NationStates Jolt Archive

Affirmative Action: Is it right or wrong?

Please, no biggoted remarks.

affirmitive action is government-endorsed racism or sexism

Backwards racism in order to alleviate the guilty consceinces of those who are out of touch with the common people is still racism.

You should achieve things by hard work, not by race.

Given where we are now, in our society, yes. In a perfect world, no. But we're here, not there.

Another AA thread? Ah well. I voted no.

I think that affirmative action is a racist policy, not only because it discriminates against equally qualified individuals who are not a "minority," but also because it assumes "minority" inferiority. Affirmative action relies on, for its own justification, the opinion that people of color cannot make it on their own and thus need the government (i.e. "The Man") to help them. I often wonder what a person who would be consitered a minority would be more proud of: knowing that they stood against adversity on their own two feet, or knowing that they had the man hold their hand. I'd be a lot more proud of the first option, personally.

I think that affirmative action is a racist policy, not only because it discriminates against equally qualified individuals who are not a "minority," but also because it assumes "minority" inferiority. Affirmative action relies on, for its own justification, the opinion that people of color cannot make it on their own and thus need the government (i.e. "The Man") to help them. I often wonder what a person who would be consitered a minority would be more proud of: knowing that they stood against adversity on their own two feet, or knowing that they had the man hold their hand. I'd be a lot more proud of the first option, personally.
I agree with most of this except that AA doesn't assume minority inferiority, it assumes minority disadvantage.

I think that affirmative action is a racist policy, not only because it discriminates against equally qualified individuals who are not a "minority," but also because it assumes "minority" inferiority. Affirmative action relies on, for its own justification, the opinion that people of color cannot make it on their own and thus need the government (i.e. "The Man") to help them. I often wonder what a person who would be consitered a minority would be more proud of: knowing that they stood against adversity on their own two feet, or knowing that they had the man hold their hand. I'd be a lot more proud of the first option, personally.

I agree with most of this except that AA doesn't assume minority inferiority, it assumes minority disadvantage.

Same difference. So Joe White CEO won't hire you cause your skin color is wrong. Do I sit and pout and run to the nanny state and say "he won't play fair" or do I stand up tall and say "fine, screw you I'll do it myself"?

The disadvantage created by Joe White CEO causes many minorities to go to the government to get a law passed. Why not start your own business? Why not just boycott Joe White CEO and only do business with people of your like mind? Why not form alliances with friendly business and those like minded to combat these things grassroots style? Why not empower PEOPLE to come together and empower PEOPLE to solve problems for themselves?

Those who support AA would say no, you need the government to legislate. You need to remove the effort from the community and place it in the removed hands of politicians and bureaucrats you've never met. You are to weak to do it yourself. You are to powerless to organize your own effort. You are to stupid to find people like yourself and work together for your common good. You need the elitists in government to hold your hand for you, because you are a meer "minority" with no voice. AA turns your disadvantage into inferiority, because only with AA shall you find salvation, because as a minority you are too dumb, weak, and powerless to do something about it yourself.

AA was a system developed by vote seeking elitist politicans to secure office at the expense ofvictims of discrimination. They have taken your rightous cause and turned it into a gimmick to get more power for themselves. They claim that in order to eliminate discrimination, you must submit yourself to them cause you can't do it on your own. I say you can do it yourself. You can stand on your own to feet. You don't need the elitists to hold your hand.


Thats my libertarian/anarchist/individualist/grassroots/anti-elitist take on it anyway. 8)

A lot of us can't stand on our own two feet. We may be disabled or, as I say, disadvantaged, or just plain stupid. I'm quite obviously in the minority but I believe that it is morally right to help the disadvantaged. We saw, under Thatcher, what the opposite policy does.

I say, don't have race as an entry on any application. And I don't quite agree with race-based scholarships either.

A lot of us can't stand on our own two feet. We may be disabled or, as I say, disadvantaged, or just plain stupid. I'm quite obviously in the minority but I believe that it is morally right to help the disadvantaged. We saw, under Thatcher, what the opposite policy does.

Who isn't for helping people and the disadvantaged? I just don't think people should be using a corrupt system headed by power-hungry elitists to do it. Reguarding the people who can't stand up themselves...is legislation or government process required to make sure these people are taken care of? Why don't people care for each other like a community, instead of shoving them off onto the government like people stick their parents in "homes" waiting for them to die? Its rather sad if you ask me... a people who cared for their members instead of tossing them off into the daycare would be a lot stronger and would be able to stand against adversity a lot better in my opinion.

Hopelessly idealistic I suppose, but someones gotta go first.

I say, don't have race as an entry on any application. And I don't quite agree with race-based scholarships either.

Any scholarship into an academic institution not based purely on academic performace should be eliminated. Nothing pisses me off more than the A/B average kid getting rejected from his choice school while the D average meathead gets in on an "athletic scholarship" cause he can throw a ball. If academic rewards were based ONLY on academic performance, I think you'd see a great improvement in our schools as people would be better motovated.

A lot of us can't stand on our own two feet. We may be disabled or, as I say, disadvantaged, or just plain stupid. I'm quite obviously in the minority but I believe that it is morally right to help the disadvantaged. We saw, under Thatcher, what the opposite policy does.

Who isn't for helping people and the disadvantaged? I just don't think people should be using a corrupt system headed by power-hungry elitists to do it. Reguarding the people who can't stand up themselves...is legislation or government process required to make sure these people are taken care of? Why don't people care for each other like a community, instead of shoving them off onto the government like people stick their parents in "homes" waiting for them to die? Its rather sad if you ask me... a people who cared for their members instead of tossing them off into the daycare would be a lot stronger and would be able to stand against adversity a lot better in my opinion.

Hopelessly idealistic I suppose, but someones gotta go first.
The Asians in the UK have prospered because of just that. The 'white' populations of the UK and US have done just what you say, abandoned mutual care and rely on the state. As I say, this is where we are, not where we'd like to be.

Crikey, it's less popular than I'd thought :) On the basis of just sixteen votes admittedly.

If affirmative action is racism, than leaving the state of inequality is racism too.

If affirmative action is racism, than leaving the state of inequality is racism too.
Precisely.

I say, don't have race as an entry on any application. And I don't quite agree with race-based scholarships either.

Any scholarship into an academic institution not based purely on academic performace should be eliminated. Nothing pisses me off more than the A/B average kid getting rejected from his choice school while the D average meathead gets in on an "athletic scholarship" cause he can throw a ball. If academic rewards were based ONLY on academic performance, I think you'd see a great improvement in our schools as people would be better motovated.
You do have a point. Of course, the "no pass, no play" rules do help, but we could raise the bar on that.

If affirmative action is racism, than leaving the state of inequality is racism too.

Even without Affirmative Action, there are laws preventing racial discrimination.

Given where we are now, in our society, yes. In a perfect world, no. But we're here, not there.


that's what i think. i mean, it's okay, but people take it way to seriously. all it is is that if you have to equally qualified individuals you take the minority. what's wrong with that? well a lot of governments take it to the extreme, which i don't agree with, by having quotas for women, different races, and mentally disabled.

If affirmative action is racism, than leaving the state of inequality is racism too.

Even without Affirmative Action, there are laws preventing racial discrimination.Than affirmative action is not racism, since it's law and perfectly constitutional.

It's not fair to give someone free scholarships by their race, you should have to EARN it.

It's not fair to give someone free scholarships by their race, you should have to EARN it.Than give the minorities an equal oppurtunity, which is not happening. Segregation in public schools, for example.

It's not fair to give someone free scholarships by their race, you should have to EARN it.Than give the minorities an equal oppurtunity, which is not happening. Segregation in public schools, for example.Earning something has nothing to do with segregation.

It's not fair to give someone free scholarships by their race, you should have to EARN it.Than give the minorities an equal oppurtunity, which is not happening. Segregation in public schools, for example.Earning something has nothing to do with segregation.Than shut the hell up. You don't know what you're talking about. Minorities using affirmative action have earned it. There's no question to it. Delusional dumbass.

It's not fair to give someone free scholarships by their race, you should have to EARN it.Than give the minorities an equal oppurtunity, which is not happening. Segregation in public schools, for example.

I have a hard time believing that segregation is an issue today.

Minorities using affirmative action have earned it.
How? By beeing a minoritie? Quit an accomplishment.

Than affirmative action is not racism, since it's law and perfectly constitutional.

Oh aye? It's not 'racist' because it's a law? Was apartheid not 'legal' and 'constitutional'?

Minorities using affirmative action have earned it.
How? By beeing a minoritie? Quit an accomplishment.By graduating from high school and getting a college degree. If the minorities really sucked, they wouldn't get either, wouldn't they? It's not fair to give someone free scholarships by their race, you should have to EARN it.Than give the minorities an equal oppurtunity, which is not happening. Segregation in public schools, for example.

I have a hard time believing that segregation is an issue today.
Agreed. But it's still true.

I am not in favour of Affirmative action, but some people simply wont give you the job because you are a woman and they think you cant do it. Well realistically, f**k em. They sure as hell will NEVER respect you if you are getting the job because of affirmative action, even if you got it thru being a corporate ninja or the plumbing equivalent of yoda ect they will stil say bla bla bla you only got it because... In fact people still say that sh*t and its about rubbish things like being on a college council ect. It just encourages racism/sexism ect. There are laws against discrimination, so people cant legally discriminate. You cant push the pendulum and say you have to have such and such amount of people working for you, its stupid. I do think the police should mirror the society its policing tho.

It's not fair to give someone free scholarships by their race, you should have to EARN it.Than give the minorities an equal oppurtunity, which is not happening. Segregation in public schools, for example.

I have a hard time believing that segregation is an issue today.
Agreed. But it's still true.

Prove it.

I think that affirmative action is a racist policy, not only because it discriminates against equally qualified individuals who are not a "minority," but also because it assumes "minority" inferiority. Affirmative action relies on, for its own justification, the opinion that people of color cannot make it on their own and thus need the government (i.e. "The Man") to help them. I often wonder what a person who would be consitered a minority would be more proud of: knowing that they stood against adversity on their own two feet, or knowing that they had the man hold their hand. I'd be a lot more proud of the first option, personally.

I agree with most of this except that AA doesn't assume minority inferiority, it assumes minority disadvantage.

Same difference. So Joe White CEO won't hire you cause your skin color is wrong. Do I sit and pout and run to the nanny state and say "he won't play fair" or do I stand up tall and say "fine, screw you I'll do it myself"?

The disadvantage created by Joe White CEO causes many minorities to go to the government to get a law passed. Why not start your own business? Why not just boycott Joe White CEO and only do business with people of your like mind? Why not form alliances with friendly business and those like minded to combat these things grassroots style? Why not empower PEOPLE to come together and empower PEOPLE to solve problems for themselves?

Those who support AA would say no, you need the government to legislate. You need to remove the effort from the community and place it in the removed hands of politicians and bureaucrats you've never met. You are to weak to do it yourself. You are to powerless to organize your own effort. You are to stupid to find people like yourself and work together for your common good. You need the elitists in government to hold your hand for you, because you are a meer "minority" with no voice. AA turns your disadvantage into inferiority, because only with AA shall you find salvation, because as a minority you are too dumb, weak, and powerless to do something about it yourself.

AA was a system developed by vote seeking elitist politicans to secure office at the expense ofvictims of discrimination. They have taken your rightous cause and turned it into a gimmick to get more power for themselves. They claim that in order to eliminate discrimination, you must submit yourself to them cause you can't do it on your own. I say you can do it yourself. You can stand on your own to feet. You don't need the elitists to hold your hand.


Thats my libertarian/anarchist/individualist/grassroots/anti-elitist take on it anyway. 8)

That view is libertarian, not anarchist, individualist grassroots or anti-elitist. If you're going to call yourself an anarchist you better be one. Too bad that theory is flawed in so many ways, it seems so good. Too bad not everyone can start a buisness by themselves, they need employees. Lets assume this rebel of Joe White CEO is black, well call him... Bakunin :D . OK, Bakunin is pissed off by the system, starts his own company, well, if he was obviously turned down for a job by Cap'n Whitebread he probably wont hire white people to work his store, rebelling against the man. Ok so now he has this store and the white trash down the street with no job and a high school education needs a job, he comes to Bakunin, and is turned down, Bakunin doesn't want whitey working for him. So now he has perpetuated this circle of biggotry. He works long hours at his failing liquor store just so he can pay for his cable bill and his weed. He has no time to find a wife and no money to start a family. Meanwhile our disgruntled white boy, well call him Greg. Goes home and finds his nearest hate group, he sure is mad at them blacks. So now he joins a hate gang who use his story as proof of the black exploitation of white men. So instead of getting a job and working his way up the corporate ladder, starting a family with kids that hopefull will be well educated and able to know that hatred and biggotry are pointless and terrible things, he lives till the end of his days a bitter old man, and the racial divide is that much wider. The End.
Ok, i know that this is a very unlikely and pessimistic story, but not everyone can go out and be en entrapreneur (sp?). There are some people that need to join the work force. But as long as stuff like this happens, there will always be Joe White CEO to stop the black man from working his way up in society, so minorities do need help from the governemnt in order to squash the biggoted ideas of this man from turning into biggoted actions. I do agree with you, but this is a very unrealistic view you have set down. I personally think you are putting too much faith in humanity to do the right thing.
So now for my view, I am a Taoist, and in accordance with that I think that government is unnecessary and gets in the way of nature, i also think that organized society, organized big buisness and thinking too much tear apart the beauty that is nature and leads those involved farther away from the Tao.
Just for the record, i do wear tie dye, hemp, have long hair, think healthy, dont drive and yes, I wear Birkenstocks. But as far as AA goes, Im pro, cause white america (the real minority) will oppress the minorities of this country and keep them from further development. But AA definately needs fixing. Dont kill it, fix it.

(Marineris: Read Bakunin before you go calling yourself an anarchist.)

Than affirmative action is not racism, since it's law and perfectly constitutional.Oh aye? It's not 'racist' because it's a law? Was apartheid not 'legal' and 'constitutional'?Not really. At least, not according to the Supreme Court. Yes, they were late, but at least they fixed their previous mistakes. Talking about apartheid...isn't segregation in public schools in innercities wrong too, than?

Than affirmative action is not racism, since it's law and perfectly constitutional.

Oh aye? It's not 'racist' because it's a law? Was apartheid not 'legal' and 'constitutional'?
And the anti Jew laws in the 3rd Reich. It was all legal and constitutional. So why do people make such a fuzz about it?

Some people still graduate from high school and still can't get accepted into colleges, but if a minority graduates high school, he or she can get accepted automaticaly.

Minorities using affirmative action have earned it.
How? By beeing a minoritie? Quit an accomplishment.By graduating from high school and getting a college degree. If the minorities really sucked, they wouldn't get either, wouldn't they?
If they could do all those things by themself, why would they need AA at all then?

It's not fair to give someone free scholarships by their race, you should have to EARN it.Than give the minorities an equal oppurtunity, which is not happening. Segregation in public schools, for example.

I have a hard time believing that segregation is an issue today.
Agreed. But it's still true.

Prove it.
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Third_World_US/Malign_Neglect_Kozol.html
http://www.may8.org/Racepoints.html
People still graduate from high school and still can't get accepted into colleges, but if a minority graduates high school, he or she can get accepted automaticaly.That's an outrageous, obvious and unprovable lie. And you know it.

Minorities using affirmative action have earned it.
How? By beeing a minoritie? Quit an accomplishment.By graduating from high school and getting a college degree. If the minorities really sucked, they wouldn't get either, wouldn't they?
If they could do all those things by themself, why would they need AA at all then?Earlier disadvantage of segregation in public schooling. It makes up for past wrongs.

I'm out. Peace.

I dont understand this scholarships thing. Surely if you are bright enough you will get one any way? regardless of race.Though thinking about it you could be real smart but if you go to some crappy state school its going to be less nourished so i dont know- although i went to a really crappy school and im at uni. It seems more like a question of money in america, the rich go, the poor dont. Here most folk who wanted to go and who worked to get in,do. Though it is slowly changing what with fees and loans so certain aspects are being excluded slowly or having grades suffer. Its 5:00 am here and im no social scientist buti dont think you should be awarded just for being black ect but the brightest of them should have the opportunity, but then the same goes for disadvantaged white people too.

Minorities using affirmative action have earned it.
How? By beeing a minoritie? Quit an accomplishment.By graduating from high school and getting a college degree. If the minorities really sucked, they wouldn't get either, wouldn't they?
If they could do all those things by themself, why would they need AA at all then?Earlier disadvantage of segregation in public schooling. It makes up for past wrongs.
Here we go again with that past wrongs non sence. I need AA cause my great great grand daddy was a slave blablablabla

Hell in that case my family should get compensation from the Japanese for the capture and torture of my grand-father in WWII. He should've gotten AA because he was one of a few survivors of a Japanese prison camp.

There should be AA but not based on race. It should be based on socioeconomic status because why does a wealthy black male deserve more of a chance than a poor white male.

There should be AA but not based on race. It should be based on socioeconomic status because why does a wealthy black male deserve more of a chance than a poor white male.
Probably to make up for past wrongs. :roll:

It's not fair to give someone free scholarships by their race, you should have to EARN it.Than give the minorities an equal oppurtunity, which is not happening. Segregation in public schools, for example.

I have a hard time believing that segregation is an issue today.
Agreed. But it's still true.

Prove it.
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Third_World_US/Malign_Neglect_Kozol.html
http://www.may8.org/Racepoints.html

Niether of your links proved that racial segregation still exists in America today. They merely proved that statisticly, minorities tend to be poorer and go to worse public schools than whites, therefore scoring worse and being at a disadvantage after high school..

I would have no problem with Affirmative Action if it's basis was economic need rather than race. That would directly address the problems listed in your links without discriminating against non-minorities.

Affirmative Action allows minorities to succeed in such situations, but non-minorities are left behind.

And don't Mexicans and others from Central America and South America get AA as well? Eventhough when it comes to racial statistics they are considerd white? What are you people complaining about? AA is for everyone. :lol:

It's not fair to give someone free scholarships by their race, you should have to EARN it.Than give the minorities an equal oppurtunity, which is not happening. Segregation in public schools, for example.

I have a hard time believing that segregation is an issue today.
Agreed. But it's still true.

Prove it.
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Third_World_US/Malign_Neglect_Kozol.html
http://www.may8.org/Racepoints.html

Niether of your links proved that racial segregation still exists in America today. They merely proved that statisticly, minorities tend to be poorer and go to worse public schools than whites, therefore scoring worse and being at a disadvantage after high school..

I would have no problem with Affirmative Action if it's basis was economic need rather than race. That would directly address the problems listed in your links without discriminating against non-minorities.

Affirmative Action allows minorities to succeed in such situations, but non-minorities are left behind.

I have to disagree I can see AA being used on a socioeconomic base for high school and college, but once that is over you are on your own. If you have gone to college (which competing with me for a job you would have to) then you have had the same oppurtunities that I have. Therefore why should you be given highermarks because growing up you were poor. Once you are in the job place it should simply be based on a meritocracy. Racism and discremenation no matter what pretty name you give it, is still wrong!

If affirmative action is racism, than leaving the state of inequality is racism too.

Is there anything you don't complain about? Honestly, if the Palestinians used people like you for advocates, NO ONE would support the Palestinian cause. Shall we hand the world on a silver platter to you sir? Will that satisfy you?

If affirmative action is racism, than leaving the state of inequality is racism too.

Even without Affirmative Action, there are laws preventing racial discrimination.Than affirmative action is not racism, since it's law and perfectly constitutional.

whether or not something is racist has nothing to do with whether or not it is legal...the Jim Crow and Blue Laws were in effect for years, and that didn't stop them from being horribly racist. lots of sexist or racist policies in the past were passed into law, just like AA is today.

AA is built around the false premise that blacks and whites as groups have equal learning abilities.

However, there is no evidence that this is the case.

All major studies done on intelligence in the US have consistently shown a 15 point black-white IQ gap. No matter how many attempts to make the tests less 'culturally biased', this discrepancy still remains.

As would be expected of a generally less intelligent population, Blacks have a much higher rate of crime, illegitimacy, homelessness, infectious diseases and poverty than whites.

In Africa where the average intelligence of Blacks is even lower, the problems are even worse (even in places where Whites never colonised, how do you explain that?).

Honestly, I voted no, but after reading AT's little post up there, I hope a black guy gets your job.

That said, I still stick to no. It should be based on merit. I think people would be surprised that if this were the case nothing would really change. In the meantime, in a country that sees things in black or white, I'd rather see quotas installed so it is more fair to everyone who may not be just black or white.

Again, so the one-track-minded people understand... ideally it should be based on merit. Unfortunately we are not at that level of maturity, thus my opinion.

Carpage:

Why should the government try and socially engineer blacks and whites to become "equal", when they surely are not? What makes you think it is even possible?

All major studies done on intelligence in the US have consistently shown a 15 point black-white IQ gap. No matter how many attempts to make the tests less 'culturally biased', this discrepancy still remains.

Got proof?

All major studies done on intelligence in the US have consistently shown a 15 point black-white IQ gap. No matter how many attempts to make the tests less 'culturally biased', this discrepancy still remains.

Got proof?

Race and IQ by Thomas Sowell (http://capmag.com/article.asp?ID=1958)

I disagree with his conclusion that the racial gap has no genetic basis, but he nevertheless confirms that there is an average intelligence difference.

All major studies done on intelligence in the US have consistently shown a 15 point black-white IQ gap. No matter how many attempts to make the tests less 'culturally biased', this discrepancy still remains.

Got proof?

Race and IQ by Thomas Sowell (http://capmag.com/article.asp?ID=1958)

I disagree with his conclusion that the racial gap has no genetic basis, but he nevertheless confirms that there is an average intelligence difference.

Well, not only does the source you cite disagree with you, almost all studies do as well.

Human Genome researched have proven (http://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/genomics/1_identity/ninety_nine.html)that human DNA, regardless of race, is pretty much identical. This makes claiming an IQ difference becease of genetics rather difficult.

Another study has shown (http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20030902-012426-2984r.htm) that socioeconomic status has a larger effect on IQ than genes.

Almost all of the major arguments I here about this (including the 15-point gap) originated from a book called "The Bell Curve". A quick Google Search (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=%22The+Bell+Curve%22&btnG=Google+Search) finds that the claims in the book have been debunked.

Well, not only does the source you cite disagree with you, almost all studies do as well.

Human Genome researched have proven (http://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/genomics/1_identity/ninety_nine.html)that human DNA, regardless of race, is pretty much identical. This makes claiming an IQ difference becease of genetics rather difficult.

Another study has shown (http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20030902-012426-2984r.htm) that socioeconomic status has a larger effect on IQ than genes.

Almost all of the major arguments I here about this (including the 15-point gap) originated from a book called "The Bell Curve". A quick Google Search (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=%22The+Bell+Curve%22&btnG=Google+Search) finds that the claims in the book have been debunked.
Er, they really can't make any claims about genetics and intelligence, since they actually have no idea just how certain conditions within the human genome relate to the development of the human mind and consciousness. That the difference is racial is as good a theory as any other, though personally I see it as an individuality issue, not a racial or socioeconomic one.

If affirmative action is racism, than leaving the state of inequality is racism too.

Affirmative Action *is* inequality.

Well, not only does the source you cite disagree with you, almost all studies do as well.

The source (T. Sowell) agrees that Blacks have a lower average intelligence than Whites, but he argues that the cause is not genetic.

Which studies are you referring to? Intelligence tests consistently show a large gap between Blacks and Whites.

Human Genome researched have proven (http://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/genomics/1_identity/ninety_nine.html)that human DNA, regardless of race, is pretty much identical. This makes claiming an IQ difference becease of genetics rather difficult.

"Pretty much identical" is a meaningless term. No two humans have identical DNA, except maybe identical twins. The genetic difference between someone who is born naturally intelligent and someone who is not may be 0.00001%, but does that mean it is insignificant?

Another study has shown (http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20030902-012426-2984r.htm) that socioeconomic status has a larger effect on IQ than genes.

Ok, that's one possible position. But please remember that in order to make the claim that the environment has a larger effect on intelligence than genes, you are still accepting that there is a black-white intelligence gap.

Intelligence is a phenotype; and it is influenced by both genes and environment. It is quite likely that the black-white intelligence gap has some genetic basis based on this evidence alone.


Almost all of the major arguments I here about this (including the 15-point gap) originated from a book called "The Bell Curve". A quick Google Search (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=%22The+Bell+Curve%22&btnG=Google+Search) finds that the claims in the book have been debunked.

Which claims have been debunked and how? Be specific.

I recommend a book called Why Race Matters (http://www.lrainc.com/swtaboo/stalkers/ml_wrm_jls.html) by jew Michael Levin.

There should be AA but not based on race. It should be based on socioeconomic status because why does a wealthy black male deserve more of a chance than a poor white male.
Probably to make up for past wrongs. :roll:
I never owned a slave. My father never owned a slave. My family, as far as I can tell, never engaged in the practice of slavery, as far back as when they migrated from Germany to England and then to America during the 1600s. Why should I be punished for a crime none of my ancestors committed? Why should anyone be punished for the crime of their ancestors? Should a child fathered by a murderer face trial for its father's crimes? Shall the children of a bank robber be imprisoned alongside him when he is caught? Aparently so, according to you.

All major studies done on intelligence in the US have consistently shown a 15 point black-white IQ gap. No matter how many attempts to make the tests less 'culturally biased', this discrepancy still remains.

Got proof?

Race and IQ by Thomas Sowell (http://capmag.com/article.asp?ID=1958)

I disagree with his conclusion that the racial gap has no genetic basis, but he nevertheless confirms that there is an average intelligence difference.
You are a master of one thing at least. You are able to give scources which contain a nugget of something that supports your racially evil views and ignore or even disagree the parts of that scource that don't agree with your racially evil views. It is informative to see the same small, bitter clique agree with anything you post. Apart from your well known saddo ideas, their comments highlight the bile you all are unable to keep down. There may come a day when you have something sensible to say, when you cite a scource that isn't from a hate site or you don't just cherry-pick. Until then, I choose not to debase myself in any form of 'proper' debate with you. I will simply say that you have probably influenced more people away from your kind of hate than to it, so maybe I should thank you.

There should be AA but not based on race. It should be based on socioeconomic status because why does a wealthy black male deserve more of a chance than a poor white male.
Probably to make up for past wrongs. :roll:
I never owned a slave. My father never owned a slave. My family, as far as I can tell, never engaged in the practice of slavery, as far back as when they migrated from Germany to England and then to America during the 1600s. Why should I be punished for a crime none of my ancestors committed? Why should anyone be punished for the crime of their ancestors? Should a child fathered by a murderer face trial for its father's crimes? Shall the children of a bank robber be imprisoned alongside him when he is caught? Aparently so, according to you.
I was beeing sarcastic. :roll:

There should be AA but not based on race. It should be based on socioeconomic status because why does a wealthy black male deserve more of a chance than a poor white male.
Probably to make up for past wrongs. :roll:
I never owned a slave. My father never owned a slave. My family, as far as I can tell, never engaged in the practice of slavery, as far back as when they migrated from Germany to England and then to America during the 1600s. Why should I be punished for a crime none of my ancestors committed? Why should anyone be punished for the crime of their ancestors? Should a child fathered by a murderer face trial for its father's crimes? Shall the children of a bank robber be imprisoned alongside him when he is caught? Aparently so, according to you.
I was beeing sarcastic. :roll:
Be patient, he's under a lot of pressure.

Er.....that's me being sarcastic.

You are a master of one thing at least. You are able to give scources which contain a nugget of something that supports your racially evil views and ignore or even disagree the parts of that scource that don't agree with your racially evil views. It is informative to see the same small, bitter clique agree with anything you post. Apart from your well known saddo ideas, their comments highlight the bile you all are unable to keep down. There may come a day when you have something sensible to say, when you cite a scource that isn't from a hate site or you don't just cherry-pick. Until then, I choose not to debase myself in any form of 'proper' debate with you. I will simply say that you have probably influenced more people away from your kind of hate than to it, so maybe I should thank you.


Whether the racial intelligence gap is mainly because of the environment or mainly because of the genes, makes little difference because it is still a phenotypal trait.

If there is no genetic basis that simply means that blacks can possibly be socially engineered to have equal intelligences to whites. Why whites should be obligated to pay for this i don't know.

AA is built around the false premise that blacks and whites as groups have equal learning abilities.

However, there is no evidence that this is the case.

All major studies done on intelligence in the US have consistently shown a 15 point black-white IQ gap. No matter how many attempts to make the tests less 'culturally biased', this discrepancy still remains.

As would be expected of a generally less intelligent population, Blacks have a much higher rate of crime, illegitimacy, homelessness, infectious diseases and poverty than whites.

In Africa where the average intelligence of Blacks is even lower, the problems are even worse (even in places where Whites never colonised, how do you explain that?).

I would like to point out that over the past 10 years IQ tests have been discounted as a viable means of judging IQ. The reason is exactly what you stated the will always have bias!

AA is built around the false premise that blacks and whites as groups have equal learning abilities.

However, there is no evidence that this is the case.

All major studies done on intelligence in the US have consistently shown a 15 point black-white IQ gap. No matter how many attempts to make the tests less 'culturally biased', this discrepancy still remains.

As would be expected of a generally less intelligent population, Blacks have a much higher rate of crime, illegitimacy, homelessness, infectious diseases and poverty than whites.

In Africa where the average intelligence of Blacks is even lower, the problems are even worse (even in places where Whites never colonised, how do you explain that?).

I would like to point out that over the past 10 years IQ tests have been discounted as a viable means of judging IQ. The reason is exactly what you stated the will always have bias!
If not with IQ tests, then how do you wanna test someones IQ? You apply AA, by giving groups and individuals, a IQ number thats 20% higher then it was under those nasty, biased IQ tests? :lol:

AA is built around the false premise that blacks and whites as groups have equal learning abilities.

However, there is no evidence that this is the case.

All major studies done on intelligence in the US have consistently shown a 15 point black-white IQ gap. No matter how many attempts to make the tests less 'culturally biased', this discrepancy still remains.

As would be expected of a generally less intelligent population, Blacks have a much higher rate of crime, illegitimacy, homelessness, infectious diseases and poverty than whites.

In Africa where the average intelligence of Blacks is even lower, the problems are even worse (even in places where Whites never colonised, how do you explain that?).

I would like to point out that over the past 10 years IQ tests have been discounted as a viable means of judging IQ. The reason is exactly what you stated the will always have bias!
If not with IQ tests, then how do you wanna test someones IQ? You apply AA, by giving groups and individuals, a IQ number thats 20% higher then it was under those nasty, biased IQ tests? :lol:

My question is who determines an IQ. Furthermore how can you determines someones IQ that is higher then yours?

AA is built around the false premise that blacks and whites as groups have equal learning abilities.

However, there is no evidence that this is the case.

All major studies done on intelligence in the US have consistently shown a 15 point black-white IQ gap. No matter how many attempts to make the tests less 'culturally biased', this discrepancy still remains.

As would be expected of a generally less intelligent population, Blacks have a much higher rate of crime, illegitimacy, homelessness, infectious diseases and poverty than whites.

In Africa where the average intelligence of Blacks is even lower, the problems are even worse (even in places where Whites never colonised, how do you explain that?).

I would like to point out that over the past 10 years IQ tests have been discounted as a viable means of judging IQ. The reason is exactly what you stated the will always have bias!
If not with IQ tests, then how do you wanna test someones IQ? You apply AA, by giving groups and individuals, a IQ number thats 20% higher then it was under those nasty, biased IQ tests? :lol:

My question is who determines an IQ. Furthermore how can you determines someones IQ that is higher then yours?
IQ tests are the only way to determin someones IQ. Thats what they are for.

No the Affirmative Action was set up due to our government having to appease all the minorities. Not just blacks, but Indians, Afghanis, Chinese, Japanese... whoever is of an ethnic background other than Caucasion.

So... the government basically made the assumption that all employers will bias against minorities. Thus, AA was born. Personally, I think it's a waste... I hate the fact that someone who is less qualified may score the position I want just because of their background. If I did not get a job, scholarship, enrollment, etc... due to that person being more qualified, I could care less of their background... the better person recieved the win. I can accept defeat, but I cannot accept the concept of me losing a job, or such, to someone just because of their background. A person's background should in NO WAY be a decisive factor in the selection process. I am not a racist btw, I just do not agree with why we have to appease everyone. It's just impossible and someone's toes are always goingto be stepped on.

i have still yet to see one person explain how discriminating between applicants/employees on the basis of their gender or ethnicity will end sexism or racism.

It's not fair to give someone free scholarships by their race, you should have to EARN it.Than give the minorities an equal oppurtunity, which is not happening. Segregation in public schools, for example.

There is no segregation in schools, moron.

It's not fair to give someone free scholarships by their race, you should have to EARN it.Than give the minorities an equal oppurtunity, which is not happening. Segregation in public schools, for example.Earning something has nothing to do with segregation.Than shut the hell up. You don't know what you're talking about. Minorities using affirmative action have earned it. There's no question to it. Delusional dumbass.

No minority has earned Affirmative Action.

I'm sure that if you looked at pure percentatges, it is near equal statistics for any race, the fact that sheer numbers are different is grounds for discrimination, or so according to common thought...

Why take a potentially less qualified individual because of race? Women are considered a minority for some reason, yet they are 60 percent of all college students, and they wish to increase enrollment at the expense of someone who worked hard to achieve their stature...

Government should do away with racial profiling, if they are worried about social discrimination, create awareness, not compulsory discrimination on the opposite side...

We have come a long way since the days of Dr. King, now the civil rights movement has resorted for force, something that Dr. King was against... He learned from Ghandi's actions... They wish to increase civil rights by discrimination a contradiction to what they claim to achieve...

Minorities using affirmative action have earned it.
How? By beeing a minoritie? Quit an accomplishment.By graduating from high school and getting a college degree. If the minorities really sucked, they wouldn't get either, wouldn't they?
If they could do all those things by themself, why would they need AA at all then?Earlier disadvantage of segregation in public schooling. It makes up for past wrongs.

You don't make up for past wrongs by discriminating against Caucasians.

You make up for past wrongs by fixing the problem, which is desegragation. Which happened over 30 years ago. Get over it.

All major studies done on intelligence in the US have consistently shown a 15 point black-white IQ gap. No matter how many attempts to make the tests less 'culturally biased', this discrepancy still remains.

Got proof?

Race and IQ by Thomas Sowell (http://capmag.com/article.asp?ID=1958)

I disagree with his conclusion that the racial gap has no genetic basis, but he nevertheless confirms that there is an average intelligence difference.

Well, not only does the source you cite disagree with you, almost all studies do as well.

Human Genome researched have proven (http://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/genomics/1_identity/ninety_nine.html)that human DNA, regardless of race, is pretty much identical. This makes claiming an IQ difference becease of genetics rather difficult.

Well, scientists claim that human and monkey DNA is pretty much identical, but the little bit that is different makes all the difference in the world.

i have still yet to see one person explain how discriminating between applicants/employees on the basis of their gender or ethnicity will end sexism or racism.

Applying it now is counter-productive. It was implemented to phase out overt racism and prejudices, and now that all of that is far more implicit, AA only acts as a wedge to racial unity. For different groups to actually unite and coexist peacefully and completely, according to intergroup conflict theory, one condition is that they must have level ground on which to do so (ie: Sherif, 1966). AA is a hindrance to that.

Yeah, i am not a fan of AA. Don't get me wrong I like black people, i think everyone should own one.

i have still yet to see one person explain how discriminating between applicants/employees on the basis of their gender or ethnicity will end sexism or racism.

Applying it now is counter-productive. It was implemented to phase out overt racism and prejudices, and now that all of that is far more implicit, AA only acts as a wedge to racial unity. For different groups to actually unite and coexist peacefully and completely, according to intergroup conflict theory, one condition is that they must have level ground on which to do so (ie: Sherif, 1966). AA is a hindrance to that.

exactly :). i understand that at one point it was necessary to legally force the "old white boys network" to give others a shot, but now we (minorities/women) have our foot in the door and can earn our own way without a crutch.

hell, as has been pointed out, more women are in college than men! women have no excuse for failure in America, if they end up oppressed and underpaid it is because they chose to have babies and spend more time at home than their male counterparts...that's nobody's fault but their own. and if minorities have a disadvantage in schooling, well, so do the poor white people. income is the biggest impediment to success where i come from, and poverty knows no color barrier. it's one thing to give someone a little credit for overcoming their set backs, and quite another to give credit to a person simply for the amount of pigment in their skin.

All major studies done on intelligence in the US have consistently shown a 15 point black-white IQ gap. No matter how many attempts to make the tests less 'culturally biased', this discrepancy still remains.

Got proof?

Race and IQ by Thomas Sowell (http://capmag.com/article.asp?ID=1958)

I disagree with his conclusion that the racial gap has no genetic basis, but he nevertheless confirms that there is an average intelligence difference.

Well, not only does the source you cite disagree with you, almost all studies do as well.

Human Genome researched have proven (http://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/genomics/1_identity/ninety_nine.html)that human DNA, regardless of race, is pretty much identical. This makes claiming an IQ difference becease of genetics rather difficult.
Well, scientists claim that human and monkey DNA is pretty much identical, but the little bit that is different makes all the difference in the world.
Unless you have some credentials to present proving that you're an expert in genetics, you need to support your claims (such as that the "difference" you cite is even comparable to that mentioned by MC) with some sources. Your one-sentence statements are not valid refutations, and citing obscure "scientists," it sounds like you really don't know what you're talking about.

All major studies done on intelligence in the US have consistently shown a 15 point black-white IQ gap. No matter how many attempts to make the tests less 'culturally biased', this discrepancy still remains.

Got proof?

Race and IQ by Thomas Sowell (http://capmag.com/article.asp?ID=1958)

I disagree with his conclusion that the racial gap has no genetic basis, but he nevertheless confirms that there is an average intelligence difference.

Well, not only does the source you cite disagree with you, almost all studies do as well.

Human Genome researched have proven (http://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/genomics/1_identity/ninety_nine.html)that human DNA, regardless of race, is pretty much identical. This makes claiming an IQ difference becease of genetics rather difficult.

Well, scientists claim that human and monkey DNA is pretty much identical, but the little bit that is different makes all the difference in the world.
Well the difference between monkeys and humans is a whole percent whereas between races is closer to 0.00001%

If affirmative action is racism, than leaving the state of inequality is racism too.
Is there anything you don't complain about? Honestly, if the Palestinians used people like you for advocates, NO ONE would support the Palestinian cause. Shall we hand the world on a silver platter to you sir? Will that satisfy you?Likely, but I give you no guarantees. Are you whining about my whining? :shock:

If affirmative action is racism, than leaving the state of inequality is racism too.
Affirmative Action *is* inequality.Boo hoo. Go sue.

And for the rest of you dipshits: "making up past wrongs" means not slavery, but inequality in public schooling, etc.

Yeah, i am not a fan of AA. Don't get me wrong I like black people, i think everyone should own one.
:lol:

It's not fair to give someone free scholarships by their race, you should have to EARN it.Than give the minorities an equal oppurtunity, which is not happening. Segregation in public schools, for example.There is no segregation in schools, moron.Your mom never let you out of the house, huh? A shame, really.

I say, don't have race as an entry on any application. And I don't quite agree with race-based scholarships either.

Any scholarship into an academic institution not based purely on academic performace should be eliminated. Nothing pisses me off more than the A/B average kid getting rejected from his choice school while the D average meathead gets in on an "athletic scholarship" cause he can throw a ball. If academic rewards were based ONLY on academic performance, I think you'd see a great improvement in our schools as people would be better motovated.

A kid from a poorly funded school is at a natural disadvantage. I don't have a problem with athletic scholarships, but i really think they should be divorced from colleges, rather than athletes who really don't give a shit about cademics getting into college on scholarship, why not have private programs similar to college sports? Anyways, I support affirmative action, but i think that it should be based on class rather than on race. kids who's parents have income below a certain level should have priority to get into schools.

affirmitive action is government-endorsed racism or sexism

For once I agree with my neo-Nazi compatriot here. But I wrote a Congress speech on it. I'm too busy (working extra hard in school to overcome affirmative action, being Asian) right now to write an actual response or to finish reading the thread for that matter but here it is:

Affirmative Action

Politics is about ideas. It’s about good ideas, but also about bad ideas. Affirmative action, now that’s a bad idea. It’s a very bad idea. But underlying it is an even worse idea, that people should be grouped into categories based on the color of the proteins produced by the ribosomes in their melanocytes. It’s really silly, but there used to be quite a lot people who believed it. In our own country, it was the Democrats, who devised such brilliant ideas as popular sovereignty, under which 51% of the people in a state could vote to enslave the other 49%. This so divided the country that we had a civil war. Only two Democrats became president in the next fifty years, and all was right with the world.
But now they’re at it again. Only this time, they want a program called ‘affirmative action.’ The name sounds like it came from an Orwell novel. Basically, affirmative action is the concept that there’s a huge conspiracy between conservatives, white supremacists, oilmen, PNAC, space aliens, and of course, multinational corporations, to make the SAT scanner take off a couple hundred points if you fill in your race as ‘black’ or ‘Hispanic.’ Thus, those people are doomed to failure. Never mind that Michael Jordan used to be the richest American under thirty-five. We must give them a free pass to Harvard or they’ll all end up dying on the streets, poor and lonely. Then they accuse people who don’t agree with that of being racist.
Regarding the Supreme Court decision, the ACLU sounded a lot like a Nazi with a serious substance abuse problem. “The court made clear that race should be considered as a factor in the admissions process. This is a tremendous victory.”
As scary as it sounds, some people who support affirmative action actually have good intentions. They feel guilty about how badly people of African descent were treated in the past by a tiny minority of people with European descent. Now they want to fight fire with fire. But logical people know that when you fight fire with fire, you burn twice as much stuff. Especially when you light another completely unrelated fire, in the form of including Asians and Hispanics in this absurdity. This is exactly what’s happened.
If you really think that college admissions officers are racist, then there’s a perfectly sensible solution to all this: take race off college applications. No race, no racism.
With regards to women, affirmative action is nothing short of math-defying. Women make up 60% of new college graduates, so any idiot can see that they’re a minority that needs special group entitlements. In fact, I think you’d have to be an idiot to see that.
Politics is also about problems. Racism is a problem. And as any smart politician knows, you should never solve a problem. If the problem is there, you can always use it to get more votes. A good politician always stretches problems out while pretending to solve them.
So I guess it would be wrong to call them stupid. They’re sleazy too.

Yeah, i am not a fan of AA. Don't get me wrong I like black people, i think everyone should own one.
:lol:
Fortunately or unfortunately, the original stupid comment and the silly cutiecon reply speaks volumes about the attitude of those who say they are arguing logically. You can see clearly they're not. They are using this topic as just another excuse to vent hate. There have been some excellent points made, for and against, sad racists spoil the day again.

Well, not only does the source you cite disagree with you, almost all studies do as well.

The source (T. Sowell) agrees that Blacks have a lower average intelligence than Whites, but he argues that the cause is not genetic.

Which studies are you referring to? Intelligence tests consistently show a large gap between Blacks and Whites.

Human Genome researched have proven (http://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/genomics/1_identity/ninety_nine.html)that human DNA, regardless of race, is pretty much identical. This makes claiming an IQ difference becease of genetics rather difficult.

"Pretty much identical" is a meaningless term. No two humans have identical DNA, except maybe identical twins. The genetic difference between someone who is born naturally intelligent and someone who is not may be 0.00001%, but does that mean it is insignificant?

Another study has shown (http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20030902-012426-2984r.htm) that socioeconomic status has a larger effect on IQ than genes.

Ok, that's one possible position. But please remember that in order to make the claim that the environment has a larger effect on intelligence than genes, you are still accepting that there is a black-white intelligence gap.

Intelligence is a phenotype; and it is influenced by both genes and environment. It is quite likely that the black-white intelligence gap has some genetic basis based on this evidence alone.


Almost all of the major arguments I here about this (including the 15-point gap) originated from a book called "The Bell Curve". A quick Google Search (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=%22The+Bell+Curve%22&btnG=Google+Search) finds that the claims in the book have been debunked.

Which claims have been debunked and how? Be specific.

I recommend a book called Why Race Matters (http://www.lrainc.com/swtaboo/stalkers/ml_wrm_jls.html) by jew Michael Levin.

I accept that statistically, blacks score poorer than whites on IQ tests. However, race is not a significant factor in that performance. Nearly all studies (with the exception of a study performance by the authors of "A Bell Curve") have pointed to socioeconomic factors as the largest influence over IQ. This is quite logical, as an African Bushman and a college-educated African-American, despite being the same race, would show vastly different IQ scores.

This refutes your argument that any efforts to give blacks and whites equal opportunity is wasted because blacks are genetically inferior. This is simply not the case.

If there is no genetic basis that simply means that blacks can possibly be socially engineered to have equal intelligences to whites. Why whites should be obligated to pay for this i don't know.

Taxes are paid by minorities as well, and whites benefit from having an educated populace, even if that populace is non-white. It's obvious our worldviews on this are fundamentally different, so I'll leave it at that.

Yeah, i am not a fan of AA. Don't get me wrong I like black people, i think everyone should own one.
:lol:
Fortunately or unfortunately, the original stupid comment and the silly cutiecon reply speaks volumes about the attitude of those who say they are arguing logically. You can see clearly they're not. They are using this topic as just another excuse to vent hate. There have been some excellent points made, for and against, sad racists spoil the day again.
Would you have made this holier then thou comment if he had make a crack about Nazi's? Probably not. So get of your high horse.

Yeah, i am not a fan of AA. Don't get me wrong I like black people, i think everyone should own one.
:lol:
Fortunately or unfortunately, the original stupid comment and the silly cutiecon reply speaks volumes about the attitude of those who say they are arguing logically. You can see clearly they're not. They are using this topic as just another excuse to vent hate. There have been some excellent points made, for and against, sad racists spoil the day again.
Would you have made this holier then thou comment if he had make a crack about Nazi's? Probably not. So get of your high horse.

Way to rip it from context. You (as well as the racist comedian) disgust me.

And you know what else disgusts me? The server lately. What the hell is with all the errors all of a sudden? Now I'm stuck with another double post.

Yeah, i am not a fan of AA. Don't get me wrong I like black people, i think everyone should own one.
:lol:
Fortunately or unfortunately, the original stupid comment and the silly cutiecon reply speaks volumes about the attitude of those who say they are arguing logically. You can see clearly they're not. They are using this topic as just another excuse to vent hate. There have been some excellent points made, for and against, sad racists spoil the day again.
Would you have made this holier then thou comment if he had make a crack about Nazi's? Probably not. So get of your high horse.

Way to rip it from context. You (as well as the racist comedian) disgust me.
Don't worry. Your disgust me as well.

After the Supreme Court decision,

The NAACP said "We are thankful because our government has established that race still plays a role in American life."

Wait... aren't you trying to END racism?

And the ACLU said, "The court made clear that race should be used as one factor in admissions. This is a tremendous victory."

If someone wrote that sixty years ago we'd lock him in an internment camp pending review of his affiliation with the German National Socialists.

All the "moderates"... this is me and everyone else who opposes affirmative action and is not a white supremacist or somethning like that... make up I'd say easily two thirds of the population... realize that race plays no important role in society any more. Nor should it. Race matters very little today. Blacks and whites have equal opportunity.

What people who support affirmative action is that a white or Asian student who works hard in high school... has every bit of a right to and just as much interest in attending a good college.

For many affirmative action supporters in the government, it is a matter of numbers... and populistic shams to win over votes...

But for me, and all the other high school students in the country, it's about their own life and future. This isn't a numbers game to us. I have a 1570 SAT, I'm ranked in the top 7.5% of my class, I have won several awards in different extracurricular activiites, I will have amassed over a year and a half worth of college credit and hundreds of hours of community service by the time I graduate... I expect not to be turned down because of my race. I don't mind if I'm turned down because I'm underqualified... but if I'm turned down because of my race, well, that's just unjust, wouldn't you say? Especially since I'm a first-gen immigrant who grew up in abject poverty (in a tenament in the Philly ghetto) and went to public inner-city schools for most of my education.

The stories of many of my colleagues are like this as well, maybe not as bad. But affirmative action actually matters to us. Which explains why none of hte best students in my school (which is 25-30% black) support affirmative action... not even the liberals. Well, there are three people out of the top twenty-five students that support affirmative action, and one of them's opinion can be better classified as "ambivalent" than "supports".

A majority of the people ranked highly in my grade are liberal, including our valedictorian. They may be against globalization, for welfare, but the one thing that they are all against is affirmative action.

In my debating district, none of the best students support affirmative action either. We routinely pass "abolish affirmative action" bills by votes of something like 15-2 with 3 abstentions (this happened last time) in student congress. As a high school student, I can say that affirmative action hurts me, and all of the other best students, regardless of race.

There's one african-American who's ranked 14th in my class. We're good friends. He's the second most vocal about affirmative action other than me. Affirmative action is condescending to him. It's message is "the black man can't get by on his own hard work... we need to give him a free ride." This is why Clarence Thomas, an African-American supreme court justice, was so firmly against affirmative action... the most racist thing since slavery. As I said in my speech when you fight fire with fire, you burn twice as much stuff. This is extremely true.

Affirmative action in most public colleges has the effect of raising your SAT score by 200-400 points. If someone who has a 1300 wants a perfect SAT score, he should study like the rest of us. There's no reason he should get a free ride because of his melanocytic pigments. And I did a chi-square test on the SAT score averages presented in US News and World Report... the differences are tiny enough to be statistically insiginificant in my science class... how the hell are we make policies based on what is quite possibly due to chance?

Ack that turned out a lot longer than I thought it would. My point is: affirmative action hurts the best students in any school. It is imperative that we, as a society, end it. After all, wasn't it King who said that he had a dream of a world where his children would not be judged by the color of their skin... but by the content of their character?

Take race off of public college applications. Preferably before fall 2004.

['September 1st, 1939' starts playing in the background]

And just because I can't go 25 posts without quoting the Cato Institute:


Affirmative Action Can’t Be Mended
Walter E. Williams
Walter E. Williams is the John M. Olin Distinguished Professor of Economics at George Mason University.

For the last several decades, affirmative action has been the basic component of the civil rights agenda. But affirmative action, in the form of racial preferences, has worn out its political welcome. In Gallup Polls, between 1987 and 1990, people were asked if they agreed with the statement: “We should make every effort to improve the position of blacks and other minorities even if it means giving them preferential treatment.” More than 70 percent of the respondents opposed preferential treatment while only 24 percent supported it. Among blacks, 66 percent opposed preferential treatment and 32 percent supported it (Lipset 1992: 66-69).
The rejection of racial preferences by the broad public and increasingly by the Supreme Court has been partially recognized by even supporters of affirmative action. While they have not forsaken their goals, they have begun to distance themselves from some of the language of affirmative action. Thus, many business, government, and university affirmative action offices have been renamed “equity offices.” Racial preferences are increasingly referred to as “diversity multiculturalism.” What is it about affirmative action that gives rise to its contentiousness?
For the most part, post-World War II America has supported civil rights for blacks. Indeed, if we stick to the uncorrupted concept of civil rights, we can safely say that the civil rights struggle for blacks is over and won. Civil rights properly refer to rights, held simultaneously among individuals, to be treated equally in the eyes of the law, make contracts, sue and be sued, give evidence, associate and travel freely, and vote. There was a time when blacks did not fully enjoy those rights. With the yeoman-like work of civil rights organizations and decent Americans, both black and white, who fought lengthy court, legislative, and street battles, civil rights have been successfully secured for blacks. No small part of that success was due to a morally compelling appeal to America’s civil libertarian tradition of private property, rule of law, and limited government.
Today’s corrupted vision of civil rights attacks that civil libertarian tradition. Principles of private property rights, rule of law, freedom of association, and limited government are greeted with contempt. As such, the agenda of today’s civil rights organizations conceptually differs little from yesteryear’s restrictions that were the targets of the earlier civil rights struggle. Yesteryear civil rights organizations fought against the use of race in hiring, access to public schools, and university admissions. Today, civil rights organizations fight for the use of race in hiring, access to public schools, and university admissions. Yesteryear, civil rights organizations fought against restricted association in the forms of racially segregated schools, libraries, and private organizations. Today, they fight for restricted associations. They use state power, not unlike the racists they fought, to enforce racial associations they deem desirable. They protest that blacks should be a certain percentage of a company’s workforce or clientele, a certain percentage of a student body, and even a certain percentage of an advertiser’s models. Civil rights organizations, in their successful struggle against state-sanctioned segregation, have lost sight of what it means to be truly committed to liberty, especially the freedom of association. The true test of that commitment does not come when we allow people to be free to associate in ways we deem appropriate. The true test is when we allow people to form those voluntary associations we deem offensive. It is the same principle we apply to our commitment to free speech. What tests our commitment to free speech is our willingness to permit people the freedom to say things we find offensive.

Zero-Sum Games

The tragedy of America’s civil rights movement is that it has substituted today’s government-backed racial favoritism in the allocation of resources for yesterday’s legal and extra-legal racial favoritism. In doing so, civil rights leaders fail to realize that government allocation of resources produces the kind of conflict that does not arise with market allocation of resources. Part of the reason is that any government allocation of resources, including racial preferential treatment, is a zero-sum game.
A zero-sum game is defined as any transaction where one person’s gain necessarily results in another person’s loss. The simplest example of a zero-sum game is poker. A winner’s gain is matched precisely by the losses of one or more persons. In this respect, the only essential difference between affirmative action and poker is that in poker participation is voluntary. Another difference is the loser is readily identifiable, a point to which I will return later.
The University of California, Berkeley’s affirmative action program for blacks captures the essence of a zero-sum game. Blacks are admitted with considerably lower average SAT scores (952) than the typical white (1232) and Asian student (1254) (Sowell 1993: 144). Between UCLA and UC Berkeley, more than 2,000 white and Asian straight A students are turned away in order to provide spaces for black and Hispanic students (Lynch 1989: 163). The admissions gains by blacks are exactly matched by admissions losses by white and Asian students. Thus, any preferential treatment program results in a zero-sum game almost by definition.
More generally, government allocation of resources is a zero-sum game primarily because government has no resources of its very own. When government gives some citizens food stamps, crop subsidies, or disaster relief payments, the recipients of the largesse gain. Losers are identified by asking: where does government acquire the resources to confer the largesse? In order for government to give to some citizens, it must through intimidation, threats, and coercion take from other citizens. Those who lose the rights to their earnings, to finance government largesse, are the losers.
Government-mandated racial preferential treatment programs produce a similar result. When government creates a special advantage for one ethnic group, it necessarily comes at the expense of other ethnic groups for whom government simultaneously creates a special disadvantage in the form of reduced alternatives. If a college or employer has X amount of positions, and R of them have been set aside for blacks or some other group, that necessarily means there are (X-R) fewer positions for which other ethnic groups might compete. At a time when there were restrictions against blacks that operated in favor of whites those restrictions translated into a reduced opportunity set for blacks. It is a zero-sum game independent of the race or ethnicity of the winners and losers.
Our courts have a blind-sided vision of the zero-sum game. They have upheld discriminatory racial preferences in hiring but have resisted discriminatory racial preferences in job layoffs. An example is the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Wygant v. Jackson Board of Education (1986), where a teacher union’s collective-bargaining agreement protected black teachers from job layoffs in order to maintain racial balance.1 Subsequently, as a result of that agreement, the Jackson County School Board laid off white teachers having greater seniority while black teachers with less seniority were retained.
A lower court upheld the constitutionality of the collective bargaining agreement by finding that racial preferences in layoffs were a permissible means to remedy societal discrimination (Wygant 1982: 1195, 1201). White teachers petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court, claiming their constitutional rights under the Equal Protection clause were violated. The Court found in their favor. Justice Lewis F. Powell delivered the opinion saying, “While hiring goals impose a diffuse burden, only closing one of several opportunities, layoffs impose the entire burden of achieving racial equity on particular individuals, often resulting in serious disruption of their lives. The burden is too intrusive” (Wygant 1986: 283).
In Wygant, the Supreme Court recognized the illegitimacy of creating a special privilege for one citizen (a black teacher) that comes at the expense and disadvantage of another citizen (a white teacher).2 However, the Court made a false distinction when it stated that “hiring goals impose a diffuse burden [while]... layoffs impose the entire burden...on particular individuals.”
There is no conceptual distinction in the outcome of the zero-sum game whether it is played on the layoff or the hiring side of the labor market. If a company plans to lay off X amount of workers and decides that R of them will have their jobs protected because of race, that means the group of workers that may be laid off have (X - R) fewer job retention opportunities. The diffuseness to which Justice Powell refers is not diffuseness at all. It is simply that the victims of hiring preferences are less visible than victims of layoff preferences as in the case of Wygant. The petitioners in Wygant were identifiable people who could not be covered up as “society.” That differs from the cases of hiring and college admissions racial preferences where those who face a reduced opportunity set tend to be unidentifiable to the courts, other people, and even to themselves. Since they are invisible victims, the Supreme Court and others can blithely say racial hiring goals (and admission goals) impose a diffuse burden.

Tentative Victim Identification

In California, voters passed the California Civil Rights Initiative of 1996 (CCRI) that says: “The state shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting.” Therefore, California public universities can no longer have preferential admission policies that include race as a factor in deciding whom to admit. As a result, the UCLA School of Law reported accepting only 21 black applicants for its fall 1997 class--a drop of 80 percent from the previous year, in which 108 black applicants were accepted. At the UC Berkeley Boalt Hall School of Law, only 14 of the 792 students accepted for the fall 1997 class are black, down from 75 the previous year. At the UCLA School of Law, white enrollment increased by 14 percent for the fall 1997 term and Asian enrollment rose by 7 percent. At UC Berkeley, enrollment of white law students increased by 12 percent and Asian law students increased by 18 percent (Weiss 1997).
For illustrative purposes, let us pretend that CCRI had not been adopted and the UCLA School of Law accepted 108 black students as it had in 1996 and UC Berkeley accepted 75. That being the case, 83 more blacks would be accepted to UCLA Law School for the 1997-98 academic year and 61 more blacks would be accepted to UC Berkeley’s Law School. Clearly, the preferential admissions program, at least in terms of being accepted to these law schools, benefits blacks. However, that benefit is not without costs. With preferential admission programs in place, both UCLA and UC Berkeley law schools would have had to turn away 144 white and Asian students, with higher academic credentials, in order to have room for black students.
In the case of UC Berkeley’s preferential admissions for blacks, those whites and Asians who have significantly higher SAT scores and grades than the admitted blacks are victims of reverse discrimination. However, in the eyes of the courts, others, and possibly themselves, they are invisible victims. In other words, no one can tell for sure who among those turned away would have gained entry to UC Berkeley were it not for the preferential treatment given to blacks.
The basic problem of zero-sum games (those of an involuntary nature) is that they are politically and socially unstable. In the case of UCLA and UC Berkeley, two of California’s most prestigious universities, one would not expect parents to permanently tolerate seeing their children work hard to meet the university’s admission standards only to be denied admission because of racial preference programs. Since the University of California is a taxpayer-subsidized system, one suspects that sooner or later parents and others would begin to register complaints and seek termination of racial preferences in admissions. That is precisely much of the political motivation behind Proposition 209.

Affirmative Action and Supply

An important focus of affirmative action is statistical underrepresentation of different racial and ethnic groups on college and university campuses. If the percentages of blacks and Mexican-Americans, for example, are not at a level deemed appropriate by a court, administrative agency, or university administrator, racial preference programs are instituted. The inference made from the underrepresentation argument is that, in the absence of racial discrimination, groups would be represented on college campuses in proportion to their numbers in the relevant population. In making that argument, little attention is paid to the supply issue--that is, to the pool of students available that meet the standards or qualifications of the university in question.
In 1985, fewer than 1,032 blacks scored 600 and above on the verbal portion of the SAT and 1,907 scored 600 and above on the quantitative portion of the examination. There are roughly 58 elite colleges and universities with student body average composite SAT scores of 1200 and above (Sowell 1993: 142). If blacks scoring 600 or higher on the quantitative portion of the SAT (assuming their performance on the verbal portion of the examination gave them a composite SAT score of 1200 or higher) were recruited to elite colleges and universities, there would be less than 33 black students available per university. At none of those universities would blacks be represented according to their numbers in the population.
There is no evidence that suggests that university admissions offices practice racial discrimination by turning away blacks with SAT scores of 1200 or higher. In reality, there are not enough blacks to be admitted to leading colleges and universities on the same terms as other students, such that their numbers in the campus population bears any resemblance to their numbers in the general population.
Attempts by affirmative action programs to increase the percent of blacks admitted to top schools, regardless of whether blacks match the academic characteristics of the general student body, often produce disastrous results. In order to meet affirmative action guidelines, leading colleges and universities recruit and admit black students whose academic qualifications are well below the norm for other students. For example, of the 317 black students admitted to UC Berkeley in 1985, all were admitted under affirmative action criteria rather than academic qualifications. Those students had an average SAT score of 952 compared to the national average of 900 among all students. However, their SAT scores were well below UC Berkeley’s average of nearly 1200. More than 70 percent of the black students failed to graduate from UC Berkeley (Sowell 1993: 144).
Not far from UC Berkeley is San Jose State University, not one of the top-tier colleges, but nonetheless respectable. More than 70 percent of its black students fail to graduate. The black students who might have been successful at San Jose State University have been recruited to UC Berkeley and elsewhere where they have been made artificial failures. This pattern is one of the consequences of trying to use racial preferences to make a student body reflect the relative importance of different ethnic groups in the general population. There is a mismatch between black student qualifications and those of other students when the wrong students are recruited to the wrong universities.
There is no question that preferential admissions is unjust to both white and Asian students who may be qualified but are turned away to make room for less-qualified students in the right” ethnic group. However, viewed from a solely black self-interest point of view, the question should be asked whether such affirmative action programs serve the best interests of blacks. Is there such an abundance of black students who score above the national average on the SAT, such as those admitted to UC Berkeley, that blacks as a group can afford to have those students turned into artificial failures in the name of diversity, multiculturalism, or racial justice? The affirmative action debate needs to go beyond simply an issue of whether blacks are benefited at the expense of whites. Whites and Asians who are turned away to accommodate blacks are still better off than the blacks that were admitted. After all, graduating from the university of one’s second choice is preferable to flunking out of the university of one’s first choice.
To the extent racial preferences in admission produce an academic mismatch of students, the critics of California’s Proposition 209 may be unnecessarily alarmed, assuming their concern is with black students actually graduating from college. If black students, who score 952 on the SAT, are not admitted to UC Berkeley that does not mean that they cannot gain admittance to one of America’s 3,000 other colleges. It means that they will gain admittance to some other college where their academic characteristics will be more similar to those of their peers. There will not be as much of an academic mismatch. To the extent this is true, we may see an increase in black graduation rates. Moreover, if black students find themselves more similar to their white peers in terms of college grades and graduation honors, they are less likely to feel academically isolated and harbor feelings of low self-esteem.

Affirmative Action and Justice

Aside from any other question, we might ask what case can be made for the morality or justice of turning away more highly credentialed white and Asian students so as to be able to admit more blacks? Clearly, blacks as a group have suffered past injustices, including discrimination in college and university admissions. However, that fact does not spontaneously yield sensible policy proposals for today. The fact is that a special privilege cannot be created for one person without creating a special disadvantage for another. In the case of preferential admissions at UCLA and UC Berkeley, a special privilege for black students translates into a special disadvantage for white and Asian students. Thus, we must ask what have those individual white and Asian students done to deserve punishment? Were they at all responsible for the injustices, either in the past or present, suffered by blacks? If, as so often is the case, the justification for preferential treatment is to redress past grievances, how just is it to have a policy where a black of today is helped by punishing a white of today for what a white of yesterday did to a black of yesterday? Such an idea becomes even more questionable in light of the fact that so many whites and Asians cannot trace the American part of their ancestry back as much as two or three generations.

Affirmative Action and Racial Resentment

In addition to the injustices that are a result of preferential treatment, such treatment has given rise to racial resentment where it otherwise might not exist. While few people support racial resentment and its manifestations, if one sees some of affirmative action’s flagrant attacks on fairness and equality before the law, one can readily understand why resentment is on the rise.
In the summer of 1995, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) published a “diversity handbook” that said, “The merit promotion process is but one means of filling vacancies, which need not be utilized if it will not promote your diversity goals.” In that spirit, one FAA job announcement said, “Applicants who meet the qualification requirements . . . cannot be considered for this position . . .. Only those applicants who do not meet the Office of Personnel Management requirements . . . will be eligible to compete” (Roberts and Stratton 1995: 141).
According to a General Accounting Office report that evaluated complaints of discrimination by Asian-Americans, prestigious universities such as UCLA, UC Berkeley, MIT, and the University of Wisconsin have engaged in systematic discrimination in the failure to admit highly qualified Asian students in order to admit relatively unqualified black and Hispanic students (U.S. GAO 1995).
In Memphis, Tennessee, a white police officer ranked 59th out of 209 applicants for 75 available positions as police sergeant, but he did not get promoted. Black officers, with lower overall test scores than he, were moved ahead of him and promoted to sergeant. Over a two-year period, 43 candidates with lower scores were moved ahead of him and made sergeant (Eastland 1996: 1-2).
There is little need to recite the litany of racial preference instances that are clear violations of commonly agreed upon standards of justice and fair play. But the dangers of racial preferences go beyond matters of justice and fair play. They lead to increased group polarization ranging from political backlash to mob violence and civil war as seen in other countries. The difference between the United States and those countries is that racial preferences have not produced the same level of violence (Sowell 1990). However, they have produced polarization and resentment.
Affirmative action proponents cling to the notion that racial discrimination satisfactorily explains black\white socioeconomic differences. While every vestige of racial discrimination has not been eliminated in our society, current social discrimination cannot begin to explain all that affirmative action proponents purport it explains. Rather than focusing our attention on discrimination, a higher payoff can be realized by focusing on real factors such as fraudulent education, family disintegration, and hostile economic climates in black neighborhoods. Even if affirmative action was not a violation of justice and fair play, was not a zero-sum game, was not racially polarizing, it is a poor cover-up for the real work that needs to be done.

Alrighty, I can say this immediately: The Global Market, keep your meesages to a limit. I write fairly long ones, too, and I notice this: No one reads such long messages. They are ignored.

To continue: AA is a program that is made help those people who are at a disadvantage. Even more so, it is designed to help those who are minorities. Thusly, AA assumes that all minorities are disadvantaged. This is simply incorrect. Example: I am biracial. That means my biological mother was white, and my biological father was black. However, I am white in color. No different than President Bush.
Now, when I was put up for adoption, I was put down as biracial. The state governement of Kentucky say this, and assumed that I was black. So I was put into a black foster-care home. I lived and with black children for four years of my young life, and didn't know the difference between us; I didn't notice that I was different. But they knew the difference.
When I was adopted, I was adopted by a Jewish family. Thusly, I am biracial and, since I converted when I was eight, Jewish, too. Now, when I was in eighth grade, I encountered my first problem race-wise: what to put down on my high-school application for race. There was no spot for biracial. So I checked white, because that's what I am. And I didn't get in. So I filled out another application, but this time I checked black. I got in.
Recently, I learned this: In the 2000 census, there was a tremendous list of races that one could choose from. If you were one of those racs, you were supposed to choose that one. However, there was no spot for "biracial" or "multi-racial". I was supposed to check ALL THAT APPLIED. So I checked both African-American and Caucasian.
According to the government, that is what I am supposed to do. Since I did that, however, I am officially black. I count in the 16% (or so) of people in America that are black. When I joined the Navy, I HAD to check black, even though my recruiter (whom was black) looked at me funny when I did. So, as a consequence, I am a minority.
AA doesn't work to help all disadvantaged people; there are plenty of white disadvantaged people out there who can't be helped by AA. Also, there are plenty of people who are helped by AA that don't need it (like me). So should we abolish it?
Abolishing AA would indicate that we, as a society, are comfortable with the progress of racial integration and comfortable that all races are equal. Are we there yet? I don't think so. The kids I lived with in foster care and I still talk to each other. They never got adopted, and they lived in the worst area of Louisville. They were harassed day by day by gangs and others. They were in the worst school in the state of Kentucky. They didn't have much more than a 2.0 GPA. Yet, they were accepted in the University of Louisville. It wasn't that these kids weren't smart, nor was it because they didn't care. These kids just had it worse than most of us could imagine, and they just needed a little salvation from their own hell. If AA didn't exist, they would not be going to school. They would be working menial jobs, trying to fend for themselves the best they could. THIS is why AA should be around. Not because it is any good; no, because people are caused not to go to Yale and Princeton because some black guy got in instead. It's because the real people who actually need the help, the kids in the ghettos and in those terrible schools, will not be able to climb up without it.
In other words, AA isn't the best program, but being without AA would be worse for those who are truly disadvantaged.

Yeah, i am not a fan of AA. Don't get me wrong I like black people, i think everyone should own one.
:lol:
Fortunately or unfortunately, the original stupid comment and the silly cutiecon reply speaks volumes about the attitude of those who say they are arguing logically. You can see clearly they're not. They are using this topic as just another excuse to vent hate. There have been some excellent points made, for and against, sad racists spoil the day again.
Would you have made this holier then thou comment if he had make a crack about Nazi's? Probably not. So get of your high horse.

Way to rip it from context. You (as well as the racist comedian) disgust me.
Don't worry. Your disgust me as well.

Worry? I'm not worried, I'm flattered.

To continue: AA is a program that is made help those people who are at a disadvantage. Even more so, it is designed to help those who are minorities.

Asians, who make up 6% of the US population, are a minority last time I checked. Affirmative action hurts them just as much as whites.

Thusly, AA assumes that all minorities are disadvantaged. This is simply incorrect.

Yep.

I didn't notice that I was different. But they knew the difference.

How so?

When I was adopted, I was adopted by a Jewish family.

I live in a Jewish neighborhodd, that's pretty close :lol:

Now, when I was in eighth grade, I encountered my first problem race-wise: what to put down on my high-school application for race. There was no spot for biracial.

Back when I was a naive eighth grader I filled in Asian. Now I only fill in Asian when I absolutely have to. Otherwise, I:

- Fill in "would perfer not to answer"
- Fill in "black" and write little complaints about affirmative action as my essay (I did this for the SAT II Writing, which I already have a 760 on. My score was disqualified but I did get a letter from a guy at ETS that was almost... praiseful)

So I checked white, because that's what I am. And I didn't get in. So I filled out another application, but this time I checked black. I got in.

Of course, I'm entirely Asian so I don't have that chance. But I shouldn't blame God, I should blame the govenrment.

I count in the 16% (or so) of people in America that are black.

It's not nearly 16%. I've always seen it around 9-10%. Hispanics are our largest minority and they are only 12.5%.

I am a minority.

Me too.

AA doesn't work to help all disadvantaged people; there are plenty of white disadvantaged people out there who can't be helped by AA.

Or disadvantaged Asians, like me. And it doesnt just NOT HELP them... not help I could live with... it HURTS them... since every spot that goes to an unqualified black or Hispanic because of affirmative action means a qualified white or Asian rejected on purely arbitrary grounds.

Also, there are plenty of people who are helped by AA that don't need it (like me). So should we abolish it

In public institutions, yes. But EITHER abolishing OR requiring private schools to use affirmative action violates their property rights.

Abolishing AA would indicate that we, as a society, are comfortable with the progress of racial integration and comfortable that all races are equal. Are we there yet? I don't think so.

Any inequality can be attributed to statistical variation. ALL OTHER THINGS BEING EQUAL, and this is the key phrase, a black and a white are equal. Of course a black person living in a ghetto might be more disadvantages than Bill Gates. But if there is a black person and a white person are next door neighbors and have the same number of kids, same amount of money, are EXACTLY the same EXCEPT for skin color, then they will be treated pretty much exactly the smae by society.

The kids I lived with in foster care and I still talk to each other. They never got adopted, and they lived in the worst area of Louisville.

I lived in the worst area of Philadelphia, which is like five times the size of Louisville. Affirmative action still hurts me.

They were in the worst school in the state of Kentucky. They didn't have much more than a 2.0 GPA.

That's their own fault. It should be easier to get a high GPA at a bad school. Ever since california passed the 10% rule, many good students actually purposely attended bad schools to be in the top-10%.

Yet, they were accepted in the University of Louisville. It wasn't that these kids weren't smart, nor was it because they didn't care. These kids just had it worse than most of us could imagine, and they just needed a little salvation from their own hell. If AA didn't exist, they would not be going to school.

What about disadvantages whites? Or Asians? What about a friend I know from Guangzhou, who came over to the US after his father was killed in Tiananmen, and was raised by his mom living in constant poverty, and ended up being REJECTED from his top two schools because of AA?

They would be working menial jobs, trying to fend for themselves the best they could. THIS is why AA should be around.

If memory serves me correct, Andrew Carnegie grew up in a sweatshop. Michael Jordan's first paycheck was a minimum wage check for cleaning the floor at a sports arena. They aren't doomed to failure. That's a huge stereotype, that is condescending not only against blacks but against every hard-working poor person and indeed every honest American.

Not because it is any good; no, because people are caused not to go to Yale and Princeton because some black guy got in instead. It's because the real people who actually need the help, the kids in the ghettos and in those terrible schools, will not be able to climb up without it.

Yes they will... a cashier at a Chinese fast food place who makes close to minimum wage and is a single mom that knows my mom... her daughter went to an inner city school and graduated from U Penn and is now making $70,000 a year at Johnson & Johnson right out of college. This is with affirmative action AGAINST her.

In other words, AA isn't the best program, but being without AA would be worse for those who are truly disadvantaged.

No, it would be worse for those who are truly black. There's a difference.

One of the kids at my school who's black has an SAT of close to 1450 and is ranked 14th in my class. He grew up poor. Certainly not ghetto poor, but pretty poor. He is STRONGLY against affirmative action. It is INSULTING, to say the least, towards every decent black and Hispanic.

To continue: AA is a program that is made help those people who are at a disadvantage. Even more so, it is designed to help those who are minorities.

Asians, who make up 6% of the US population, are a minority last time I checked. Affirmative action hurts them just as much as whites.

Thusly, AA assumes that all minorities are disadvantaged. This is simply incorrect.

Yep.

I didn't notice that I was different. But they knew the difference.

How so?

When I was adopted, I was adopted by a Jewish family.

I live in a Jewish neighborhodd, that's pretty close :lol:

Now, when I was in eighth grade, I encountered my first problem race-wise: what to put down on my high-school application for race. There was no spot for biracial.

Back when I was a naive eighth grader I filled in Asian. Now I only fill in Asian when I absolutely have to. Otherwise, I:

- Fill in "would perfer not to answer"
- Fill in "black" and write little complaints about affirmative action as my essay (I did this for the SAT II Writing, which I already have a 760 on. My score was disqualified but I did get a letter from a guy at ETS that was almost... praiseful)

So I checked white, because that's what I am. And I didn't get in. So I filled out another application, but this time I checked black. I got in.

Of course, I'm entirely Asian so I don't have that chance. But I shouldn't blame God, I should blame the govenrment.

I count in the 16% (or so) of people in America that are black.

It's not nearly 16%. I've always seen it around 9-10%. Hispanics are our largest minority and they are only 12.5%.

I am a minority.

Me too.

AA doesn't work to help all disadvantaged people; there are plenty of white disadvantaged people out there who can't be helped by AA.

Or disadvantaged Asians, like me. And it doesnt just NOT HELP them... not help I could live with... it HURTS them... since every spot that goes to an unqualified black or Hispanic because of affirmative action means a qualified white or Asian rejected on purely arbitrary grounds.

Also, there are plenty of people who are helped by AA that don't need it (like me). So should we abolish it

In public institutions, yes. But EITHER abolishing OR requiring private schools to use affirmative action violates their property rights.

Abolishing AA would indicate that we, as a society, are comfortable with the progress of racial integration and comfortable that all races are equal. Are we there yet? I don't think so.

Any inequality can be attributed to statistical variation. ALL OTHER THINGS BEING EQUAL, and this is the key phrase, a black and a white are equal. Of course a black person living in a ghetto might be more disadvantages than Bill Gates. But if there is a black person and a white person are next door neighbors and have the same number of kids, same amount of money, are EXACTLY the same EXCEPT for skin color, then they will be treated pretty much exactly the smae by society.

The kids I lived with in foster care and I still talk to each other. They never got adopted, and they lived in the worst area of Louisville.

I lived in the worst area of Philadelphia, which is like five times the size of Louisville. Affirmative action still hurts me.

They were in the worst school in the state of Kentucky. They didn't have much more than a 2.0 GPA.

That's their own fault. It should be easier to get a high GPA at a bad school. Ever since california passed the 10% rule, many good students actually purposely attended bad schools to be in the top-10%.

Yet, they were accepted in the University of Louisville. It wasn't that these kids weren't smart, nor was it because they didn't care. These kids just had it worse than most of us could imagine, and they just needed a little salvation from their own hell. If AA didn't exist, they would not be going to school.

What about disadvantages whites? Or Asians? What about a friend I know from Guangzhou, who came over to the US after his father was killed in Tiananmen, and was raised by his mom living in constant poverty, and ended up being REJECTED from his top two schools because of AA?

They would be working menial jobs, trying to fend for themselves the best they could. THIS is why AA should be around.

If memory serves me correct, Andrew Carnegie grew up in a sweatshop. Michael Jordan's first paycheck was a minimum wage check for cleaning the floor at a sports arena. They aren't doomed to failure. That's a huge stereotype, that is condescending not only against blacks but against every hard-working poor person and indeed every honest American.

Not because it is any good; no, because people are caused not to go to Yale and Princeton because some black guy got in instead. It's because the real people who actually need the help, the kids in the ghettos and in those terrible schools, will not be able to climb up without it.

Yes they will... a cashier at a Chinese fast food place who makes close to minimum wage and is a single mom that knows my mom... her daughter went to an inner city school and graduated from U Penn and is now making $70,000 a year at Johnson & Johnson right out of college. This is with affirmative action AGAINST her.

In other words, AA isn't the best program, but being without AA would be worse for those who are truly disadvantaged.

No, it would be worse for those who are truly black. There's a difference.

One of the kids at my school who's black has an SAT of close to 1450 and is ranked 14th in my class. He grew up poor. Certainly not ghetto poor, but pretty poor. He is STRONGLY against affirmative action. It is INSULTING, to say the least, towards every decent black and Hispanic.

In other words, AA isn't the best program, but being without AA would be worse for those who are truly disadvantaged.
Sorry to edit your post but I don't want to get bollocked for starting a pyramid. You make your case with great eloquence and from personal experience. Someone (an American) once said that 'Democracy is the least worst form of government known to man'. I think that applies to AA. It's far from perfect but, as you have so beautifully described, it's the best thing tried so far.

In other words, AA isn't the best program, but being without AA would be worse for those who are truly disadvantaged.
Sorry to edit your post but I don't want to get bollocked for starting a pyramid. You make your case with great eloquence and from personal experience. Someone (an American) once said that 'Democracy is the least worst form of government known to man'. I think that applies to AA. It's far from perfect but, as you have so beautifully described, it's the best thing tried so far.

That's not really consolation for the hardworking person who is rejected from his choice college because of skin color.

In any case, the result from this poll, as well as from the general populace (something like 30% support affirmative action, maybe even slightly less), show what conservatives and student-liberals have known all along: THAT AFFIRMATIVE ACTION IS STUPID.

Justice is giving each his due. If someone gets a 600 SAT and fails all of his classes, he doesn't deserve to go to college...regardless of his race.

Affirmative action violates this justice and it is for this reason if no other that it should be abolished in all institutions recieving state funding.

There was a time, back when Bismarck was chancellor of Germany, when Affirmative action might have actually served a positive purpose. Now blacks and Hispanics have equality under the law, and most of the influential parts of America are colorblind (except affirmative action). As a country we are ready to put our dark history of racism behind us... why are government policymakers trying to stop this?

I know a person, who is white and was rejected from U-Michigan (before the Supreme Court's ruling) because of his skin color. He sent approval letters to the two women who were suing the school and I think became a neo-Nazi or white supremact or something. Affirmative action CAUSES racism. When the KKK or the White Citizens' Council or something gives a racist speech... who do they target? Blacks and Hispanics. Asians are targeted far less frequently if at all.

And the biggest reason for this is affirmative action makes blacks and hispanics look like parasites who can't do anything on their own.

No. A black person is no different from a comparable white person. Let's treat them as such.

racism still exsists, untill it is completley gon,e we still need laws to ensure fairness for citizens.and sometime that means giving up a few privaledges

In other words, AA isn't the best program, but being without AA would be worse for those who are truly disadvantaged.
Sorry to edit your post but I don't want to get bollocked for starting a pyramid. You make your case with great eloquence and from personal experience. Someone (an American) once said that 'Democracy is the least worst form of government known to man'. I think that applies to AA. It's far from perfect but, as you have so beautifully described, it's the best thing tried so far.

That's not really consolation for the hardworking person who is rejected from his choice college because of skin color.

In any case, the result from this poll, as well as from the general populace (something like 30% support affirmative action, maybe even slightly less), show what conservatives and student-liberals have known all along: THAT AFFIRMATIVE ACTION IS STUPID.
No, it's no consolation, I agree. But it's not a stupid idea. I've read your arguments and agree with a lot of what you say, that's why I believe it's the .........least worst.

racism still exsists, untill it is completley gon,e we still need laws to ensure fairness for citizens.and sometime that means giving up a few privaledges

This is the dumbest pro-AA argument ever.

If you think that college admissions officers are racist, then

TAKE RACE OFF OF COLLEGE APPLICATIONS

They can't discriminate against you if they don't know your race, eh?

In other words, AA isn't the best program, but being without AA would be worse for those who are truly disadvantaged.
Sorry to edit your post but I don't want to get bollocked for starting a pyramid. You make your case with great eloquence and from personal experience. Someone (an American) once said that 'Democracy is the least worst form of government known to man'. I think that applies to AA. It's far from perfect but, as you have so beautifully described, it's the best thing tried so far.

That's not really consolation for the hardworking person who is rejected from his choice college because of skin color.

In any case, the result from this poll, as well as from the general populace (something like 30% support affirmative action, maybe even slightly less), show what conservatives and student-liberals have known all along: THAT AFFIRMATIVE ACTION IS STUPID.
No, it's no consolation, I agree. But it's not a stupid idea. I've read your arguments and agree with a lot of what you say, that's why I believe it's the .........least worst.

No. The least worst thing would be taking race off of applications.

I have just as much a right to go to Harvard as a black person with my same qualifications.

I'm an Asian, yes, but before being Asian, I'm ME.

I should be compared to ALL other people, not just other Asians.
Blacks should have to compete with EVERYONE, not just other blacks.

Ditto for whites and Hispanics. This is because at a fundamental level races don't exist. Government policymaking should reflect that.

And if you'll notice, pro-AA is just 20% on this thread even though it accounts for possibly 50% of the posts. This is because most of the anti-AA people, like myself, are high school students who have much to lose from AA and thus have to spend extra time working.

Of course I have no life so I have time to post on here.

And if you'll notice, pro-AA is just 20% on this thread even though it accounts for possibly 50% of the posts. This is because most of the anti-AA people, like myself, are high school students who have much to lose from AA and thus have to spend extra time working.

Of course I have no life so I have time to post on here.
I did type a long and verbose reply to you and tried posting it 8 times, and like you, I haven't got a life, but I still gave up. Here's to life.

racism still exsists, untill it is completley gon,e we still need laws to ensure fairness for citizens.and sometime that means giving up a few privaledges

That's kind of like saying that killers still exist, so we should kill them.

AA gives advantages to minorities because they are a minority. How this is not racism, or how this can possibly decrease racism in the US, is beyond me.

The 14th amendment prevents the government from discriminating based on race, and there are multiple laws that prevent discrimination at the business and academic level. AA can dissapear tomorrow and minorities would still have protection against racial discrimination.

racism still exsists, untill it is completley gon,e we still need laws to ensure fairness for citizens.and sometime that means giving up a few privaledges

NO, we should not... I would not give up my rights to another white man for God's sake why should I give up my rights to someone of a different color? I have seen plenty of people scream racism just to get something for free... Or, because they are racist themselves...

As I said before, we have come a long way since Dr. King... Leaps and Bounds since then... but because idiots scream invisible racism, laws are becoming discriminatory... Racism can be wiped out in a matter of one or two more generations... Children are in integrated classes more then ever... They are not born racist and the schools definetly do not promote racism...(just communism)

Its all backwards, Why pass a law that discriminates to prevent discrimination? Special Intrest sucks and the people who take advantage of Special Intrest programs are selfish and racist...

racism still exsists, untill it is completley gon,e we still need laws to ensure fairness for citizens.and sometime that means giving up a few privaledges

NO, we should not... I would not give up my rights to another white man for God's sake why should I give up my rights to someone of a different color? I have seen plenty of people scream racism just to get something for free... Or, because they are racist themselves...

As I said before, we have come a long way since Dr. King... Leaps and Bounds since then... but because idiots scream invisible racism, laws are becoming discriminatory... Racism can be wiped out in a matter of one or two more generations... Children are in integrated classes more then ever... They are not born racist and the schools definetly do not promote racism...(just communism)

Its all backwards, Why pass a law that discriminates to prevent discrimination? Special Intrest sucks and the people who take advantage of Special Intrest programs are selfish and racist...

racism still exsists, untill it is completley gon,e we still need laws to ensure fairness for citizens.and sometime that means giving up a few privaledges

NO, we should not... I would not give up my rights to another white man for God's sake why should I give up my rights to someone of a different color? I have seen plenty of people scream racism just to get something for free... Or, because they are racist themselves...

As I said before, we have come a long way since Dr. King... Leaps and Bounds since then... but because idiots scream invisible racism, laws are becoming discriminatory... Racism can be wiped out in a matter of one or two more generations... Children are in integrated classes more then ever... They are not born racist and the schools definetly do not promote racism...(just communism)

Its all backwards, Why pass a law that discriminates to prevent discrimination? Special Intrest sucks and the people who take advantage of Special Intrest programs are selfish and racist...

racism still exsists, untill it is completley gon,e we still need laws to ensure fairness for citizens.and sometime that means giving up a few privaledges

NO, we should not... I would not give up my rights to another white man for God's sake why should I give up my rights to someone of a different color? I have seen plenty of people scream racism just to get something for free... Or, because they are racist themselves...

As I said before, we have come a long way since Dr. King... Leaps and Bounds since then... but because idiots scream invisible racism, laws are becoming discriminatory... Racism can be wiped out in a matter of one or two more generations... Children are in integrated classes more then ever... They are not born racist and the schools definetly do not promote racism...(just communism)

Its all backwards, Why pass a law that discriminates to prevent discrimination? Special Intrest sucks and the people who take advantage of Special Intrest programs are selfish and racist...

The whites that lose their places to minorities in college, would've lost it anyways, if the people in the innercity would've gotten an equal education, which did not happen. So stop seething, whining and bitching. Get a job, work your ass off, and have interracial sex, so your kids will have a chance.

AA is not the solution to the gap in education. It's like trying to demolish a building by blowing up the top floor, it wont work. You have to attack the foundation which is the public school system. We need to reform schools and help make them all get the same funding.

We need to reform schools and help make them all get the same funding. Instead of privatizing...listen to the man, conservatives.

We need to reform schools and help make them all get the same funding. Instead of privatizing...listen to the man, conservatives.

i'm a girl.

We need to reform schools and help make them all get the same funding. Instead of privatizing...listen to the man, conservatives.

i'm a girl.
Well...you can telegram your phone number, but I can't guarantee you anything. :lol:

(Just kidding, I apologize.)

The whites that lose their places to minorities in college, would've lost it anyways, if the people in the innercity would've gotten an equal education, which did not happen. So stop seething, whining and bitching. Get a job, work your ass off, and have interracial sex, so your kids will have a chance.

In this scenerio, AA is once again not the answer. Rather than award an inner-city minority a place in college to "make up" for the fact that their primary education sucked, the inner-city schools need to be improved. And once again, AA discriminates against white by providing a leg up to the inner-city minority while ignoring the fact that whites go to the same school.

The whites that lose their places to minorities in college, would've lost it anyways, if the people in the innercity would've gotten an equal education, which did not happen. So stop seething, whining and bitching. Get a job, work your ass off, and have interracial sex, so your kids will have a chance.

Jesus, you're twisted :x 'Sorry, darling, we can't get married 'cos you're white' isn't the kind of phrase I see leading to those mythical sunlit uplands of universal equality.

AA is built around the false premise that blacks and whites as groups have equal learning abilities.

However, there is no evidence that this is the case.

All major studies done on intelligence in the US have consistently shown a 15 point black-white IQ gap. No matter how many attempts to make the tests less 'culturally biased', this discrepancy still remains.

As would be expected of a generally less intelligent population, Blacks have a much higher rate of crime, illegitimacy, homelessness, infectious diseases and poverty than whites.

In Africa where the average intelligence of Blacks is even lower, the problems are even worse (even in places where Whites never colonised, how do you explain that?).

I would like to point out that over the past 10 years IQ tests have been discounted as a viable means of judging IQ. The reason is exactly what you stated the will always have bias!


Discounted by whom?


What is biased about pattern recognition and mathematics?

The whites that lose their places to minorities in college, would've lost it anyways, if the people in the innercity would've gotten an equal education, which did not happen. So stop seething, whining and bitching. Get a job, work your ass off, and have interracial sex, so your kids will have a chance.

What about the whites and Asians who go to inner-city schools?

It's not my damn fault I was born Chinese!! All else being equal, a white person and a black person should have to put the same amount of effort.

To get rid of racism: TAKE RACE OFF OF APPLICATIONS.

I was born in a friggin' Third-world country and lived in a ghetto for most of my life... yet this government policy says that I'm 'privileged'... that's just ridiculous! The kid of some black Hollywood star who makes millions of dollars a year is 'disadvantaged'. Hey if I go get a tan you think I could pass off as Hispanic?

Palestinian, let me ask you this: Should we have Affirmative Action in the NFL... you know force it to get more white players?? I mean, that's only fair if we have affirmative action whenever it is pro-black.

We need to reform schools and help make them all get the same funding. Instead of privatizing...listen to the man, conservatives.

First of all privatizing is a form of reform. Secondly, I've already stated my solution #2: Break school districts down into smaller ones. Maybe 5% of districts will be slightly worse off, but the vast majority will be better off because of lower administrative costs and so will the average.

Affirmative action is based on ... race ... which is totally arbitrary.

I symphatize. I think Asians should be included too. All Asians. Except you, because you're starting to get annoying :lol:

I symphatize. I think Asians should be included too. All Asians. Except you, because you're starting to get annoying :lol:

But what about whites who are poor? I know a friend who had a large part of his family killed in Eastern Europe and came to the US with no money whatsoever. Yet he is still 'privileged' by our current laws.

Besides I think Asians shouldn't be included. I want to have hte right to be able to succeed or fail on my own merits... there's no reason I should get benefits because of my skin color and certainly no reason I should be harmed because of it.

The whites that lose their places to minorities in college, would've lost it anyways, if the people in the innercity would've gotten an equal education, which did not happen. So stop seething, whining and bitching. Get a job, work your ass off, and have interracial sex, so your kids will have a chance.

What about the whites and Asians who go to inner-city schools?

seriously! i went to an inner city public school and pulled myself out of it through my own efforts and doggedness. if you think that my classmates of other ethnicities deserve better opportunities into college simply because of their skin color, then you [P.E.] are a racist.

For the last several decades, affirmative action has been the basic component of the civil rights agenda. But affirmative action, in the form of racial preferences, has worn out its political welcome. In Gallup Polls, between 1987 and 1990, people were asked if they agreed with the statement: “We should make every effort to improve the position of blacks and other minorities even if it means giving them preferential treatment.” More than 70 percent of the respondents opposed preferential treatment while only 24 percent supported it.* Among blacks, 66 percent opposed preferential treatment and 32 percent supported it (Lipset 1992: 66-69).
The rejection of racial preferences by the broad public and increasingly by the Supreme Court has been partially recognized by even supporters of affirmative action. While they have not forsaken their goals, they have begun to distance themselves from some of the language of affirmative action. Thus, many business, government, and university affirmative action offices have been renamed “equity offices.” Racial preferences are increasingly referred to as “diversity multiculturalism.” What is it about affirmative action that gives rise to its contentiousness?

*This is pretty well-reflected by this poll, which has 73% opposed and 20% in favor. Support is getting less and less over time. It's only a matter of time before someone finds another clause in the Constitution taht could be used to kill Affirmative Action.

Discounted by whom?

What is biased about pattern recognition and mathematics?

Some multiculturalists believe that 1+1 may or may not equal 2 depending on what 'culture' you live in.

I accept that statistically, blacks score poorer than whites on IQ tests. However, race is not a significant factor in that performance. Nearly all studies (with the exception of a study performance by the authors of "A Bell Curve") have pointed to socioeconomic factors as the largest influence over IQ. This is quite logical, as an African Bushman and a college-educated African-American, despite being the same race, would show vastly different IQ scores.

What studies are these? I think you will find that intelligence, not socioeconomic position, is the greater influence on IQ. That there is a correlation between socioeconomics and IQ can be interpreted in several ways. One would expect people of low intelligence to be more likely to live in poverty, and this would tend to be self-perpetuating over several generations in many cases in terms of how conducive the environment is for learning.

Sub-Saharan blacks and American blacks do indeed have different average IQ scores, however both are far below the white mean. American blacks score much higher than their African counterparts, which i think is due to two reasons: living in a western environment over many generations, and genetic admixture with whites.


This refutes your argument that any efforts to give blacks and whites equal opportunity is wasted because blacks are genetically inferior. This is simply not the case.

My argument was not that blacks were "genetically inferior", but that as a group they are genetically predisposed to relatively low intelligence.

Granting blacks equal opportunities is not wasted, as they will perform better than if they were given lesser opportunities. However it is worthless to expect an equal outcome, because the intelligence gap prevents this from happening.

I accept that statistically, blacks score poorer than whites on IQ tests. However, race is not a significant factor in that performance. Nearly all studies (with the exception of a study performance by the authors of "A Bell Curve") have pointed to socioeconomic factors as the largest influence over IQ. This is quite logical, as an African Bushman and a college-educated African-American, despite being the same race, would show vastly different IQ scores.

What studies are these? I think you will find that intelligence, not socioeconomic position, is the greater influence on IQ. That there is a correlation between socioeconomics and IQ can be interpreted in several ways. One would expect people of low intelligence to be more likely to live in poverty, and this would tend to be self-perpetuating over several generations in many cases in terms of how conducive the environment is for learning.

Sub-Saharan blacks and American blacks do indeed have different average IQ scores, however both are far below the white mean. American blacks score much higher than their African counterparts, which i think is due to two reasons: living in a western environment over many generations, and genetic admixture with whites.


This refutes your argument that any efforts to give blacks and whites equal opportunity is wasted because blacks are genetically inferior. This is simply not the case.

My argument was not that blacks were "genetically inferior", but that as a group they are genetically predisposed to relatively low intelligence.

Granting blacks equal opportunities is not wasted, as they will perform better than if they were given lesser opportunities. However it is worthless to expect an equal outcome, because the intelligence gap prevents this from happening.

The genetic variation between sub-Saharan blacks and whites is something like 0.2% or less. It's the BIGGEST genetic variation between any two racial groups but it's still insignificant. In fact, the intraracial variation betwene sub-Saharan blacks often exceeds 0.2%.

The reason American blacks perform worse than American whites on standardized test is statistical variation... it's perfectly within standard deviation and things like the chi-square tests.

You know that one famous neurosurgeon I forgot his name but he worked on the two Iranian twins in Singapore? He was black. His mom was illiterate but she made him read and write reports and fake literacy. Blacks aren't "as a group" predisposed to lower intelligence than whites. They may have slightly lower IQs on average, but this is once again within normal statistical variation. There are intelligent successful blacks are there are intelligent successful whites. The thing is .... race doesn't matter nearly as much as YOU as an individual matters in your life.

The reason black societies south of the Sahara didn't develop as well as white socieities is because there was fewer competition in sub-Saharan Africa which discouraged individualism and technological progress... things with the highly competitve atmosphere of Europe encouraged.

The genetic variation between sub-Saharan blacks and whites is something like 0.2% or less. It's the BIGGEST genetic variation between any two racial groups but it's still insignificant. In fact, the intraracial variation betwene sub-Saharan blacks often exceeds 0.2%.

Why is it insignificant? The genetic difference between a mentally disabled person and a naturally-gifted pianist may be only 0.0001%, is that insignificant?


The reason American blacks perform worse than American whites on standardized test is statistical variation... it's perfectly within standard deviation and things like the chi-square tests.

That's how you explain the gap, it's a statistical fluke? I haven't heard that one before. :D

The mean IQ of whites exceeds that of blacks by one standard deviation. Do you really mean to say that they actually have equal intelligence, but because of mysterious 'statistical variation' this never shows?


You know that one famous neurosurgeon I forgot his name but he worked on the two Iranian twins in Singapore? He was black. His mom was illiterate but she made him read and write reports and fake literacy. Blacks aren't "as a group" predisposed to lower intelligence than whites.

By 'as a group' i didn't mean to imply that all blacks have a lower intelligence than all whites. Certainly there are lots of individual exceptions to any group tendency.


The reason black societies south of the Sahara didn't develop as well as white socieities is because there was fewer competition in sub-Saharan Africa which discouraged individualism and technological progress... things with the highly competitve atmosphere of Europe encouraged.

I agree that the environment of Sub-Saharan Africa discouraged technological progress compared to Eurasia.

The human groups who settled Europe and Northern Asia encountered extremely cold, harsh conditions with little resources. Accordingly, due to natural selection those groups evolved a number of traits including relatively high intelligence and creativity, which was necessary for survival. For example, the sub-saharan Africans had little need for shelter because the climate was so hot. The Europeans/N. Asians however, had to build shelter to survive and so those who had the most creative skills were favoured.

When several peoples encounter different environmental selection pressures over thousands of generations, they will undoubtedly evolve varying survival traits including different levels of intelligence and other cognitive traits.

I direct you to the excellent book by (libertarian) Michael Levin, Why Race Matters. (http://www.mises.org/misesreview_detail.asp?control=117) You should be able to find it in the library.

Why is it insignificant? The genetic difference between a mentally disabled person and a naturally-gifted pianist may be only 0.0001%, is that insignificant?

If it's in one specific gene than it's significant. Unfortunately most of DNA is "junk genes" that don't actually mean anything... so a 0.2% variation means something like an 0.002% variation in useful genes and even then it's dispersed randomly.


That's how you explain the gap, it's a statistical fluke? I haven't heard that one before. :D

I did two different computer statistical tests based on US News's average SAT scores... it's within expected statistical variations (p-values of higher than 0.01), and thus can be attributed to normal variation.

The mean IQ of whites exceeds that of blacks by one standard deviation.

One standard deviation is 68%, it's not nearly that high. Variation in SAT scores is just barely over 10%.

Do you really mean to say that they actually have equal intelligence, but because of mysterious 'statistical variation' this never shows?

Whites don't have 68% higher intelligence than blacks, sorry :).

By 'as a group' i didn't mean to imply that all blacks have a lower intelligence than all whites. Certainly there are lots of individual exceptions to any group tendency. I agree that the environment of Sub-Saharan Africa discouraged technological progress compared to Eurasia.

Okay we can agree on these two points.

The human groups who settled Europe and Northern Asia encountered extremely cold, harsh conditions with little resources. Accordingly, due to natural selection those groups evolved a number of traits including relatively high intelligence and creativity, which was necessary for survival.

Europe's only been inhabited for a few tens of thousands of years... making evolution very unlikely. Scandanavia wasn't occupied until like 15,000 BC.

For example, the sub-saharan Africans had little need for shelter because the climate was so hot. The Europeans/N. Asians however, had to build shelter to survive and so those who had the most creative skills were favoured.

Okay I'll give you that, but once again, we're looking at a timespan that's so short any selection would be marginal at best.

When several peoples encounter different environmental selection pressures over thousands of generations, they will undoubtedly evolve varying survival traits including different levels of intelligence and other cognitive traits.

It hasn't been "several thousands of generations"... it's been at most one or two generations... and I direct you to Diamond's Guns, Germs, and Steel, about why selection pressures aren't as strong as we expected.

Most selection pressures are immediate physiological adaptation. The number of genes that determine intelligence are far greater and change slower.

If it's in one specific gene than it's significant. Unfortunately most of DNA is "junk genes" that don't actually mean anything... so a 0.2% variation means something like an 0.002% variation in useful genes and even then it's dispersed randomly.

Sounds a bit obfuscatory to me.

I did two different computer statistical tests based on US News's average SAT scores... it's within expected statistical variations (p-values of higher than 0.01), and thus can be attributed to normal variation.

Fine, one individual case could well be explained away like that. It's harder to argue for 'clustering' when thousands of tests all tend the same way, though.

One standard deviation is 68%, it's not nearly that high. Variation in SAT scores is just barely over 10%.

Whatever.

Europe's only been inhabited for a few tens of thousands of years... making evolution very unlikely. Scandanavia wasn't occupied until like 15,000 BC.

Not long, sure, but long enough for a 'Scandinavian look' to emerge. And modern Europeans are at least a thousand generations removed from the first modern humans to reach Europe. That's surely time for significant deviation. 35,000 years is longer than it sounds :)

Honestly,
That said, I still stick to no. It should be based on merit. I think people would be surprised that if this were the case nothing would really change. In the meantime, in a country that sees things in black or white, I'd rather see quotas installed so it is more fair to everyone who may not be just black or white.

It is based on merit. Affirmative action is the attempt to search out competent candidates who fall into some category, not the choice to select incompetents who do. If you feel that candidates in [some category] are less qualified, then rewrite the conditions of selection.

Incidentally, head hunters have told me that firms request they send [pick your category] candidates to ensure that the pool from which they hire includes [pick your category].

Firsty, superficial physical genetic traits such as skin and hair color and eye color evolve quicker than intelligence traits... because there are fewer genes determining them.

90% of the difference in intelligence between different races is due to cultural factors... for example Chinese culture has traditionally been rigid and very pro-education. This comes from the Han Dynasty where the highest scorer on an SAT-style test would be given the post of Imperial Chancellor for a year. There is a story during the Ming Dynasty that a father beat his son to death because he was doing poorly in school. Today, standardized tests are the ONLY criteria for admission in Chinese schools. Consequently, Chinese people (who make upe 2/3 of all Asians in the US) do better on things like the SAT Math and IQ reasoning tests, even if they perform worse than whites on the Verbal (English often isn't their first language). This applies to both Southeastern Asians AND Northeastern Asians though technically they have less in common than Europeans and Arabs are are separate races.

In hunter-gatherer societies like in Bantu stateless societies there is less emphasis on education and more placed on survival skills. Consequently in much of South Africa the average intelligence is lower... because there is no cultural pressure to get educated... whereas in other parts of Africa, like North and to some extent West Africa... the average intelligence is higher than in the South... even though they are the same race.

http://papers.nber.org/papers/W6605.pdf
And WEEEE!!

Genetics should not even be discussed, its scientific FACT that the genetic diversity between two people of the same ethinicity is the same diversity of two people of different diversity... Never mind the biased and racist crap that Aryan puts forth...

Personally, I have blond hair and blue eyes of scandinavian decent... I also happen to be part native american (potowatomi)... Aryan Tribes, Your a piece of shit... Your giving honest white people a stereotype... And you give AA supporters ammunition... Go to hell ya nazi...

AA is not the solution to the gap in education. It's like trying to demolish a building by blowing up the top floor, it wont work. You have to attack the foundation which is the public school system. We need to reform schools and help make them all get the same funding.

Yeah, property taxes do not help... The higher the population density, the less attention is put on one child...

First off, genetics IS an important part of racial equality. It's genetics that make people the color they are. However, I will disagree vehemently with any notion that skin color has ANYTHING to do with intelligence. Period. People who believe that whites are "genetically smarter" than blacks are treading on racist and "white power" grounds.

Going back a back, I want to thank those people who responded to my post a few pages back. Thanks. I wish to add a few things, however, so here goes:

First off, some people are getting some issues mixed up. The issue of discrimination in college acceptances is easily solved: take race out of the admissions process. It's that easy. BUT, that is NOT why AA is around.
AA is around because it is well known throughout the US that there is "voluntary segregation" within inner cities. I live in Louisville, and the city is about 1 million people strong (metro included). When a person from Louisville says West End, that means Shively (more than 50% black), Portland (more than 75% black), and other areas, which all are predominately black. Now, say East End, and not only is it predominately white, but also predominately Republican. That's just how it is. And wouldn't you know it, all the "projects" in Louisville are in the West End.

Big surprise? No. And not only do black people do this, but Asians (think Chinatown), Jewish people (Lower East Side), Germans, etc...

AA attempts to answer what we know is true: that even though black people are the same "people" as us white "people", many don't live in areas that promote education. In Jefferson County (Louisville's county), there are the top two schools in Kentucky, but there are also the bottom five. The bottom five schools have a predominately minority (black, Asian, what-have-you) populace, whereas Manual, where I went to school and is one of the top schools in the US (#345 (?) according to TIME) is mostly white. HOWEVER, Manual has NO home-school populace (meaning that people would automatically go to Manual if they lived near it), so getting into Manual means having to apply. And race plays a factor. Only the best students that apply get into Manual, and still--20% of Manual is black, and the same percentage is Asian. (However, the REAL reason why Manual is a good school is because of the Jewish populace--1% of students are Jewish :lol: )
We all know that racism exists, similar to anti-semitism, but easier to spot and a lot more damaging. But more importantly, percentage-wise, minorities have harder times educationally than, well, the majority. AA, I believe, helps Asians more than it hurts, because AA considers them minorities. In fact, if you are anything but white, you are covered by AA.
AA is to help minorities. Unfortunately, caucasians aren't helped, but the damage done by AA NOW to white people and those who don't get into Yale because some black girl did instead is far less than what NOT having AA around would do to those minorities that could really use a boost.

Essentially, I am saying that AA is flawed; I don't know how to fix it, and apparently no politician does either, but I don't think abolishing it would fix the whole picture. I know that AA is a quota, and I know that it is discriminatory, in a reverse kind of way. BUT, I don't feel that we can simply do without it, and think that we have made progress.

First off, genetics IS an important part of racial equality. It's genetics that make people the color they are. However, I will disagree vehemently with any notion that skin color has ANYTHING to do with intelligence. Period. People who believe that whites are "genetically smarter" than blacks are treading on racist and "white power" grounds.

Genetic difference between average male and female humans: 2.1% (to be exact, it's 1/46th)
Genetic difference between average white and sub-saharan black person of the same gender: Less than 0.2%
Genetic difference between average white and average northeast Asian: 0.05%.

And most of those differences are in "junk" DNA that don't matter.

Racial differences are so tiny that governemnt policy really shouldn't take race into account.

Going back a back, I want to thank those people who responded to my post a few pages back. Thanks. I wish to add a few things, however, so here goes:

First off, some people are getting some issues mixed up. The issue of discrimination in college acceptances is easily solved: take race out of the admissions process. It's that easy. BUT, that is NOT why AA is around.

Yes it is. Why else would it be around?

AA is around because it is well known throughout the US that there is "voluntary segregation" within inner cities.

The key word is voluntary. A black person can move to the non-inner-city just as a white person can go into the inner-city. Segregation isn't enforced by law or habit, therefore it doesn't exist.

I live in Louisville, and the city is about 1 million people strong (metro included). When a person from Louisville says West End, that means Shively (more than 50% black), Portland (more than 75% black), and other areas, which all are predominately black.

And I live in Pittsburgh where the West End is predominantely white... what's your point? People often develop their own cultures within cities. This is why you have places like Chinatown and Little Italy. FORCING people to move in order to adopt "multiculturalism" is just as bad as forcing people to move to adopt segregation. Integration means that there is no law segregating people... if they want to live in a predominantely white or black neighborhood... that's their choice... it's perfectly legitimate SO LONG AS they aren't interferring with the right of others to do the same.

Now, say East End, and not only is it predominately white, but also predominately Republican. That's just how it is. And wouldn't you know it, all the "projects" in Louisville are in the West End.

Big surprise? No. And not only do black people do this, but Asians (think Chinatown), Jewish people (Lower East Side), Germans, etc...

It's voluntary, as you said. There's nothing wrong with having a Chinatown or a Little Italy... people often like to live near people of their same ethnic group (as distinct from race, Chinese and Japanese don't get along too well in many places). As a Chinese person, if I WANT to live in a Chinese neighborhood, that isn't segregation at all... it's only segregation if I prohibit a black from moving to a Chinese neighborhood.

AA attempts to answer what we know is true: that even though black people are the same "people" as us white "people", many don't live in areas that promote education.

Many white people don't either. Education is really a cultural thing. The reason that inner-city Chinese often do better than inner-city blacks is because education has always been an integral part of Chinese culture... which comes from the Han Dynasty where the highest scorer on a civil service exam would be given the office of Chancellor (second highest position in the land). But I don't think I should be punished for things that happened two thousand years ago.

In Jefferson County (Louisville's county), there are the top two schools in Kentucky, but there are also the bottom five.

And in Allegheny County we have the richest and poorest school districts in the entire Mid-East. The richest one is actually 20-25% non-white.

The bottom five schools have a predominately minority (black, Asian, what-have-you) populace, whereas Manual, where I went to school and is one of the top schools in the US (#345 (?) according to TIME) is mostly white.

The US population in general is mostly white. And affirmative action hurts Asians... the fact that many Asians (and non-Asians of course) go to innercity schools and end up in Harvard shows that the most important thing is YOU.

HOWEVER, Manual has NO home-school populace (meaning that people would automatically go to Manual if they lived near it), so getting into Manual means having to apply. And race plays a factor.

Make it so that race doesn't play a factor... it's a public school isn't it?

Only the best students that apply get into Manual, and still--20% of Manual is black, and the same percentage is Asian. (However, the REAL reason why Manual is a good school is because of the Jewish populace--1% of students are Jewish :lol: )

I don't get this point at all... 20% is overrepresented for blacks (10% of the population) and Asians (6%). I don't know what that Jewish comment is supposed to mean.

We all know that racism exists, similar to anti-semitism, but easier to spot and a lot more damaging. But more importantly, percentage-wise, minorities have harder times educationally than, well, the majority. AA, I believe, helps Asians more than it hurts, because AA considers them minorities. In fact, if you are anything but white, you are covered by AA.

Look up the actual policy before you make an idiotic comment like this please. AA hurts Asians even MORE than whites because Asians are "overrepresented". At UCLA the average Asian person admitted had an SAT of around 1270 and white had one around 1250... the average black had an SAT of 980... That's almost THREE HUNDRED points of discrimination... and due to affirmative action.

AA is to help minorities. Unfortunately, caucasians aren't helped, but the damage done by AA NOW to white people and those who don't get into Yale because some black girl

BTW, Affirmative action with regards to female is stupid... females make up 60% of new college graduates... if anything affirmative action in gender should help males... or better yet not exist at all.

did instead is far less than what NOT having AA around would do to those minorities that could really use a boost.

Boost (n.)- A free ride.

If that black girl you talked about wants to go to Yale, she can study hard like the rest of us. There's a black kid at my school, very intelligent, ranked #14th in the class, close to 1500 SAT and he HATES affirmative action. Why? It is DEGRADING to blacks to say that "you can't succeed by yourself... you need Big Brother to come help you."

Essentially, I am saying that AA is flawed; I don't know how to fix it, and apparently no politician does either, but I don't think abolishing it would fix the whole picture. I know that AA is a quota, and I know that it is discriminatory, in a reverse kind of way. BUT, I don't feel that we can simply do without it, and think that we have made progress.

Well affirmative action USED to be a good idea... when there was still things like Jim Crow laws... but since those are gone... it's a very bad idea. No politician knows what to do about AA: this is untrue. Actually they do. Only politicians are sleazy. We all know that. AA is just their way of getting more votes from people.

First off, genetics IS an important part of racial equality. It's genetics that make people the color they are. However, I will disagree vehemently with any notion that skin color has ANYTHING to do with intelligence. Period. People who believe that whites are "genetically smarter" than blacks are treading on racist and "white power" grounds.

Genetic difference between average male and female humans: 2.1% (to be exact, it's 1/46th)
Genetic difference between average white and sub-saharan black person of the same gender: Less than 0.2%
Genetic difference between average white and average northeast Asian: 0.05%.

And most of those differences are in "junk" DNA that don't matter.

Racial differences are so tiny that governemnt policy really shouldn't take race into account.

Going back a back, I want to thank those people who responded to my post a few pages back. Thanks. I wish to add a few things, however, so here goes:

First off, some people are getting some issues mixed up. The issue of discrimination in college acceptances is easily solved: take race out of the admissions process. It's that easy. BUT, that is NOT why AA is around.

Yes it is. Why else would it be around?

AA is around because it is well known throughout the US that there is "voluntary segregation" within inner cities.

The key word is voluntary. A black person can move to the non-inner-city just as a white person can go into the inner-city. Segregation isn't enforced by law or habit, therefore it doesn't exist.

I live in Louisville, and the city is about 1 million people strong (metro included). When a person from Louisville says West End, that means Shively (more than 50% black), Portland (more than 75% black), and other areas, which all are predominately black.

And I live in Pittsburgh where the West End is predominantely white... what's your point? People often develop their own cultures within cities. This is why you have places like Chinatown and Little Italy. FORCING people to move in order to adopt "multiculturalism" is just as bad as forcing people to move to adopt segregation. Integration means that there is no law segregating people... if they want to live in a predominantely white or black neighborhood... that's their choice... it's perfectly legitimate SO LONG AS they aren't interferring with the right of others to do the same.

Now, say East End, and not only is it predominately white, but also predominately Republican. That's just how it is. And wouldn't you know it, all the "projects" in Louisville are in the West End.

Big surprise? No. And not only do black people do this, but Asians (think Chinatown), Jewish people (Lower East Side), Germans, etc...

It's voluntary, as you said. There's nothing wrong with having a Chinatown or a Little Italy... people often like to live near people of their same ethnic group (as distinct from race, Chinese and Japanese don't get along too well in many places). As a Chinese person, if I WANT to live in a Chinese neighborhood, that isn't segregation at all... it's only segregation if I prohibit a black from moving to a Chinese neighborhood.

AA attempts to answer what we know is true: that even though black people are the same "people" as us white "people", many don't live in areas that promote education.

Many white people don't either. Education is really a cultural thing. The reason that inner-city Chinese often do better than inner-city blacks is because education has always been an integral part of Chinese culture... which comes from the Han Dynasty where the highest scorer on a civil service exam would be given the office of Chancellor (second highest position in the land). But I don't think I should be punished for things that happened two thousand years ago.

In Jefferson County (Louisville's county), there are the top two schools in Kentucky, but there are also the bottom five.

And in Allegheny County we have the richest and poorest school districts in the entire Mid-East. The richest one is actually 20-25% non-white.

The bottom five schools have a predominately minority (black, Asian, what-have-you) populace, whereas Manual, where I went to school and is one of the top schools in the US (#345 (?) according to TIME) is mostly white.

The US population in general is mostly white. And affirmative action hurts Asians... the fact that many Asians (and non-Asians of course) go to innercity schools and end up in Harvard shows that the most important thing is YOU.

HOWEVER, Manual has NO home-school populace (meaning that people would automatically go to Manual if they lived near it), so getting into Manual means having to apply. And race plays a factor.

Make it so that race doesn't play a factor... it's a public school isn't it?

Only the best students that apply get into Manual, and still--20% of Manual is black, and the same percentage is Asian. (However, the REAL reason why Manual is a good school is because of the Jewish populace--1% of students are Jewish :lol: )

I don't get this point at all... 20% is overrepresented for blacks (10% of the population) and Asians (6%). I don't know what that Jewish comment is supposed to mean.

We all know that racism exists, similar to anti-semitism, but easier to spot and a lot more damaging. But more importantly, percentage-wise, minorities have harder times educationally than, well, the majority. AA, I believe, helps Asians more than it hurts, because AA considers them minorities. In fact, if you are anything but white, you are covered by AA.

Look up the actual policy before you make an idiotic comment like this please. AA hurts Asians even MORE than whites because Asians are "overrepresented". At UCLA the average Asian person admitted had an SAT of around 1270 and white had one around 1250... the average black had an SAT of 980... That's almost THREE HUNDRED points of discrimination... and due to affirmative action.

AA is to help minorities. Unfortunately, caucasians aren't helped, but the damage done by AA NOW to white people and those who don't get into Yale because some black girl

BTW, Affirmative action with regards to female is stupid... females make up 60% of new college graduates... if anything affirmative action in gender should help males... or better yet not exist at all.

did instead is far less than what NOT having AA around would do to those minorities that could really use a boost.

Boost (n.)- A free ride.

If that black girl you talked about wants to go to Yale, she can study hard like the rest of us. There's a black kid at my school, very intelligent, ranked #14th in the class, close to 1500 SAT and he HATES affirmative action. Why? It is DEGRADING to blacks to say that "you can't succeed by yourself... you need Big Brother to come help you."

Essentially, I am saying that AA is flawed; I don't know how to fix it, and apparently no politician does either, but I don't think abolishing it would fix the whole picture. I know that AA is a quota, and I know that it is discriminatory, in a reverse kind of way. BUT, I don't feel that we can simply do without it, and think that we have made progress.

Well affirmative action USED to be a good idea... when there was still things like Jim Crow laws... but since those are gone... it's a very bad idea. No politician knows what to do about AA: this is untrue. Actually they do. Only politicians are sleazy. We all know that. AA is just their way of getting more votes from people.

Someone supporting this affirmative action?

http://quakerinabasement.blogspot.com/2003_09_01_quakerinabasement_archive.html#106298549241835200

Top Republican legislators are working on a plan that would require Colorado colleges and universities to seek more conservatives in faculty hiring

This is just as bad as affirmative action for blacks and Hispanics.

AT:"Why is it insignificant? The genetic difference between a mentally disabled person and a naturally-gifted pianist may be only 0.0001%, is that insignificant?"

If it's in one specific gene than it's significant. Unfortunately most of DNA is "junk genes" that don't actually mean anything... so a 0.2% variation means something like an 0.002% variation in useful genes and even then it's dispersed randomly.


Okay, so the difference between blacks and whites in terms of 'useful genes' is about 0.002%. Given our general ignorance of how the human genome works, there's no reason to believe that this amount of variation couldn't specifically influence intelligence.


I did two different computer statistical tests based on US News's average SAT scores... it's within expected statistical variations (p-values of higher than 0.01), and thus can be attributed to normal variation.

But if both groups had equal intelligence, wouldn't you expect the scores to vary in roughly the same way? Keep in mind that sub-Saharan Africans have a lower average than African-Americans, and Ashkenazi Jews have a higher average than whites. Would you say that the sub-Saharan/Ashkenazi IQ gap is also merely a statistical fluke which does not reflect group intelligence differences whatsoever?

"AT:The mean IQ of whites exceeds that of blacks by one standard deviation."

One standard deviation is 68%, it's not nearly that high. Variation in SAT scores is just barely over 10%.[/quote]

I'll give you this quote from Levin so that you know what i'm talking about.

"When IQ is scaled so that the white mean is 100 and the SD is 15, the black mean is about 85 and the black SD slightly less than 15 (Sternberg 1994: 899-907) " [Source: Michael Levin, Why Race Matters, 1997, pg.34]

Europe's only been inhabited for a few tens of thousands of years... making evolution very unlikely. Scandanavia wasn't occupied until like 15,000 BC.

Caucasoids predominate in Europe currently, but evolved mostly in Asia. According to the Out of Africa theory, man probably left Africa about 100,000 years ago. This is certainly enough time for further evolution, which is confirmed when we look at the differences in skin colour and skeletal features between Eurasian peoples and sub-Saharan Blacks.

"AT:For example, the sub-saharan Africans had little need for shelter because the climate was so hot. The Europeans/N. Asians however, had to build shelter to survive and so those who had the most creative skills were favoured."

Okay I'll give you that, but once again, we're looking at a timespan that's so short any selection would be marginal at best.

We know that there was enough variation in selection pressures for different skeletal features and physiology to form. Why is it not feasible to expect that the brains would develop in different ways as well? Caucasoids and North Asians were geographically isolated by glaciers, and lived in an environment where those who could not build adequate shelter (predominantly those with low intelligence) were more likely to die off. In resource-rich, tropical sub-Saharan Africa there was no such selection pressures as we see there are still to this day tribes who go around with barely any clothes and the barest of mud huts for shelter.

["AT:When several peoples encounter different environmental selection pressures over thousands of generations, they will undoubtedly evolve varying survival traits including different levels of intelligence and other cognitive traits."

It hasn't been "several thousands of generations"... it's been at most one or two generations... and I direct you to Diamond's Guns, Germs, and Steel, about why selection pressures aren't as strong as we expected.[/quote]

I suspect the sentence outlined in bold was a typo. If human migration out of Africa began 100,000 years ago and a generation is 25 years, that's about 4000 generations of isolation.

Most selection pressures are immediate physiological adaptation. The number of genes that determine intelligence are far greater and change slower.

Aren't cognitive functions affected by physiological adaptation?

Do you have a source which indicates that the skeleton evolves more quickly than the brain?