21st Century Racism Is Thriving In American Academe

Black Dog · Dec 6, 2011

theplaydrive said:
You obviously didn't read the post you just responded to because I posted two laws (or executive orders) not one, so it's clear that I don't think it's "a single law". I just posted them to clarify what BR is likely referring to.

It encompasses way more than just 2 executive orders, I can ask you are you reading what I said???

theplaydrive said:
I'm not trying to pass it off as a single entity. Not only did I post two laws in the post you just quoted and didn't read, in a response to BR, I said:

Those two are just the tip of the iceberg and I never saw your response to him.

theplaydrive said:
But thanks for calling me clueless in spite of the fact that you have no idea what the hell you're talking about.

I know exactly what I am talking about....

AA is not a law, it is a program governed by laws and a sires of executive orders , quite a few of them that overlap. It is not a single "law" that can be argued as Boo put it.

Any questions?

theplaydrive said:
Well, we were talking about AA as a whole, but then YOU starting saying that you didn't think "the law" should exist. BR's point has been that "the law" doesn't require or advocate colleges to do the things that you've been complaining about like "lowering standards" and "discriminating". And he's right.

Only if you ignore reality like he does.

theplaydrive said:
And finally, while you seem to NOW have a problem with referring to AA as "a law", you didn't have a problem with it before:

As I pointed out many times at this point I am talking law as in the whole enchilada, he made the assumption about what the "law" was, not me. Then told me as YOU have seen many times about "the law" again I said no that is not what I am talking about. CPwill said the same thing and he reiterated he was talking about "the law."

theplaydrive said:
I find your change of heart suspect. It reminds me of when you told me my response to your question was "an excuse" and then you changed your mind and said that I never even answered it. Interesting.

I asked you why do we still need it? You said it's subjective. That is not an answer, no reasons other than it's subjective. Yea a change of heart. Jeeesh.

ThePlayDrive · Dec 6, 2011

Blackdog said:
It encompasses way more than just 2 executive orders, I can ask you are you reading what I said???

I posted the two laws that I ASSUMED BR WAS TALKING ABOUT as I said. And again, the fact that I posted two laws and then you still accused me of thinking it was only "one law" shows that you didn't read my post.

Those two are just the tip of the iceberg and I never saw your response to him.

It doesn't matter if you didn't see it. You made a bogus assumption and you got caught in it.

I know exactly what I am talking about....

Really? Because you just accused me of thinking something that I've clearly demonstrated I don't think, so no, you don't.

AA is not a law, it is a program governed by laws and a sires of executive orders , quite a few of them that overlap. It is not a single "law" that can be argued as Boo put it.

Any questions?

Yeah, how do you manage to maintain such arrogance while blatantly misreading (or not reading) the posts you respond to and backtracking?

Only if you ignore reality like he does.

Hmm...Which law advocates or requires colleges to lower standards and discriminate? Be specific.

As I pointed out many times at this point I am talking law as in the whole enchilada, he made the assumption about what the "law" was, not me. Then told me as YOU have seen many times about "the law" again I said no that is not what I am talking about. CPwill said the same thing and he reiterated he was talking about "the law."

I just quoted you where you directly said that you think AA is an antiquated law. YOU THINK it's an antiquated law and you said it unprompted. The correct thing for you to have said under your newfound philosophy of AA would have been "I think AA is an antiquated system", but you didn't say that. You said law.

I asked you why do we still need it? You said it's subjective. That is not an answer, no reasons other than it's subjective. Yea a change of heart. Jeeesh.

Really? Let's look at what actually happened (Hint: I mentioned subjectivity after you called my actual explanation an excuse):

Blackdog said:
So why do we need AA again?

theplaydrive said:
It depends on who you ask. Some understand that race impacts social experience and they want people with diverse social experiences on their campuses and in their workplaces. Other want to make sure that existing or past discrimination does not impact their pool of candidates.

Blackdog said:
I am sorry man, that is a lame excuse in 2011.

theplaydrive said:
This comment would be more compelling if you hadn't confused "explanation" with "excuse".

Blackdog said:
I did not confuse anything, it's an excuse. No one has yet to point out even one legitimate reason why we still need it?

theplaydrive said:
Ignoring the fact that "legitimacy" is subjective, legitimacy has nothing to do with the difference between an excuse and an explanation.

It's funny how you revise everything. You refer to AA as a law and now you think that's wrong. You tell me my response to your question is an excuse and then you say that I avoided the question. NOW you're saying my response to your question was "that's subjective" when I mentioned subjectivity after you called my actual answers excuses. What a joke.

You have a good one.

Black Dog · Dec 7, 2011

theplaydrive said:
I posted the two laws that I ASSUMED BR WAS TALKING ABOUT as I said. And again, the fact that I posted two laws and then you still accused me of thinking it was only "one law" shows that you didn't read my post.

I read your post, but those two are not all that AA is. It is much more than just that. He was trying to make it into just a law. I know I don't have to repeat what he said.

theplaydrive said:
It doesn't matter if you didn't see it. You made a bogus assumption and you got caught in it.

Yea I did, that does not change the fact I did not see it. Considering the debate with Boo, you act like it was not a logical jump without seeing your reply.

theplaydrive said:
Really? Because you just accused me of thinking something that I've clearly demonstrated I don't think, so no, you don't.

Yeah, how do you manage to maintain such arrogance while blatantly misreading (or not reading) the posts you respond to and backtracking?

Has nothing to do with arrogance, it has more to do with you ignoring what I said...

AA is not a law, it is a program governed by laws and a series of executive orders , quite a few of them that overlap. It is not a single "law" that can be argued as Boo put it. Will I have to highlight and point this out again?

theplaydrive said:
Hmm...Which law advocates or requires colleges to lower standards and discriminate? Be specific.

Please point out where I said this? I said they were lowered (as the articles I posted pointed out) to admit more minority's.

theplaydrive said:
I just quoted you where you directly said that you think AA is an antiquated law. YOU THINK it's an antiquated law and you said it unprompted. The correct thing for you to have said under your newfound philosophy of AA would have been "I think AA is an antiquated system", but you didn't say that. You said law.

I posted the definition what? 6 times. I guess you did not read that either?

theplaydrive said:
Really? Let's look at what actually happened (Hint: I mentioned subjectivity after you called my actual explanation an excuse):

I still do, it is a simple yes or no answer.

theplaydrive said:
It's funny how you revise everything. You refer to AA as a law and now you think that's wrong.

Because most people unlike Boo I guess realize it is allot more than a law or two as I pointed out many times and even posted the definition.

theplaydrive said:
You tell me my response to your question is an excuse and then you say that I avoided the question.

It depends on who you ask. Some understand that race impacts social experience and they want people with diverse social experiences on their campuses and in their workplaces. Other want to make sure that existing or past discrimination does not impact their pool of candidates.

This is not a reason why we still need it. This is assumptions based on opinion that have nothing to do with the facts presented by you or myself.

theplaydrive said:
NOW you're saying my response to your question was "that's subjective" when I mentioned subjectivity after you called my actual answers excuses. What a joke.

You have a good one.

I will, thanks.

Boo Radley · Dec 7, 2011

misterman said:
That's a non-sensical statement though. Of course it's a factor in the decision. You may mean it's not the only factor, but if it's a factor, that means you use it as part of your decision.

Either someone's race is making a difference in whether they get into a school, or it isn't.

No. You can look at it and not have being large enough to swing the difference. Agian, once you get so far, all the critieria left is subjective.

And we have actual statisitics on the make up of the college student. The numbers show no real difference in the white student percentage. So it would be hard to show anything actually harming them. Now if you were talking females, you might have a case. Females have begun to make up a larger percentage of the college student population. But not racial minorites.

But again, this is the schools wanting to look at race. Not any law. Schools want diversity. The question is whether they can have what they want.

Boo Radley · Dec 7, 2011

Blackdog said:
There is no law! It does not exist, I have shown that. I have shown what we are talking about it as a whole. CA has already ditched it and I assume more will coming up.

You are arguing in defense of something by saying " it's the law" or "it's not part of AA" when by definition it is exactly that. you are arguing something that does not exist.

You're missing the point. You keep asking for the law to be ended. There is no law that calls for driscrmination. no law that calls for a quota. No law that allows race to be a deciding factor.

The law, those which make up AA, do not call for any of the things you complain about. And if schools do discrminate, sue. History says you'll likely win.

misterman · Dec 7, 2011

Jeez, theplaydrive and blackdog - I figured this disconnect out and explained it a long time ago.

misterman · Dec 7, 2011

Boo Radley said:
No. You can look at it and not have being large enough to swing the difference.

Then what's the point? If race makes no difference, how can you say you're considering it as a factor?

It's non-sensical. You're trying to say race doesn't matter and it does, at the same time. You can't have it both ways.

And we have actual statisitics on the make up of the college student. The numbers show no real difference in the white student percentage.

So your racial diversity program is failing to create any racial diversity.

But again, this is the schools wanting to look at race. Not any law. Schools want diversity. The question is whether they can have what they want.

Agree.

Boo Radley · Dec 7, 2011

misterman said:
Then what's the point? If race makes no difference, how can you say you're considering it as a factor?

It's non-sensical. You're trying to say race doesn't matter and it does, at the same time. You can't have it both ways.

That's why they asked if they could look at diversity. If as ruled in Michigan it can't be used as a decding factor, what is the point? So, they asked if they could legally seek diversity. The message is a little lsee clear on that. But, this is school driven and not state or law driven.

So your racial diversity program is failing to create any racial diversity.

Not my program. But yes, largely there has been no real movement. All those informed on both sides of the argument admit this. Pat Buchcann once said that yes, that is true that whites have not been hurt at all, but since people think they have, we ahve to end it. May me laugh as he was reallya rguing perception is reality and not reality is reality.

Agree.

Good to agree on something.

ThePlayDrive · Dec 7, 2011

misterman said:
Jeez, theplaydrive and blackdog - I figured this disconnect out and explained it a long time ago.

What disconnect? The disconnect where Blackdog lies and distorts other people's posts and then lies about his own responses to those posts? Since that's the only disconnect we were talking about, you clearly haven't.

misterman · Dec 7, 2011

Boo Radley said:
That's why they asked if they could look at diversity. If as ruled in Michigan it can't be used as a decding factor, what is the point? So, they asked if they could legally seek diversity. The message is a little lsee clear on that. But, this is school driven and not state or law driven.

Right. So is race being used as a factor, or not? Does it matter to admissions, or not?

Not my program. But yes, largely there has been no real movement. All those informed on both sides of the argument admit this. Pat Buchcann once said that yes, that is true that whites have not been hurt at all, but since people think they have, we ahve to end it. May me laugh as he was reallya rguing perception is reality and not reality is reality.

How can it be possible for an AA program not to hurt whites though?

If a black with lower qualifications otherwise is admitted due to his race, a white who otherwise would be admitted must be excluded. Unless race is being used as a factor to choose between students that are otherwise completely equal, of course.

It's hard to frame this as not a zero-sum game, even if it is a murky one.

misterman · Dec 7, 2011

theplaydrive said:
What disconnect? The disconnect where Blackdog lies and distorts other people's posts and then lies about his own responses to those posts? Since that's the only disconnect we were talking about, you clearly haven't.

The disconnect was between Boo Radley talking about AA as if it were nothing but a law or government policy -- which it began as -- vs. the rest of us talking about how AA now is a general description of voluntary school admission and hiring policies all over the place.

ThePlayDrive · Dec 7, 2011

Blackdog said:
Please point out where I said this? I said they were lowered (as the articles I posted pointed out) to admit more minority's.

Since the rest of your post is repetition of the old lies, distortions and false memories, I figured I'd just deal with this new one.

You asked this question in response to me asking:

theplaydrive said:
Which law advocates or requires colleges to lower standards and discriminate? Be specific.

Well, the reason I asked you this question was because of this line of conversation:

theplaydrive said:
Well, we were talking about AA as a whole, but then YOU starting saying that you didn't think "the law" should exist. BR's point has been that "the law" doesn't require or advocate colleges to do the things that you've been complaining about like "lowering standards" and "discriminating". And he's right.

Blackdog said:
Only if you ignore reality like he does.

Let me write it out for you: I say BR is right that the law doesn't require or advocate colleges to "lower standards" or "discriminate" and then you reply, "only if you ignore reality". SO again, which law advocates or requires colleges to lower standards or discriminate?

Please answer the question this time instead of avoiding it by distorting past conversations as you have continually done this entire thread.

ThePlayDrive · Dec 7, 2011

misterman said:
The disconnect was between Boo Radley talking about AA as if it were nothing but a law or government policy -- which it began as -- vs. the rest of us talking about how AA now is a general description of voluntary school admission and hiring policies all over the place.

The problem with that is the Blackdog also referred to AA as "a law" in the past, so his problem with BR saying that is just BS.

misterman · Dec 7, 2011

theplaydrive said:
The problem with that is the Blackdog also referred to AA as "a law" in the past, so his problem with BR saying that is just BS.

Okay, I didn't say I had figured ALL of your dispute out. No biggie.

Boo Radley · Dec 7, 2011

misterman said:
Okay, I didn't say I had figured ALL of your dispute out. No biggie.

No problem. BD did say he wanted the law done away with, which is the bone of our contention.

Boo Radley · Dec 7, 2011

misterman said:
Right. So is race being used as a factor, or not? Does it matter to admissions, or not?

I suspect it is not being used much at the moment as they work through this. But the court said it cannot be a deciding factor. Schools don't want to be sued or to lose in court, so it presents a problem for them. That is why they are still trying to work though how to do this diverity thingie.

How can it be possible for an AA program not to hurt whites though?

If a black with lower qualifications otherwise is admitted due to his race, a white who otherwise would be admitted must be excluded. Unless race is being used as a factor to choose between students that are otherwise completely equal, of course.

It's hard to frame this as not a zero-sum game, even if it is a murky one.

That's it, no one has lower qualifications. I have tried hard to point this out to you. You look at one objective factor, and schools don't. They have a long list of things they look for, and grades is but a very small part of that. There is also no likelihood that any two would be completely equal. They rank want they are looking for most, giving more value to somethings over others. and objective things like SATs and GPAs are usually relatively low and dropped after the intitial cut off. Once everyone left has met that standard, it is really meaningless.

But, minorites simply have not overrun schools, the admissions are largely quite small, and with cooleges growing, there has been no real loss of white students, and no statisitical harm that cna be shown. It really is a lot of whiniing over nothing. In fact, with no preferences, there really should be more inroads made than have been. So it would be a better question to ask why there hasn't been.

ThePlayDrive · Dec 7, 2011

misterman said:
Okay, I didn't say I had figured ALL of your dispute out. No biggie.

Cool. I'm sorry if I was a bit hostile. It was misdirected.

misterman · Dec 7, 2011

Boo Radley said:
I suspect it is not being used much at the moment as they work through this. But the court said it cannot be a deciding factor. Schools don't want to be sued or to lose in court, so it presents a problem for them. That is why they are still trying to work though how to do this diverity thingie.

I simply don't see how you can consider race and then claim there is no racial discrimination if race is a factor. "Deciding factor" is nonsensical. Either race made a difference in the choice, or it didn't. I have certainly read about Bakke and heard that before, but just now I realize that.

That's it, no one has lower qualifications. I have tried hard to point this out to you.

But that's not possible. You said there were certain minimums, yes, but that still doesn't mean that race puts one candidate ahead of another that may be less qualified in other areas.

You look at one objective factor, and schools don't. They have a long list of things they look for, and grades is but a very small part of that. There is also no likelihood that any two would be completely equal. They rank want they are looking for most, giving more value to somethings over others. and objective things like SATs and GPAs are usually relatively low and dropped after the intitial cut off. Once everyone left has met that standard, it is really meaningless.

But, minorites simply have not overrun schools, the admissions are largely quite small, and with cooleges growing, there has been no real loss of white students, and no statisitical harm that cna be shown. It really is a lot of whiniing over nothing. In fact, with no preferences, there really should be more inroads made than have been. So it would be a better question to ask why there hasn't been.

No "real" loss of white students? What's that mean? Every single white student who would have been admitted without an AA policy was admitted with one? I seriously doubt that. Schools didn't just add more slots and give them to blacks. They had to reject some whites to make room for blacks. That's to be expected anyway in a merit-based system, of course, as discrimination ends. But it means using race as a factor to favor blacks has the exact same effect as using race as a factor to favor whites - discrimination, and harm to the victim. Maybe just a little harm, but harm.

misterman · Dec 7, 2011

theplaydrive said:
Cool. I'm sorry if I was a bit hostile. It was misdirected.

No hostility detected.

Black Dog · Dec 7, 2011

Boo Radley said:
No problem. BD did say he wanted the law done away with, which is the bone of our contention.

Yes this is true but unlike what theplaydrive assumed I thought you knew what I meant. If you look at my posts you can see by the evidence and my statements what I was saying. Theplaydrive is just playing a semantics game. I say this because even after I explained he would not accept it and basically said I lied contrary to my posts. I am talking the large picture, not just a single law or two, I want the whole system done away with. Unlike your use of the law, you said point blank you were talking about the law, I then clarified I am not talking about a law or the law.

EarlzP · Dec 8, 2011

Empirica said:
I ran across this Columbus Dispatch Newspaper article from Feb2011 at AmRen's website.

Why is "skin color" still a qualifying factor for college admission in the 21st century?

I suspect these policies are a whole lot more wide spread than just Ohio State and Miami universities?

I thought liberals and the democrat party were suppose to be champions of the victims of racism?

This is a yes or no/black or white answer with absolutely no grey area to hide behind.

You either condone and defend racism OR you speak up and publicly denounce it here and now.

I believe it is safe to assume that any poster who is afraid to cast a vote most likely condones racism.

I have chosen the username to register with your vote, option...Lets find out who walks the talk.

I think not just every university or college should look like a cross section of America but every public or private school should be representative of all Americans and then and only then we will be starting to really address discrimination

Boo Radley · Dec 8, 2011

misterman said:
I simply don't see how you can consider race and then claim there is no racial discrimination if race is a factor. "Deciding factor" is nonsensical. Either race made a difference in the choice, or it didn't. I have certainly read about Bakke and heard that before, but just now I realize that.

According to the courts, it can't make the difference.

But that's not possible. You said there were certain minimums, yes, but that still doesn't mean that race puts one candidate ahead of another that may be less qualified in other areas.

Agin, it depends on what you call qualifications. Donating money to the school counts, and is legal. We could argue that put someone less qualified in. But, legally so. All the school cares about is that they made that minimum. Other than that, the rest is, as I keep saying, more subjective and more about what that student brings to the school. Money? Talent? personality? Diversity? All largely subjective and has nothing to do with being qualified. What's more, as students show me every semester, that if you were with a group trying to decide between eight students, the one with the most objective high scores would not be picked. In fact, in years of doing this, she has never been picked.

So, this notion of most qualified is nonsense. It has never been about anything objective.

No "real" loss of white students? What's that mean? Every single white student who would have been admitted without an AA policy was admitted with one? I seriously doubt that. Schools didn't just add more slots and give them to blacks. They had to reject some whites to make room for blacks. That's to be expected anyway in a merit-based system, of course, as discrimination ends. But it means using race as a factor to favor blacks has the exact same effect as using race as a factor to favor whites - discrimination, and harm to the victim. Maybe just a little harm, but harm.

It emans white students have the same percentage or more than they've ever had. No statisitcal numbers show any drop. The only real change has been more women doing more and better than males.

Again, what merit? If GPAs and SATs mean little, and they don't, what merit are you looking for?

misterman · Dec 8, 2011

Boo Radley said:
According to the courts, it can't make the difference.

Then how can AA possibly happen?

Agin, it depends on what you call qualifications.

It doesn't if they are all equal other than race. Whatever they are, if they are the same and race is the only difference, then race is the deciding factor. If not, it isn't.

All the school cares about is that they made that minimum. Other than that, the rest is, as I keep saying, more subjective and more about what that student brings to the school. Money? Talent? personality? Diversity? All largely subjective and has nothing to do with being qualified.

"Qualified" means you are chosen to be in the school. That's the very definition of qualified. It's not just the minimum.

So, this notion of most qualified is nonsense. It has never been about anything objective.

It doesn't matter. All that matters is that race is not one of those factors. Use whatever objective or subjective qualifications you want. Just don't use race, otherwise that's racial discrimination.

It emans white students have the same percentage or more than they've ever had. No statisitcal numbers show any drop. The only real change has been more women doing more and better than males.

So racial diversity isn't happening? Or simply more slots are opening, and being filled by blacks? Those are the only two mathematical possibilities.

Again, what merit? If GPAs and SATs mean little, and they don't, what merit are you looking for?

Seriously? You don't choose students based on some kind of merit? Merit simply means "the things that make a good student." This whole argument is about whether race should be considered merit or not. Considering that racial discrimination is illegal, I'd say that's a pretty strong indication that it shouldn't be. To do so is simply racial discrimination lite.

Boo Radley · Dec 8, 2011

misterman said:
Then how can AA possibly happen?

Because the laws that make up AA are more about showing you do not discriminate. Nothing requires race be used at all.

It doesn't if they are all equal other than race. Whatever they are, if they are the same and race is the only difference, then race is the deciding factor. If not, it isn't.

There's nothing equal about it reardless of if race is used or not. Wealthy are often much more favored; however, sometimes where you live matters, for example.

"Qualified" means you are chosen to be in the school. That's the very definition of qualified. It's not just the minimum.

Any any reason they want means you qualify.

It doesn't matter. All that matters is that race is not one of those factors. Use whatever objective or subjective qualifications you want. Just don't use race, otherwise that's racial discrimination.

And that is exactly what most the laws say, and is why schools largely lose when challenged.

So racial diversity isn't happening? Or simply more slots are opening, and being filled by blacks? Those are the only two mathematical possibilities.

Statistically, no it isn't really happening. And while there are more slots, there is little evidence anyone is actually reaching diversity.

Seriously? You don't choose students based on some kind of merit? Merit simply means "the things that make a good student." This whole argument is about whether race should be considered merit or not. Considering that racial discrimination is illegal, I'd say that's a pretty strong indication that it shouldn't be. To do so is simply racial discrimination lite.

I said not SATs and GPAs. These are mostly just used to eliminate low end candidates and shrink the number the school has to look at. Merit they look at is much more subjective.

I don't know anyone actually arguing race is to be used as merit. More the school says they see some value in diversity and would like a more divwerse campus. I even see a number of students asking for that. The only question is how to do that legally.

misterman · Dec 8, 2011

Boo Radley said:
Because the laws that make up AA are more about showing you do not discriminate. Nothing requires race be used at all.

You're still doing it. AA refers to the admission policies of schools, not just to a law.

There's nothing equal about it reardless of if race is used or not. Wealthy are often much more favored; however, sometimes where you live matters, for example.

So the fact that wealth discrimination happens justifies racial discrimination?

Statistically, no it isn't really happening. And while there are more slots, there is little evidence anyone is actually reaching diversity.

So what's the point?

21st Century Racism Is Thriving In American Academe

Should an applicants race be a deciding factor for admission to a university?

YES

NO

More options

Black Dog

King Of The Dog Pound

ThePlayDrive

Black Dog

King Of The Dog Pound

Boo Radley

Boo Radley

misterman

misterman

Boo Radley

ThePlayDrive

misterman

misterman

ThePlayDrive

ThePlayDrive

misterman

Boo Radley

Boo Radley

ThePlayDrive

misterman

misterman

Black Dog

King Of The Dog Pound

EarlzP

Boo Radley

misterman

Boo Radley

misterman