Affirmative Action Under Trump/Sessions

Have philosophical discussions about politics, law, and government.
Featured Article: Definition of Freedom - What Freedom Means to Me
User avatar
Razblo
Posts: 157
Joined: July 11th, 2017, 8:52 am

Re: Affirmative Action Under Trump/Sessions

Post by Razblo » August 9th, 2017, 5:00 am

Eduk wrote:You keep missing the point. I haven't made any claims about what proportion there should be. I simply said white men were legislating against white people.
You replied it's a control tactic. That's an answer to my question, you don't need to put questions I didn't ask into my mouth.

How is it a control tactic? Do you think it's a fair control tactic? Why would they use this control tactic? These seem to me to be quite important questions deserving of more than a sentence longs worth of answer. Doesn't it trouble you? Wouldn't you like them to stop doing that?
It's a control tactic because it emphasizes and/or creates groups rather than one whole group called 'Americans'. It has the affect of pitching one group against another. Divide in order to rule over the divided. It's an age-old political device.

I'm against 'affirmative action' policy. Am I "troubled' by what I am against? No. I am not beset by what I disagree with. I'm not disturbed or anxious about what I disagree with. I'm just aware of the tactic. This makes me less likely to fall into the trap of racism and group-think.

Eduk
Posts: 1513
Joined: December 8th, 2016, 7:08 am
Favorite Philosopher: Socrates

Re: Affirmative Action Under Trump/Sessions

Post by Eduk » August 9th, 2017, 5:10 am

ah again you miss the point. I didn't ask if you were troubled about being against affirmative action. I asked if you were troubled about the people who made that policy?

You say it's a dividing tactic. Age old. Is that it? You seem a lot more worked up over affirmative action then you do over who legislated for affirmative action. If affirmative action is simply a dividing tactic then why not say that from the start? Aren't you making it divisive by arguing against it as if it's a real thing? If it's only a scam then say so and argue against the people who are legislating the scam.

User avatar
Razblo
Posts: 157
Joined: July 11th, 2017, 8:52 am

Re: Affirmative Action Under Trump/Sessions

Post by Razblo » August 9th, 2017, 5:20 am

Eduk wrote:ah again you miss the point. I didn't ask if you were troubled about being against affirmative action. I asked if you were troubled about the people who made that policy?

You say it's a dividing tactic. Age old. Is that it? You seem a lot more worked up over affirmative action then you do over who legislated for affirmative action. If affirmative action is simply a dividing tactic then why not say that from the start? Aren't you making it divisive by arguing against it as if it's a real thing? If it's only a scam then say so and argue against the people who are legislating the scam.
Pointing things out is getting all worked up? What are you on?
It's a political agenda. I take it into consideration when voting. No, I'm not the 'marching with placards' type. I just make sure I'm prepared for the hoards if they come for me.

Eduk
Posts: 1513
Joined: December 8th, 2016, 7:08 am
Favorite Philosopher: Socrates

Re: Affirmative Action Under Trump/Sessions

Post by Eduk » August 9th, 2017, 5:39 am

you said
Affirmative action only decreases standards.
Diversity politics would tend to create less diversity while at the same time lowering standards in various fields.
An authority discriminates against Asian and White students
You did not say, initially, it was a political agenda. Or a divide and conquer tactic. Sorry if I'm over stating how worked up you are. I simply meant that these are the comments you made against affirmative action. Are you not in effect increasing the effectiveness of the dividing tactic?

User avatar
Razblo
Posts: 157
Joined: July 11th, 2017, 8:52 am

Re: Affirmative Action Under Trump/Sessions

Post by Razblo » August 9th, 2017, 5:47 am

Eduk wrote:you said
Affirmative action only decreases standards.
Diversity politics would tend to create less diversity while at the same time lowering standards in various fields.
An authority discriminates against Asian and White students
You did not say, initially, it was a political agenda. Or a divide and conquer tactic. Sorry if I'm over stating how worked up you are. I simply meant that these are the comments you made against affirmative action. Are you not in effect increasing the effectiveness of the dividing tactic?
No because I am not attacking or criticizing or demeaning a race group.

Eduk
Posts: 1513
Joined: December 8th, 2016, 7:08 am
Favorite Philosopher: Socrates

Re: Affirmative Action Under Trump/Sessions

Post by Eduk » August 9th, 2017, 5:56 am

I get your point and that's fair enough.
I still think it would be better to say something like affirmative action decreases standards. Then perhaps explain that affirmative action isn't even there for the stated reasons and that it is a political dividing tactic. Ideally with some evidence to back both claims up.
Otherwise you are missing an opportunity to genuinely educate. If that is your goal of course.

User avatar
Razblo
Posts: 157
Joined: July 11th, 2017, 8:52 am

Re: Affirmative Action Under Trump/Sessions

Post by Razblo » August 9th, 2017, 6:08 am

Eduk wrote:I get your point and that's fair enough.
I still think it would be better to say something like affirmative action decreases standards. Then perhaps explain that affirmative action isn't even there for the stated reasons and that it is a political dividing tactic. Ideally with some evidence to back both claims up.
Otherwise you are missing an opportunity to genuinely educate. If that is your goal of course.
Well I'm not you. You like making rules?

'Divide and rule' could be characterized thus:

The more rules, the more rules to govern therefore more governing and more government. With more government there are more government employees thereby more top end government employees (administrators).

-- Updated August 9th, 2017, 6:14 am to add the following --

The act of dividing requires rules.

GE Morton
Posts: 234
Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am

Re: Affirmative Action Under Trump/Sessions

Post by GE Morton » August 9th, 2017, 11:03 am

LuckyR wrote:Of course, I take it for granted that everyone agrees that children of alumni, children of large donors and athletes should lose their preferential admissions status, right?
Private schools should be free to adopt any admission criteria they wish. The issue is more complicated for public schools. In a perfect world, they would condition admission only on factors predictive of academic success, such as GPAs and test scores. In the real world they must be concerned with budgets. Admitting children of donors and alums translates into revenue for the school, as does (in some cases) athletics. Without that revenue either the costs to the taxpayer would be greater, or fewer students would be admitted.

Public schools should not, however, subsidize athletic programs, which most do. If the programs are not self-supporting they should be scrapped.

-- Updated August 9th, 2017, 12:23 pm to add the following --
Eduk wrote:GE Morton. Good so you don't understand what equity means.
Well, I've given you the meanings given in two dictionaries. You're free to check others if you wish.
Please Google 'equity equality'.
As I said before, we do not consult political web sites for the meanings of words. We consult dictionaries. A google search for your term will surely yield many lefty sites whose authors are making the same mistaken assumptions you are. The view that natural inequalities --- or any material inequalities --- are "inequitable" is ubiquitous among lefties. But they are not, per the dictionary definitions of that term.
You will see a picture of three boys standing behind a wall looking at a game. They have one box each. The boys are three heights such that the tallest could see without a box. The middle can see with one box and the shortest needs two boxes to see. Now it is equal if they have a box each. But it is not equitable.
Whether or not it is equitable depends upon who is handing out the boxes and what obligations that person has to the three boys. As I said before, "equitable" (and "fair" and "just") apply only to the acts of moral agents. That one of the boys is not tall enough to see over the fence, and could not come up with two boxes to stand on, is, in itself, neither fair nor unfair; neither equitable nor inequitable. It is just a physical fact. Fairness and equity come into play only when the distribution of boxes results from the act of a moral agent (a person). And it is only unfair or inequitable if that person has specific obligations to all three boys.

No one has any obligation a priori to supply boxes to any of the boys. If (say) the middle boy is accompanied by his father, who brought a box for his boy to stand on, there is no "unfairness" or inequity because he did not bring boxes for other boys. He has no duties to those other boys.

You cannot charge the mere distribution of some asset or advantage with unfairness or inequity, solely on the grounds that it is unequal, as your scenario attempts to do. You need to know how that distribution came about, and if it came about by the acts of moral agents, then what obligations those actors had to the parties involved.
When talking about morals this is the standard definition of equity and equality.
No, it is not. It is the lefty definition of equity. And it is Newspeak.
Also please stop using 'lefty' as an insult. It's painful to me. Being left or right or in the middle isn't an insult it's a political label.
It is not meant as an insult. It is simply a descriptive term, denoting persons on the "left" of the political spectrum. I do not use the terms lefties prefer --- "liberal" and "progressive" --- because both of those terms are disingenuous when applied to lefties ---- "liberal" (classically) denotes an advocate of freedom (the word is derived from the Latin liber, "free"). Modern lefties are certainly not advocates of freedom. "Progressive" is also disingenuous, as the world view held by lefties is actually regressive (it envisions a tribal social structure).

User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 2793
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: Affirmative Action Under Trump/Sessions

Post by LuckyR » August 10th, 2017, 1:18 am

Razblo wrote:
LuckyR wrote:

You would have a point if the NBA took tax dollars, but alas you are wrong.
Ok, so the practice of racism is for government only. I got it.
No, using the law to correct historical racism is for the government only. Keep trying, you're great.

-- Updated August 9th, 2017, 10:32 pm to add the following --
GE Morton wrote:
LuckyR wrote:Of course, I take it for granted that everyone agrees that children of alumni, children of large donors and athletes should lose their preferential admissions status, right?
Private schools should be free to adopt any admission criteria they wish. The issue is more complicated for public schools. In a perfect world, they would condition admission only on factors predictive of academic success, such as GPAs and test scores. In the real world they must be concerned with budgets. Admitting children of donors and alums translates into revenue for the school, as does (in some cases) athletics. Without that revenue either the costs to the taxpayer would be greater, or fewer students would be admitted.

Public schools should not, however, subsidize athletic programs, which most do. If the programs are not self-supporting they should be scrapped.
Private schools do just as you suggest right now, though the best ones choose to add diversity without a governmental mandate. Interesting...

Your red statement is inaccurate, assuming that the numbers are among the group of applicants who are in the "acceptable" cohort (ie not comparing acceptable to unacceptable).

I believe you are over estimating the overall financial impact of the common (yet curiously much less complained about, compared to racial "preferences") practice of nonrace based preferential admissions to schools with billion dollar trust funds. Though you fancy sounding rationalization likely surprises very few.
"As usual... it depends."

User avatar
Razblo
Posts: 157
Joined: July 11th, 2017, 8:52 am

Re: Affirmative Action Under Trump/Sessions

Post by Razblo » August 10th, 2017, 3:36 am

LuckyR wrote:
Razblo wrote: (Nested quote removed.)

Ok, so the practice of racism is for government only. I got it.
No, using the law to correct historical racism is for the government only. Keep trying, you're great.
.
So in what way were Asians historically racist toward black people in America?

GE Morton
Posts: 234
Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am

Re: Affirmative Action Under Trump/Sessions

Post by GE Morton » August 10th, 2017, 10:00 am

LuckyR wrote:Your red statement is inaccurate, assuming that the numbers are among the group of applicants who are in the "acceptable" cohort (ie not comparing acceptable to unacceptable).
You appear to be begging the question. How the school determines which applicants are acceptable is the question at issue.
I believe you are over estimating the overall financial impact of the common (yet curiously much less complained about, compared to racial "preferences") practice of nonrace based preferential admissions to schools with billion dollar trust funds. Though you fancy sounding rationalization likely surprises very few.
That is possible. If (with respect to public schools) the amount is negligible, then I'd agree those preferences should end.

-- Updated August 10th, 2017, 10:43 am to add the following --
LuckyR wrote:Private schools do just as you suggest right now, though the best ones choose to add diversity without a governmental mandate. Interesting...
Well, no, they don't (in the US). Private schools are subject to several provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and to various follow-up statutes. Perhaps the most significant is the prohibition against race-sex discrimination by any institution receiving any federal funds. That includes financial assistance given to students, such as GSLs and Pell grants, grants to science researchers at the school, etc. Unless a school maintains a politically correct admission policy it will be strangled economically and subjected to endless costly lawsuits.

The US Supreme Court has held that achieving "diversity" in higher education is a "compelling governmental interest" --- without citing any evidence or reasoning supporting that claim. The value and benefits of "diversity" have yet to be articulated or demonstrated. It has become a dogma of lefty ideology, an article of PC faith.

User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 2793
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: Affirmative Action Under Trump/Sessions

Post by LuckyR » August 10th, 2017, 3:43 pm

Razblo wrote:
LuckyR wrote: (Nested quote removed.)


No, using the law to correct historical racism is for the government only. Keep trying, you're great.
.
So in what way were Asians historically racist toward black people in America?
I don't think you want to ask that question as it gets you farther from your goal. But you do, indirectly bring up a good point. The problem with lay discussions on this topic (as this one is devolving into) is that they compare the impact on an asian or white INDIVIDUAL vs the impact on black and/or hispanic GROUPS. A lay audience is going to identify much more with an individual than a nameless, faceless group. That's Psychology 101

In discussions of asians, whites, blacks and hispanics as GROUPS, it becomes crystal clear that asians and whites are doing quite fine and any company or agency in dire need of a white lawyer or CEO or an asian engineer or doctor is not going to have any difficulties. Much ado about nothing.

-- Updated August 10th, 2017, 1:10 pm to add the following --
GE Morton wrote:
LuckyR wrote:Your red statement is inaccurate, assuming that the numbers are among the group of applicants who are in the "acceptable" cohort (ie not comparing acceptable to unacceptable).
You appear to be begging the question. How the school determines which applicants are acceptable is the question at issue.
University and graduate school admissions protocols are NOT centered around diversity. They are centered on managing extremely large volumes of applications, each of which has a huge number of data points to theoretically process. Thus the protocol in it's simplest form has two steps. The first is a quicker (often computer based) weeding out process which uses an algorithm to cut down on the overwhelming number of applications that the Admissions Committee could never review. This is the primary job of GPAs and test scores (SATs, ACTs, MCATs, LSATs, GREs). After this sieve, the much smaller group of students are the de facto "acceptable" group.

Even a cursory understanding of competitive university admissions makes clear that the number of acceptable students is gigantic compared to the number of students who are sent letters of acceptance. In other words there are tons of students of every racial group who though acceptable, are not offered acceptance. Low single digit acceptance rates at Medical schools is commonplace, for example.

Not all of the acceptable group can be offered interviews, this is an even smaller group. Letters of acceptance are sent to the top students after the interview process. Even a simpleton can understand that at that point the result of the interviews is of primary importance (since everyone offered an interview has already jumped over the GPA/test score hurdle).
"As usual... it depends."

GE Morton
Posts: 234
Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am

Re: Affirmative Action Under Trump/Sessions

Post by GE Morton » August 10th, 2017, 7:44 pm

LuckyR wrote:I don't think you want to ask that question as it gets you farther from your goal. But you do, indirectly bring up a good point. The problem with lay discussions on this topic (as this one is devolving into) is that they compare the impact on an asian or white INDIVIDUAL vs the impact on black and/or hispanic GROUPS. A lay audience is going to identify much more with an individual than a nameless, faceless group. That's Psychology 101
Er, there is no impact on groups that is not traceable to impacts on individuals. Groups are nothing but the individuals who compose them. They have no properties, other than statistical ones, not traceable to the properties of one or more of the individuals who compose them. Neither are they moral agents; only their members are. They do not have interests or goals distinct from those of their members, and cannot be harmed or benefited, except to the extent one or more of their members is harmed or benefited. There can be no injustice deriving from the fact that that only X percentage of a certain group are admitted to a university. There can only be an injustice if Alfie, a member of that group, is denied admission despite being fully qualified, and perhaps better qualified than other students who were admitted.

And of course a "lay audience" will identify more with an individual than with a group. Groups are conceptual constructs, often arbitrarily defined; individuals are tangible, sentient entities.

But I think you missed Razblo's point, which was, I think, Why should an Asian student, whose ancestors did not keep slaves (at least in America) be passed over for admission to a college to make room for a black?
In discussions of asians, whites, blacks and hispanics as GROUPS, it becomes crystal clear that asians and whites are doing quite fine and any company or agency in dire need of a white lawyer or CEO or an asian engineer or doctor is not going to have any difficulties. Much ado about nothing.
Now why would a company need a "white lawyer" or an "Asian doctor," rather than just a lawyer or doctor? But I'm sure you had in mind the contrast with needing a black lawyer or doctor. And we know why a company might need that person --- to satisfy some government-imposed quota.
University and graduate school admissions protocols are NOT centered around diversity. They are centered on managing extremely large volumes of applications, each of which has a huge number of data points to theoretically process. Thus the protocol in it's simplest form has two steps. The first is a quicker (often computer based) weeding out process which uses an algorithm to cut down on the overwhelming number of applications that the Admissions Committee could never review. This is the primary job of GPAs and test scores (SATs, ACTs, MCATs, LSATs, GREs). After this sieve, the much smaller group of students are the de facto "acceptable" group . . . . Not all of the acceptable group can be offered interviews, this is an even smaller group. Letters of acceptance are sent to the top students after the interview process. Even a simpleton can understand that at that point the result of the interviews is of primary importance (since everyone offered an interview has already jumped over the GPA/test score hurdle).
You're now using "acceptable" in some technical sense, as a "term of art." When I used it I meant "eligible for and offered admission."

The interview process you describe is inherently subjective; its results certain to reflect the biases and political ideologies of the interviewers at least as strongly as the actual qualifications of the applicant. While such a process is acceptable for private schools --- they may adopt any admission policy they wish --- it has no place in a public university subject to the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment. Admission to those schools should be determined solely by objective, measurable criteria.

User avatar
Razblo
Posts: 157
Joined: July 11th, 2017, 8:52 am

Re: Affirmative Action Under Trump/Sessions

Post by Razblo » August 10th, 2017, 11:50 pm

LuckyR wrote:
Razblo wrote: (Nested quote removed.)


So in what way were Asians historically racist toward black people in America?
I don't think you want to ask that question as it gets you farther from your goal. But you do, indirectly bring up a good point. The problem with lay discussions on this topic (as this one is devolving into) is that they compare the impact on an asian or white INDIVIDUAL vs the impact on black and/or hispanic GROUPS. A lay audience is going to identify much more with an individual than a nameless, faceless group. That's Psychology 101.
My question was directly responding to your "goal" (that being your statement on "correcting historical racism"). So it is yourself that has, I think, conveniently, pivoted away (not just "farther from") from my specific inquiry into your defence of 'Affirmative action' in education.

The comment "that's psychology 101" is adolescent. Overdone long ago, I would have thought.

User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 2793
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: Affirmative Action Under Trump/Sessions

Post by LuckyR » August 11th, 2017, 3:55 am

GE Morton wrote:
LuckyR wrote:I don't think you want to ask that question as it gets you farther from your goal. But you do, indirectly bring up a good point. The problem with lay discussions on this topic (as this one is devolving into) is that they compare the impact on an asian or white INDIVIDUAL vs the impact on black and/or hispanic GROUPS. A lay audience is going to identify much more with an individual than a nameless, faceless group. That's Psychology 101
Er, there is no impact on groups that is not traceable to impacts on individuals. Groups are nothing but the individuals who compose them. They have no properties, other than statistical ones, not traceable to the properties of one or more of the individuals who compose them. Neither are they moral agents; only their members are. They do not have interests or goals distinct from those of their members, and cannot be harmed or benefited, except to the extent one or more of their members is harmed or benefited. There can be no injustice deriving from the fact that that only X percentage of a certain group are admitted to a university. There can only be an injustice if Alfie, a member of that group, is denied admission despite being fully qualified, and perhaps better qualified than other students who were admitted.

And of course a "lay audience" will identify more with an individual than with a group. Groups are conceptual constructs, often arbitrarily defined; individuals are tangible, sentient entities.

But I think you missed Razblo's point, which was, I think, Why should an Asian student, whose ancestors did not keep slaves (at least in America) be passed over for admission to a college to make room for a black?
In discussions of asians, whites, blacks and hispanics as GROUPS, it becomes crystal clear that asians and whites are doing quite fine and any company or agency in dire need of a white lawyer or CEO or an asian engineer or doctor is not going to have any difficulties. Much ado about nothing.
Now why would a company need a "white lawyer" or an "Asian doctor," rather than just a lawyer or doctor? But I'm sure you had in mind the contrast with needing a black lawyer or doctor. And we know why a company might need that person --- to satisfy some government-imposed quota.
University and graduate school admissions protocols are NOT centered around diversity. They are centered on managing extremely large volumes of applications, each of which has a huge number of data points to theoretically process. Thus the protocol in it's simplest form has two steps. The first is a quicker (often computer based) weeding out process which uses an algorithm to cut down on the overwhelming number of applications that the Admissions Committee could never review. This is the primary job of GPAs and test scores (SATs, ACTs, MCATs, LSATs, GREs). After this sieve, the much smaller group of students are the de facto "acceptable" group . . . . Not all of the acceptable group can be offered interviews, this is an even smaller group. Letters of acceptance are sent to the top students after the interview process. Even a simpleton can understand that at that point the result of the interviews is of primary importance (since everyone offered an interview has already jumped over the GPA/test score hurdle).
You're now using "acceptable" in some technical sense, as a "term of art." When I used it I meant "eligible for and offered admission."

The interview process you describe is inherently subjective; its results certain to reflect the biases and political ideologies of the interviewers at least as strongly as the actual qualifications of the applicant. While such a process is acceptable for private schools --- they may adopt any admission policy they wish --- it has no place in a public university subject to the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment. Admission to those schools should be determined solely by objective, measurable criteria.
You are, of course, free to deny the existence (and thus the importance) of groups. And if groups didn't exist, no one could argue with your commentary. Alas, outside of Philosophy Forums, they kind of exist and actually occupy a not insignificant amount of time and energy among various entities (government, corporations, communities etc). But, purely theoretically, you do have a valid point.

And yes, University admissions as you correctly state have an element of subjectivity to them. Sorry, that's the way it is. Your use of the word should is kind of cute, though.

I think there are a couple of misconceptions that drive this subject away from logical evaluation. The first is that becoming a lawyer, doctor, or a Harvard or Stanford graduate, is so darn difficult that the fact that say only 4% of applicants get accepted, means that over 90% of applicants are "unqualified". The opposite is true. A substantial minority of applicants are perfectly qualified, say 35 - 45%, about ten times more, than the size of the first year class. Huge amounts of perfectly qualified applicants get rejected.

Let me put it a different way, if the med school magically got funding for double the number of students, they would not have to dip into the "unqualified" pool to fill the class.

The other misconception is that high GPAs and test scores, the darlings of shallow evaluations of the subject matter because of their ability to be stratified easily, predict success in higher learning, once the first weeding out process has been performed. Or to describe it numerically, you can show a difference in success between the top quintile and the last, but not between the first and the second.

Given these two realities, it is completely reasonable that an applicant with acceptable but second tier numbers (gpa and test scores) could legitimately outrank (due to superior research, essay, letters of recommendation and especially interview) a second student with better numbers. And we all agree that the higher ranked applicant deserves to be accepted first, right?
"As usual... it depends."

Post Reply