Saturday, April 28, 2012
On Me and Affirmative Action
I may have given the impression over the past several posts that I'm completely opposed to affirmative action. I'm not (though, yes, I personally prefer to refer to it as "outreach" and/or "diversity"). And let me give you an example here.......................................................................................Let's say that I'm the Dean of Admissions at Penn, Amherst, Carnegie Mellon, or any other institution of higher learning, and I'm down to my final slot. And my final two applicants are a) a white student from Marblehead Neck MA with an SAT score of 2125 and a GPA of 3.85 and b) a black-Hispanic person from the Bronx NY with an SAT score of 1990 and a GPA of 3.60. Me - I would probably (depending, of course, upon the interview and other factors) select the black-Hispanic student from the Bronx NY. And the rationale, of course, would be that the black-Hispanic individual from the Bronx probably had to work harder and overcome more things to achieve what he/she achieved than did the white student from Marblehead Neck MA...........................................................................................Now, does this in any way constitute "reverse discrimination"? I would argue not necessarily. I mean, it's not like I'm making allowances for an upper middle-class individual here; a person who, more than likely, wouldn't have needed the preferential treatment. That, in my opinion, is a mega distinction.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
48 comments:
According to dmarks you're a racist. How dare you discriminate against the White guy!
I would also take that black-Hispanic over you, wd.
Also, I think that I included enough nuance here that dmarks will at least consider what I've written.
Yes, I know. You've mentioned it before that you're in favor of discriminating against people for their political views.
Hey Truth,
Does anyone ever pick the guy with the long dick?
Porn producers. Republicans pick candidates that are big dicks.
Jerry, I've never heard you say anything off-color before. It's pretty cool.
In a previous life, I was a charter member of the Pervo-Devo Hall of Fame.
As George Carlin once said, or maybe it was a bunch of times... It's okay to prick your finger but not to finger your prick.
Or something close to that.
Will: What if both kids were from the Bronx? Or both were from Marblehead?
That's a fair question, dmarks. If they were both from the same place and were comparable on other indicators such as income and extracurriculars, I would then probably take the one with the better academics (this, though, I still think that diversity is an overall good thing to strive for).
This post really put dmarks in a tough position. He has a stated opposition to Affirmative Action, yet he couldn't criticize a "moderate" for saying things in favor of diversity (those criticisms are reserved for Liberals). Which is why it took him so long to come up with a reason that Will isn't a racist. He was pretending to consider all the factors.
You JUST said you wanted to do away with it (in another comment thread). I think you're just desperate to not appear racist, which explains the incoherence of your recent comments.
And for the record, I think Will's comments are reasonable. But this is pretty much how Affirmative Action is currently handled. All factors are considered, and those making the decisions don't have to slavishly award entry based on numbers alone (points awarded to minorities).
No, you've never mentioned quotas before. In fact, you've been quite consistent on your opposition to Affirmative Action, so this is an entirely new position for you. Adopted only for the purposes of this discussion, no doubt. That way you can pretend to be in agreement with Will. You're really going out of your way to please him, aren't you?
You know, gentlemen, this is one area where, if we could only stop bickering for a moment or two, we could probably find some common ground. I mean, it really looks as if we may have found some already.
dmarks: ...I have made quite clear in past comments that it is the quote/preference/goal part of affirmative action which I oppose...
We know this isn't accurate simply by reading my first comment and Will's response to it. I said dmarks would call Will a racist, and in response Will said he hoped dmarks would consider what he'd written.
If your past comments were what you say they are (NOW) Will wouldn't have expressed any doubt regarding how you might respond. He would have said, "no way, dmarks and I are on the same page regarding this issue. YES to diversity and NO to quotas".
But he didn't say that... or anything like that.
Me, I don't support set in stone quotas. I do support goals. I think it's a good thing for diversity goals to be set and effort expended in reaching those goals. The numbers shouldn't be set in stone though.
If you oppose goals then I don't know how you can say you and Will are in agreement. Striving for diversity involves setting some goals. It sure looks to me like you're trying to avoid disagreeing with Will.
And Will does take extreme positions. In regards to free trade, for instance. Free trade is throwing open the doors completely and lifting all barriers. The more moderate position is Fair Trade and Balanced Trade (both of which I support).
Another extreme position of Will's would be his desire to eliminate all corporate taxes. My more moderate position would be to reform the tax code and eliminate all loopholes, after which we could look at lowering the rate somewhat.
BTW, holding our leaders accountable isn't "extreme". It's logical and reasonable and would discourage future abuses of power. Seeing as the crimes of the bush administration have been swept under the rug, it's likely that a future president will do the same or go even further.
In fact, the current president approves of the killing of innocents with drones, and I'd say this is a direct result of bush not being held accountable for his crimes.
Actually, wd is right. Getting rid of the corporate income tax kind of IS an extreme position. BUT it's also a position that's been espoused by liberals such as Robert Reich and some contributor over at Firedog Lake. AND I more than make up for it by raising the individual rates and doing away with the special consideration for capital gains.............As for free trade, it's kind of hard to consider something that 70-90% of economists consider as beneficial to be extreme. But, hey, we're obviously talking wd here.
And, yes, I would be more than happy to entertain wd's compromise of getting rid of loopholes and reducing the rates. I think that that would be a very productive discussion, not just for us bloggers here but for the country as a whole.
dmarks, your African-American versus Hungarian immigrant situation, are the 2 applicants in question equally qualified?
Will: yes.
dmarks: Why not try to get along instead of intentionally misreading things and flat-out making false statements about things I have said.
I misread nothing. You're either changing your position or you just forgot to add the word "quota" and are misremembering or lying about having included it previously.
Why not just admit you never mentioned quotas before, apologize, and move on?
dmarks: Again, you are making up crazy crap just for the fun of it.
I'm just stating the (incredibly obvious) facts.
dmarks: Actually free trade IS the most fair, because the people doing the trading get to decide what is fair or not.
The multinational corporations are making the decisions. And they've decided to more good American jobs to low wage countries with lesser workplace and environmental standards (and make a HUGE profit by doing so). Your way gives the American people no choice. Your's is the most unfair way to go.
dmarks: You are now slandering Obama. There is nothing in his policy or statements to indicate this.
Now you're lying. I didn't killing innocents was approved of in a policy statement. I'm saying it's implicitly approved, as he knows it's happening but considers it "acceptable" (obviously, otherwise he wouldn't have ramped up the program so).
dmarks: Since there were no crimes for him to be held accountable for...
Torture is a war crime. We tortured. bush acknowledged it. This is just you denying reality.
Will: ...it's also a position that's been espoused by liberals such as Robert Reich...
Robert Reich has also espoused the position of the top marginal tax rate going up to 70 percent. Let I'm "crazy" when I mention it. You say you vociferously oppose it. Well, I vociferously oppose the elimination of the corporate income tax.
dmarks: No, you are making up crazy stuff just for the fun of it. Making easily unproven accusations, and fully embracing the definition of an internet "troll". Lying for fun.
I think you're lying for fun. What you're saying is easily disproved. In fact, I've already disproved what you're saying about "always" being against quotas... by pointing out that Will thought you might disagree with him.
No amount of spinning or lying is going to change this fact. You may as well give up dmarks. You might think this trolling is funny, but I doubt anyone else does.
dmarks: My position has been clear and consistent.
Proof your position has NOT been clear and consistent...
Will: Also, I think that I included enough nuance here that dmarks will at least consider what I've written.
Will didn't know that you were "always" against quotas. I'm not lying, making stuff up for fun, or trolling. YOU ARE.
Or perhaps your brain cells are so pickled that you really think you've "always" supported diversity/outreach and "always" been against quotas (and made that clear here on this blog).
dmarks: No, it is not. Civilians are never targeted.
Of course they're not "targeted" (on purpose). But still they are killed. Ask Will. He wrote a post on the topic. Also, this has nothing to do with terrorists hiding among civilians in hopes of causing such casualties. You're just making stuff up that you feel in your gut is true without checking the actual facts.
Will's quote does not say what you think he says, WD. You are putting words in his mouth. My position has and is clear and consistent. For me to say otherwise would be for me to flat out lie.
And yes thanks for a link that proves the obvious: that the civilian casualties with the drone program are a direct result of terrorists hiding in civilian areas. More examples of you using the term 'war criminal' in a mindless and immature fashion akin to a 2nd grader on the playground calling someone 'poopy pants'.
dmarks: Will's quote does not say what you think he says, WD. You are putting words in his mouth.
How is an unaltered quote putting words in his mouth? Answer: it isn't.
dmarks: thanks for a link that proves the obvious: that the civilian casualties with the drone program are a direct result of terrorists hiding in civilian areas.
The story I linked to does not say that. It says groups of innocent civilians that included zero terrorists were targeted by missiles and killed. You're lying or seriously lacking in reading comprehension.
dmarks: More examples of you using the term 'war criminal' in a mindless and immature fashion akin to a 2nd grader on the playground calling someone 'poopy pants'.
You can provide zero examples of me doing this. Because I've never done it.
"How is an unaltered quote putting words in his mouth? Answer: it isn't."
No, it is just that his quote does not contain your false claim.
"The story I linked to does not say that. It says groups of innocent civilians that included zero terrorists were targeted by missiles and killed. You're lying or seriously lacking in reading comprehension."
So now you think Obama targetted civilians. I thought you said he did not.
"You can provide zero examples of me doing this. Because I've never done it."
There are scads of examples of you using the "war criminal" accusation in a mindless and frivolous way. Even in very recent comments here.
dmarks: No, it is just that his quote does not contain your false claim.
I made no false claims.
dmarks: So now you think Obama targetted civilians. I thought you said he did not.
They're targeted accidently, not on purpose. And Obama isn't targeting anyone, btw. The president isn't involved on that level.
dmarks: There are scads of examples of you using the "war criminal" accusation in a mindless and frivolous way. Even in very recent comments here.
Give ONE example. You can't do it. I predict crickets.
As for what Will said, I him at his word. Not at what you made up that he said
"And Obama isn't targeting anyone, btw. The president isn't involved on that level."
Actually, as the Commander-in-Chief, he is. All such decisions ultimately reset with him.
As for examples of you using "war criminal" as a meaningless juvenile insult, look at your comment in the recent Karl Rove post on this very blog. You know you did it, yet in a trollish fashion you deny saying stuff you said a couple of days ago.
Grow up.
dmarks: As for what Will said, I him at his word. Not at what you made up that he said.
I posted a unaltered quote. I made nothing up. I took him at his word when he expressed doubts about how you would react. I guess you think he lied?
A clueless dmarks: Actually, as the Commander-in-Chief, he is. All such decisions ultimately reset with him.
So you believe that Obama is out in the field gathering intelligence about where the terrorists are (meaning he's spending a lot of time in Pakistan)? Or perhaps you think he flies the drones and pushes the button to deploy the missiles? Or perhaps you think he does both? Either way you are stupidly mistaken.
dmarks: You know you did it, yet in a trollish fashion you deny saying stuff you said a couple of days ago. Grow up.
I deny it because it didn't happen. I didn't call Rove a war criminal as a "meaningless juvenile insult". I said it because it's true.
Why don't you grow up and stop making false accusations of me being a "troll" just because I'm pointing out truths you don't like.
"I took him at his word when he expressed doubts about how you would react. I guess you think he lied?"
....which has absolutely nothing to do with your claim about my opposition to only the quota part of Affirmative Action.
"Either way you are stupidly mistaken."
No, I am intelligently informed about the chain of command and where responsibility lies in military matters.
"I didn't call Rove a war criminal as a "meaningless juvenile insult". I said it because it's true."
True? The facts get in your way, again:
1) There's no evidence.
2) Claims that he's a war criminal are so absurd that the authorities involved consider them beneath consideration.
Sorry, your uninformed opinion here proves that indeed you call Rove a war criminal as a meaningless juvenile insult.
dmarks: ...which has absolutely nothing to do with your claim about my opposition to only the quota part of Affirmative Action.
It has everything to do with it. Will didn't remember you every saying that you were only opposed to quotas, or he would have said so instead of expressing doubt about whether or not you'd agree with this post.
dmarks: No, I am intelligently informed about the chain of command and where responsibility lies in military matters.
None of that has anything to do with what we were talking about. You're changing the subject. You claimed that Obama did the actual targeting. I asked if you thought that meant he did the intelligence gathering (finding out where the terrorists are and when to target them), or if he flies the drones and fires the missiles... Or both. You're ignoring the question and changing the subject because you know you're wrong.
dmarks: There's no evidence. Claims that he's a war criminal are so absurd that the authorities involved consider them beneath consideration.
There is reams of evidence. The "authorities involved" failing to bring charges does not equate to innocence. Also, your claim that the reason no charges have been brought is because the charges are "so absurd" or "beneath consideration" isn't factual. You made up/guessed/imagined those reasons.
What is really "so absurd" is you continually saying these are the reasons (for no charges) with no proof what-so-ever to back up what you're saying.
BTW, some of the "actual authorities" are Obama and Holder, and members of the world court. Produce ONE quote from any of these people saying the idea of charging any bush official is "beneath consideration" or "so absurd". You won't be able to do it. I predict you ignore the question.
wd, dmarks says that he is FOR outreach and AGAINST quotas. That is a perfectly reasonable position. How 'bout instead of playing this endlessly futile and boring gotcha game, the 3 of us all spike the ball together and mosey on to the next grand controversy?
Will: wd, dmarks says that he is FOR outreach and AGAINST quotas.
NOW he says this. But that isn't the only thing that rubs me the wrong way. He also insists I've been arguing all along for quotas, even though I never mentioned them.
And how is being in favor of diversity not racist (according to dmarks)? That's selecting someone because of their skin color. He's obviously changing his tune... which is fine (and I'd congratulate him for it), but why lie about your previous position?
I think dmarks is the Mitt Romney of Blogging. He flip flops from previous positions, then denies his position was ever any different than it currently is.
And, as I recall, you really had problems with Mitt being a "phony".
I probably shouldn't speak for dmarks but perhaps by diversity he is meaning that it's a good thing for an employer and/or university to seek out qualified (qualified being based on a variety of indicators) individuals from a variety of backgrounds and experiences, and that that can be done without some arbitrary numerical imperative.
That's clearly racist (using dmarks' logic). Employers should be completely colorblind when it comes to hiring.
I've said my piece. You guys can settle it as you deem.
Post a Comment