A Slew of SCOTUS Decisions.

[CycloneWanderer]

I agree with you.

So why are you advocating one form while waxing poetic on the injustices of the other?

 

[ashurbanipal]

So why are you advocating one form while waxing poetic on the injustices of the other?

One form of what?

 

[CycloneWanderer]

One form of what?

Institutional racism.

 

[ashurbanipal]

Institutional racism.

Affirmative Action is clearly not institutional racism, and I don't think anyone has argued that it is in this thread. Racism is a belief that one or more race(s) is/are either inherently better or worse than others.

Balxshep asserted merely that racism is racism: A=A. Of course I agree with that. Maybe I don't recall correctly, but the argument seems to have been that Affirmative Action amounts to discrimination, which is not the same as racism. I disagree: it is a corrective to discrimination that has already occurred.

 

[CycloneWanderer]

Affirmative Action is clearly not institutional racism, and I don't think anyone has argued that it is in this thread. Racism is a belief that one or more race(s) is/are either inherently better or worse than others.

Balxshep asserted merely that racism is racism: A=A. Of course I agree with that. Maybe I don't recall correctly, but the argument seems to have been that Affirmative Action amounts to discrimination, which is not the same as racism. I disagree: it is a corrective to discrimination that has already occurred.

What is affirmative action if not racism? It assumes that all members of a race are less capable of scoring well or achieving in high school. Because of that assumption, institutions of government systematically adjust their criteria to favor such individuals. Whether that assumption is true or not is irrelevant. I know you don't like the word, but you can't deny that affirmative action fits the definition of "racism." Also, it is done or mandated by institutions of government. Therefore, it is a prime example of institutional racism.

 

[ashurbanipal]

What is affirmative action if not racism? It assumes that all members of a race are less capable of scoring well or achieving in high school.

Your implied argument is invalid, for two reasons:

1. Not scoring as well or achieving in high school does not imply one race is inherently better or worse (or even more or less intelligent) than another. For example, we know that malnutrition is directly proportional to economic status below a certain minimum level (i.e. the poor are much more prone to suffer malnutrition than are people in the middle or upper classes), and malnutrition can affect cognitive abilities. For some individual X and some individual Y who have equal potential for talent and intelligence at birth, where X suffers malnutrition and Y does not, X will tend to score worse on standardized tests than Y, even though, had X not suffered malnutrition, this situation would not have obtained--X and Y would score about equally. We know that non-whites tend to live in poorer conditions than do whites, and given this, a cogent argument can be made for Affirmative Action that makes no assumption of racism.

2. Requiring that colleges maintain a certain proportion of minorities need not be due to an assumption that those minorities do not score as well or achieve in high school. For example, recruitment boards may implement overtly or at least obviously discriminatory policies, or may unconsciously act in a discriminatory manner. We know this latter point happens with frequency in our society. Again, given this, a cogent argument can be made in favor of Affirmative Action, where the only assumption of racism is on the other side (i.e. the institution to which Affirmative Action is applied as a corrective).

There are other points to be made here, but these should be sufficient to show the point.

Because of that assumption, institutions of government systematically adjust their criteria to favor such individuals. Whether that assumption is true or not is irrelevant. I know you don't like the word, but you can't deny that affirmative action fits the definition of "racism."

I'm neutral about the word "racism." I can deny your claim, and I have said how and why, above.

 

[CycloneWanderer]

Your implied argument is invalid, for two reasons:

1. Not scoring as well or achieving in high school does not imply one race is inherently better or worse (or even more or less intelligent) than another. For example, we know that malnutrition is directly proportional to economic status below a certain minimum level (i.e. the poor are much more prone to suffer malnutrition than are people in the middle or upper classes), and malnutrition can affect cognitive abilities. For some individual X and some individual Y who have equal potential for talent and intelligence at birth, where X suffers malnutrition and Y does not, X will tend to score worse on standardized tests than Y, even though, had X not suffered malnutrition, this situation would not have obtained--X and Y would score about equally. We know that non-whites tend to live in poorer conditions than do whites, and given this, a cogent argument can be made for Affirmative Action that makes no assumption of racism.

2. Requiring that colleges maintain a certain proportion of minorities need not be due to an assumption that those minorities do not score as well or achieve in high school. For example, recruitment boards may implement overtly or at least obviously discriminatory policies, or may unconsciously act in a discriminatory manner. We know this latter point happens with frequency in our society. Again, given this, a cogent argument can be made in favor of Affirmative Action, where the only assumption of racism is on the other side (i.e. the institution to which Affirmative Action is applied as a corrective).

There are other points to be made here, but these should be sufficient to show the point.

I'm neutral about the word "racism." I can deny your claim, and I have said how and why, above.

1. Economic background is already taken into account and should be taken into account separately from that of race/ethnicity. I support that adjustment so long as they are tied to a minimum score; it can be a win-win for colleges and students (LINK). Oddly enough, if socioeconomic status were used as a determinant but not race/ethnicity, the racial/ethnic diversity would actually go down slightly (see previous link). That means that the folks who benefit from racial/ethnic selection criteria aren't the ones growing up in difficult economic circumstances. So, we're back to an operating assumption that people of specific races just aren't as academically intelligent.

2. How about we educate folks, then? People can effectively correct their own naïve biases when it is appropriate and they are motivated to do so. Check into the flexible corrections model. (If you would like a place to start, or even perhaps end, here ya go.) At least in this way we make sure that biases are being corrected for in accordance with current data in specific situations and not by simple quotas.

By "correcting" (that's assumptive language if I've ever seen it) using a specific race as a criteria for selection you are, through actions, communicating that people not of that race are superior to them in their performance on the listed admissions criteria. Regardless of validity, that's by definition a racist adjustment. In fact, the justness of such an adjustment relies on there actually being a difference; remember, other influences besides race are already being accounted for.

Edit: 'Like' given for making this an enjoyable debate. I appreciate how you are debating the topic and not being disrespectful (e.g., insults, snide remarks, etc.). Thank you!

 

[ashurbanipal]

1. Economic background is already taken into account and should be taken into account separately from that of race/ethnicity.

Taken into account by whom, in what situation? I was merely using it as an example; there are plenty of other arguments that could be made. For example, cultural influences can lead one to make different valuations than another of a different culture in judging a particular problem. For another example, native language can have a profound influence on cognitive patterns. And so on.

I support that adjustment so long as they are tied to a minimum score; it can be a win-win for colleges and students (LINK).

You'll have to explain in more detail. I'm not sure I see any example of winning or losing at the link you've provided, which is a summary of the findings of one research team on the effects of five hypothetical admissions models, with no explanation of the nature of the research.

Oddly enough, if socioeconomic status were used as a determinant but not race/ethnicity, the racial/ethnic diversity would actually go down slightly (see previous link).

Nothing at the link says that.

That means that the folks who benefit from racial/ethnic selection criteria aren't the ones growing up in difficult economic circumstances. So, we're back to an operating assumption that people of specific races just aren't as academically intelligent.

No, nothing at the link implies this is correct.

2. How about we educate folks, then? People can effectively correct their own naïve biases when it is appropriate and they are motivated to do so. Check into the flexible corrections model and get back to me. (If you would like a place to start, or even perhaps end, here ya go.) At least in this way we make sure that biases are being corrected for in accordance with current data in specific situations and not by simple quotas.

Would only work if we assumed that everyone on an admissions committee wanted to get rid of their biases (and perhaps not even then). I see no reason to make that assumption.

By "correcting" (that's assumptive language if I've ever seen it) using a specific race as a criteria for selection you are, through actions, communicating that people not of that race are superior to them in their performance on the listed admissions criteria.

Obviously false. See point 2 in my previous post. If a teacher automatically grades a black student 20 points lower than a white student, and we know it, and therefore add 20 points back to the black student's grades, we are not in any way declaring the white student superior. We are correcting an obviously unfair situation.

Regardless of validity, that's by definition a racist adjustment.

No, it is not.

In fact, the justness of such an adjustment relies on there actually being a difference; remember, other influences besides race are already being accounted for.

Plenty of effects are directly tied to race, though. Teachers spend more time on white students than black students, for instance. See:
Lewis, Amanda E. Despite the Best Intentions: How Racial Inequality Thrives in Good Schools. UK: Oxford University Press, 2015.

 

[NotreDame]

Hmmmm....I kidnap you and your family members, take all your stuff, and make you live in a shack for the rest of your life, while I use your property to become wealthy. We die, our children and grandchildren die, but my descendents do quite well, while yours do not.

Someone finally realizes that your family used to be about as wealthy as mine, and the reason yours is poor is because of my crime. It's fair to just do nothing?

This is a poor justification for affirmative action. The people today haven't committed the "crime."' The crime was perpetuated by people 4-10 generations ago.

 

[ashurbanipal]

This is a poor justification for affirmative action. The people today haven't committed the "crime."' The crime was perpetuated by people 4-10 generations ago.

So, answer the question: do you think it's fair to just do nothing, including leaving the stolen property with the people who now possess it? If you do think so, why do you think so? It's not punishment to, say, repossess a stolen ring from a pawn shop that had nothing to do with stealing it, for example. So why would it be punishment to take wealth from people that should never have had it?

 

[CycloneWanderer]

Taken into account by whom, in what situation? I was merely using it as an example; there are plenty of other arguments that could be made. For example, cultural influences can lead one to make different valuations than another of a different culture in judging a particular problem. For another example, native language can have a profound influence on cognitive patterns. And so on.

Are we talking about socioeconomic status, native language, culture or race? I grow weary of you moving the goalposts. I find it somewhat ridiculous to assume an entire group's socioeconomic status, competency with language, or culture solely based upon an individual's race in modern day America.

You'll have to explain in more detail. I'm not sure I see any example of winning or losing at the link you've provided, which is a summary of the findings of one research team on the effects of five hypothetical admissions models, with no explanation of the nature of the research.

Nothing at the link says that. No, nothing at the link implies this is correct.

I suggest you take some time to actually read the information I link to you before telling me that I'm wrong.

"When Carnevale and Rose examined the fifth admissions design, which gives preference to students from families toward the bottom of the SES quartiles who score the equivalent of at least a 1000 on the SAT, they found that this alternative would slightly decrease the current racial diversity of African Americans and Latinos from 12 percent to 10 percent and would increase socioeconomic diversity from 10 percent to 38 percent. Graduation rates would actually rise from 86 percent to 90 percent."

Additionally, the full research article is cited and easily found via a simple Google search: Check it!

Would only work if we assumed that everyone on an admissions committee wanted to get rid of their biases (and perhaps not even then). I see no reason to make that assumption.

Considering that the values used for consideration in admissions (see p. 24 of the link above), I choose to believe that these individuals would correct for biases if they were made aware of them. If they don't, they should be removed from their position as it goes against their stated goals. Also, I don't think it conducive to assume these are blatantly and uncaringly racist individuals.

Obviously false. See point 2 in my previous post. If a teacher automatically grades a black student 20 points lower than a white student, and we know it, and therefore add 20 points back to the black student's grades, we are not in any way declaring the white student superior. We are correcting an obviously unfair situation.

Yes, let's make up hypotheticals to prove our point. Wonderfully productive discussion we'd have as a result.

No, it is not.

Plenty of effects are directly tied to race, though. Teachers spend more time on white students than black students, for instance. See:
Lewis, Amanda E. Despite the Best Intentions: How Racial Inequality Thrives in Good Schools. UK: Oxford University Press, 2015.

Does that address the disparity as simply a correlation? If so, I'm not sure what entirely we can take from it other than perhaps segregating classes at the collegiate level might be beneficial. There was a professor at the University of Texas that did that to great benefit for the minority group. I'll have ot look up that article but I'm in a hurry and can't search right at this moment.

Responses in bold.

 

[Casper]

First big one.

In a tie vote the SCOTUS leaves a lower court ruling that Obama did not have the authority in his immigration EO. So his EO on immigration is reversed.

in another case the SCOTUS upholds racial discrimination in college admittance. basically if you are white and do better than a minority on a test it doesn't matter
they will get the spot over you.

In an interesting twist the SCOTUS now requires law enforcement to require warrents before a Alcohol blood test.
a warrant is not required for breathe tests.

Funny, Repubs were claiming that if they delayed the appointment of a new SC Justice they were happy with a tie and letting the lower court ruling stand, now that so many of the decisions are not ties and their agenda is losing most of the rulings they want to whine.

Better appoint a new SC judge as quickly as you can, maybe you will get someone slightly moderate, if the Dems win the Senate (likely) and Hillary wins the WH, (Very Likely) she will appoint someone far more right leaning. Will Cons ever learn, does not look like it.

 

[blaxshep]

So, answer the question: do you think it's fair to just do nothing, including leaving the stolen property with the people who now possess it? If you do think so, why do you think so? It's not punishment to, say, repossess a stolen ring from a pawn shop that had nothing to do with stealing it, for example. So why would it be punishment to take wealth from people that should never have had it?

We have long ago paid back the ring that was stolen.

 

[ashurbanipal]

We have long ago paid back the ring that was stolen.

How so?

 

[blaxshep]

How so?

How many billions if not trillions have we given them in welfare, entitlements etc, affirmative action and white guilt? Enough is enough, there are black doctors, lawyers, congressmen and even a president, we owe them nothing. The ones that cant get a job need to learn to speak English pull up their pants and quit acting like thugs.

 

[ludin]

Funny, Repubs were claiming that if they delayed the appointment of a new SC Justice they were happy with a tie and letting the lower court ruling stand, now that so many of the decisions are not ties and their agenda is losing most of the rulings they want to whine.

Better appoint a new SC judge as quickly as you can, maybe you will get someone slightly moderate, if the Dems win the Senate (likely) and Hillary wins the WH, (Very Likely) she will appoint someone far more right leaning. Will Cons ever learn, does not look like it.

here is what you don't get a SCOTUS is not supposed to be moderate liberal or conservative.
their job and their only job is to uphold the constitution. that means if the constitution says no the
government can't do something that means no the government can't do something.

they don't get to re-write the constitution based on their ideology. if they do it should be considered failure to uphold their oath of office
and they should be removed from the bench as they are unfit to be on there.

there is only 1 way to re-write the constitution and the SCOTUS doesn't have that power.

 

[Casper]

here is what you don't get a SCOTUS is not supposed to be moderate liberal or conservative.
their job and their only job is to uphold the constitution. that means if the constitution says no the
government can't do something that means no the government can't do something.

they don't get to re-write the constitution based on their ideology. if they do it should be considered failure to uphold their oath of office
and they should be removed from the bench as they are unfit to be on there.

there is only 1 way to re-write the constitution and the SCOTUS doesn't have that power.

I know what their job is, I am just pointing out the hypocrisy of Cons that applaud every SC ruling that they agree with and then say the SC is not doing their job and corrupt when they overturn a law the Cons wanted. How about this, when you write a law make darn sure that it is Constitutional ad you have nothing to worry about.

 

[blaxshep]

I know what their job is, I am just pointing out the hypocrisy of Cons that applaud every SC ruling that they agree with and then say the SC is not doing their job and corrupt when they overturn a law the Cons wanted. How about this, when you write a law make darn sure that it is Constitutional ad you have nothing to worry about.

The SCOTUS has ruled in favor of unconstitutional laws on both sides. ACA and Patriot Act are two examples.

 

[Casper]

The SCOTUS has ruled in favor of unconstitutional laws on both sides. ACA and Patriot Act are two examples.

Well that is the system we have, if you have a better idea I would love to see them............

 

[blaxshep]

Well that is the system we have, if you have a better idea I would love to see them............

Make violating the constitutional oath Treason, punishable by Death. That would put a screeching halt on all the jurisprudence non-sense.

 

[Casper]

Make violating the constitutional oath Treason, punishable by Death. That would put a screeching halt on all the jurisprudence non-sense.

Except that there is no one higher than them when deciding what is Constitutional or not. Never happen.

 

[ludin]

Except that there is no one higher than them when deciding what is Constitutional or not. Never happen.

that is why there should be an independent judicial review. these people are not politically aligned.
this business that the SCOTUS is above the law is for the birds.

 

[Casper]

that is why there should be an independent judicial review. these people are not politically aligned.
this business that the SCOTUS is above the law is for the birds.

And who will oversee the independent judicial review, then who will oversee them.......?

 

[ashurbanipal]

Are we talking about socioeconomic status, native language, culture or race?

We are talking about anything and everything that is associated with race and relevant to how successful a person can be in our society...as we should be, since all of it is relevant to Affirmative Action discussions.

I grow weary of you moving the goalposts.

You have an odd view of moving goalposts. I have proposed no criteria, and hence, no goalposts.

I find it somewhat ridiculous to assume an entire group's socioeconomic status, competency with language, or culture solely based upon an individual's race in modern day America.

As do I, but you've stated things wrongly. You probably have the wrong predicates, and the wrong modals, in mind.

I suggest you take some time to actually read the information I link to you before telling me that I'm wrong.

I thought that might be your response. So, let's go to school for a moment. Here are your two claims from your previous post:

1: ...if socioeconomic status were used as a determinant but not race/ethnicity, the racial/ethnic diversity would actually go down slightly.

2: That means that the folks who benefit from racial/ethnic selection criteria aren't the ones growing up in difficult economic circumstances. So, we're back to an operating assumption that people of specific races just aren't as academically intelligent.

Here's the part of the article you at least seem to say supports these two claims:

"When Carnevale and Rose examined the fifth admissions design, which gives preference to students from families toward the bottom of the SES quartiles who score the equivalent of at least a 1000 on the SAT, they found that this alternative would slightly decrease the current racial diversity of African Americans and Latinos from 12 percent to 10 percent and would increase socioeconomic diversity from 10 percent to 38 percent. Graduation rates would actually rise from 86 percent to 90 percent."

Note well the bolded part. This is also from the same link:

African Americans and Hispanics are much less likely to take the SAT or ACT than whites or, if they do take them, to score at least the equivalent of a 900 on the SAT.

So now, here's your first claim again:

if socioeconomic status were used as a determinant but not race/ethnicity, the racial/ethnic diversity would actually go down slightly.

This is not supported by the part of the linked article you quoted, because, as the article also notes, black and hispanic students are much less likely to take the SAT/ACT and score 900 (or its equivalent) or better. The reason the fifth design might decrease racial diversity could be for the reason you claim, or it could be because of the noted fact about rates of standardized test scores. Since nothing else at the link eliminates one possibility in favor of another, your claim is not warranted.

Similarly, your second claim:

That means that the folks who benefit from racial/ethnic selection criteria aren't the ones growing up in difficult economic circumstances. So, we're back to an operating assumption that people of specific races just aren't as academically intelligent.

is not licensed by anything at the link, and wouldn't be even if your first inference were valid, which it isn't. That some A's are B's and some A's are also C's does not imply that any B's are C's.

Considering that the values used for consideration in admissions (see p. 24 of the link above), I choose to believe that these individuals would correct for biases if they were made aware of them. If they don't, they should be removed from their position as it goes against their stated goals.

None of which means any of that will actually happen.

Also, I don't think it conducive to assume these are blatantly and uncaringly racist individuals.

Conducive to what?

Yes, let's make up hypotheticals to prove our point. Wonderfully productive discussion we'd have as a result.

Hypotheticals prove all kinds of things. Your claim was logically equivalent to:

for all x, if Ax, then if Bx, then not-Ex.

The hypothetical, which is entirely possible (i.e. it could happen--nothing makes it impossible), is an example of an x such that Ax and Bx and Ex. That is, it's a counterexample to your claim, which means your claim is (as I previously said) obviously false.

Does that address the disparity as simply a correlation?

Before I answer that question, what exactly do you mean by "address"?

 

[ashurbanipal]

How many billions if not trillions have we given them in welfare, entitlements etc, affirmative action and white guilt?

I don't know. Do you? I'm curious whether you have any data about how much every black family in the U.S. has received in the way of money from the rest of us. Ditto first peoples, Latinos, etc.

Enough is enough, there are black doctors, lawyers, congressmen and even a president, we owe them nothing.

1. Black people are not the only people who figure into Affirmative Action programs.

2. Despite these facts, blacks in general are paid less and have lower socioeconomic status than most whites. Until that changes, Affirmative Action should continue.

The ones that cant get a job need to learn to speak English pull up their pants and quit acting like thugs.

1. Many of those who look like thugs actually do have jobs.

2. Many who do not have jobs don't look like thugs.