutions now more than ever weight test scores as being only a minor part. Sure, you have to score well. But once you get over that hurdle there is still a very long race ahead. And some super high test scorers will have really poorly rounded applications.

So do you want the guy with a well rounded education and high test scores or the guy with no creativity or social skills who scored 5 percentile points higher?

I'll walk away now since the rest of the discussion is well outside my area...

Good points, Keith. However, note that being hired for a job and meeting the various subjective qualifications and needs of an employer are different from qualifications to get into a supposed institute whose main purpose used to be educating people in various subjects. When you take a publicly-funded institute of learning and you allow a small group of people to decide non-legally-mandated criteria, sometimes whimsically, you begin to have a problem that is different from the recognized ability of an employer to pick whom he chooses.

In the case of the Asian guy who was passed over, I'd be interested in seeing if rigorous and objectively-defined criteria were used throughout the selection process. If not, then he was discriminated against.

Good discussion.

Best.

Mike