The Los Angeles Times is running an article describing the challenges faced by Asian Americans as they apply for acceptance to top colleges.
The article describes the impact that their race and ethnicity has on their SAT scores:
Lee's next slide shows three columns of numbers from a Princeton University study that tried to measure how race and ethnicity affect admissions by using SAT scores as a benchmark. It uses the term “bonus” to describe how many extra SAT points an applicant's race is worth.
She points to the first column. African Americans received a “bonus” of 230 points, Lee says.
She points to the second column. “Hispanics received a bonus of 185 points.”
The last column draws gasps. Asian Americans, Lee says, are penalized by 50 points — in other words, they had to do that much better to win admission.
“Do Asians need higher test scores? Is it harder for Asians to get into college? The answer is yes,” Lee says.
A core tenet of the American philosophy, even from before the days of the Founding Fathers, is that through hard work and excellence one should be able to obtain success in life. But is this ideal even possible when certain underachieving groups are given artificial advantages, while those with the most merit are artificially held back?
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 02 2015, @08:48AM
I smell a bell curve coming! "I'm not racist because. . . "
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 02 2015, @09:34AM
Beat that.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 02 2015, @09:45AM
I'm not racist because I don't care.
Beat that.
Don't have to, you defeat yourself, like all racists do. You have my sympathies.
(Score: 3, Touché) by c0lo on Monday March 02 2015, @09:50AM
That's quite original, far on the right of the bell curve.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 5, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday March 02 2015, @03:56PM
Racists, by definition, care about race. It is in fact what makes a racist racist. Not caring about race, either helpfully or harmfully, is the only way to ever achieve equality.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Tuesday March 03 2015, @05:52PM
Exactly. Neither helpfully nor harmfully.
As Larry Elder puts it -- do you really think $Minority are so inferior that they need all this extra help??
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Marneus68 on Monday March 02 2015, @08:51AM
It's not at all surprising to see this kind of behavior from a generation that was always told to believe in "equality" without adding the "of chances" at the end.
This whole "bonus" system is revolting. Gotta love reverse racism.
(Score: 0, Disagree) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 02 2015, @08:56AM
"I am not a racist because I am opposed to reverse racism" That's one!
I would like to say you win a prize, but those are reserved for those that try harder.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by K_benzoate on Monday March 02 2015, @09:07AM
It's not "reverse racism", it's just racism.
That's why you see this meme pushed so hard, trying to tell us that you can't be racist against white people. The social justice redefinition of the word racism is that racism = power + prejudice. Since minorities are not, under the Social Justice world view, the dominant group in our society it is impossible for them to be racist. They've redefined the word so that racism is exclusively white character defect. Any behavior by or on behalf of minorities that appears racist under the conventional definition is just a correction of injustice, or lashing out at oppressors, or corrective action for past mistreatment of minorities by previous generations of whites.
It's crucial that we don't allow these words to be redefined. Reject the new definition of racism.
Then, on the other side of the fence are the disgusting white supremacists who take things too far in the other direction. People who are "proud" of their race usually come off as creepy racists, no matter what color they are. Sadly, the only people who seem willing to stand up and fight the Social Justice Warriors are these horrible ultra-nationalists. That should be troubling. I hate standing up against the SJW loonies and seeing that the only people who have the courage of their convictions are racists. You see the same phenomenon with regards to radical Islam. Only the Right is willing to speak the truth (in large numbers) that not all religions are created equal. Look at people like Sam Harris, a liberal by any measure, who has been slammed by the Left for daring to say that some religions are inherently more violent than other--an assertion which is trivial to prove both in the generality and in the particular.
I know there are plenty of liberals who think like I do. They stay quiet because they're afraid of being called racist, or bigoted. If there's one thing I envy in the political Right, it's that they have more personal courage when they defend their ideas and principles. I wish my liberal friends could find their balls and join me.
Climate change is real and primarily caused by human activity.
(Score: 0, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 02 2015, @09:14AM
"It's not racism because it is reverse discriminating against Asians, not white people." That's two! Wow, the competition here is fierce! May the best "not a racist" win!
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday March 02 2015, @10:01AM
I'm not raceist because I didn't join the competition here.
(grin)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2, Flamebait) by Runaway1956 on Monday March 02 2015, @10:09AM
Thank you. I posted much the same thing, but less eloquently. Good job!
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 02 2015, @03:00PM
> The social justice redefinition of the word racism is that racism = power + prejudice.
> It's crucial that we don't allow these words to be redefined.
Why? Seriously, why does this "redefinition" need to be rejected?
Prejudice without power is just a character defect. Just like thousands of other kinds of character defects that are part of being human.
Prejudice with power creates inequal opportunities, and that is the problem and always has been.
Your whole "impossible to be racist" complaint is just a strawman argument grounded in nothing more rigorous than dictionary pedantry.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday March 02 2015, @04:04PM
Because nobody has zero power. Millions of racist minority people add up. Add in the self-hating white SJWs and you've got yourself a pretty powerful lobby which has successfully managed to make it okay to discriminate against white people. It is not harmless or okay to be racist; not against any race.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 02 2015, @04:25PM
> Because nobody has zero power. Millions of racist minority people add up.
Together a million ants is nothing compared to a million elephants.
> It is not harmless or okay to be racist; not against any race.
And fixing that is a completely unachievable goal.
Who knew buzz was actually the most flaming, innumerate, unrealistic liberal on the site?
(Score: 4, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday March 02 2015, @05:51PM
Libertarian, TYVM. I'm an individualist above all else and individualism is the opposite of racism. It is simply logically impossible to judge someone on their race if you believe everyone should be judged solely on their own merits and failings.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 02 2015, @06:14PM
> I'm an individualist above all else and individualism is the opposite of racism.
Above all else? What are you doing using the internet? It was created by the collectivist US government.
Do you generate all your own electricity?
Grow all your own food?
Drive only on your own roads?
You are like a fish who can't recognize water because he's never been without it.
You are so completely dependent on the structure of society and yet feel no obligation to tend it even going so far as to accuse the people who do tend to it of being uncle toms.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday March 02 2015, @07:16PM
Of course not, I trade money I've received for my labor for them either through direct trade or forced taxes. Either way, I get absolutely diddly for free, same as you.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 02 2015, @07:25PM
> Either way, I get absolutely diddly for free, same as you.
Never said it was free. I said it wouldn't exist without the collective effort of society.
You seem happy to leave the direction of that effort up to the whims of the powerful.
That the people with more power not only get a bigger vote they deserve a bigger vote.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 02 2015, @07:38PM
I'm an individualist above all else and individualism is the opposite of racism.
Ignoring the fact that people of some races get an unearned leg up over people of other races isn't the "opposite of racism," it is enabling racism.
if you believe everyone should be judged solely on their own merits and failings.
Who is doing the judging? The idea that the criteria for making that judgement exists in a vacuum and is completely impartial is a pipe dream.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Monday March 02 2015, @08:04PM
Ignoring the fact that people of some races get an unearned leg up over people of other races isn't the "opposite of racism," it is enabling racism.
Ok, so why is it that a small minority, Asians, are given a penalty relative to other races (blacks and Hispanics) which have far higher numbers in our society? How the hell is that not racism?
Favoring one group over another, solely due to race, to try to make up for the fact that some people of some races get an unearned leg up, is itself racism.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 02 2015, @08:27PM
to try to make up for the fact that some people of some races get an unearned leg up, is itself racism.
The day the world is perfect is the day we can argue about how the existence of outliers disproves the common case.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday March 02 2015, @08:16PM
You'd better ignore it, it's utter bullshit. Nobody ever got a damned thing given to them for being white. Discrimination should be punished but helping anyone because of their race is by definition racial discrimination and not a damned thing you think or say will ever change that fact.
Me. Individualist, remember?
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 02 2015, @08:24PM
Ignoring the fact that people of some races get an unearned leg up over people of other races isn't the "opposite of racism," it is enabling racism.
Nobody ever got a damned thing given to them for being white.
I hope people mod your post all the way up to +5 so that everyone can see it for themselves.
Such an obviously counter-factual statement is straight out of the most racist corners of the internet like stormfront. [stormfront.org]
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday March 02 2015, @08:31PM
You think so, eh? Go try it, my SJW friend. Ask for everything you can think of and make sure to explain it's because you're white. Dollars to donuts you don't get a single thing you haven't earned. So, no, nobody has ever been given anything simply for being white.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 02 2015, @08:42PM
Go try it, my SJW friend. Ask for everything you can think of and make sure to explain it's because you're white.
I already did and I got more than enough to make it into the 1% of because it. My leg up was the opportunity to go to private schools that were 90% white, and work in an industry where I easily integrated into company cultures because I looked like, sounded like and had the same background as everyone else there.
Your inability to recognize that intangibles lead to tangible benefits is baffling. You are like a programmer who can't understand pointers.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 02 2015, @08:57PM
So give me a solution that doesn't answer racial discrimination with even more racial discrimination. I consider all intentional racial discrimination, even when it's trying to be helpful or correct perceived unfairness, as an ethical and moral non-starter. I'd rather have the current system, because at least it's not intentionally racist. I'm fine with a racial bias in the outcome of some system, as long as race was not an input criteria. Understand? Do what is right, though the world may perish. Even if affirmative action could produce a better society, I'd still be against it on principle. And it can't produce a better society, it never has whenever it's been tried, it just magnifies whatever animosity already exists between the races.
And no, I'm not white.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 02 2015, @09:07PM
So give me a solution that doesn't answer racial discrimination with even more racial discrimination.
When did you stop hitting your wife?
Affirmative action can't produce a better society, it never has whenever it's been tried,
What country do you live in? Affirmative action was working until the war on drugs reversed the gains made in the previous two decades.
If it weren't for that, we might even be to the point where affirmative action was no longer needed.
it just magnifies whatever animosity already exists between the races.
No, it spreads the animosity around more evenly. The people who lose the unearned benefits of a rigged system get pissed, but the people who no longer have the boot of society on their neck feel a whole fuckton better.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 02 2015, @09:14PM
You didn't actually answer my main point. Your solution requires more racial discrimination, which I consider to be evil, even if it's well intentioned, even if it works.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 02 2015, @09:18PM
Your solution requires more racial discrimination, which I consider to be evil, even if it's well intentioned, even if it works.
So what matters to you is idealogical purity, not results.
I guess we know where you stand.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 02 2015, @09:44PM
Where I stand is that racism is evil. Much harm has been done by well-intentioned racists.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 02 2015, @09:46PM
No, you literally said that the results don't matter.
That is evil.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 02 2015, @09:51PM
No, I said I don't care how good your results are if you got to them by using evil means. I care about results, and I care about the path we take to achieve them.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 02 2015, @09:58PM
You arbitrarily define affirmative action as evil and then declare the fact that it works to be irrelevant.
At best you are just begging the question.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 02 2015, @10:16PM
You arbitrarily define affirmative action as evil
That's not my thought process. Treating people better or worse based on their race is evil, it's the definition of racism. Affirmative action treats people of different races preferentially. So I'm against it. And I don't accept the assertion that it works, I'm saying that if it did, I'd still be against it. All the evidence points to it NOT working to achieve its goals, and there are numerous injurious side-effects.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 02 2015, @10:41PM
Treating people better or worse based on their race is evil, it's the definition of racism
Clue for you: that's completely arbitrary.
Until you can explain why it is evil instead of simply declaring it to be evil, you've got no leg to stand on.
Maybe in the future, you'll have figured out what makes racism evil and can explain yourself. But frankly, I'm done responding. Clearly you've never thought about it before so anything you could come up with in the next 20 minutes isn't going to be particularly insightful anyway. You can start with that original post - why racism without power is more than just a character defect.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 02 2015, @10:03PM
Let me use another example to try and make my point clearer. Capital punishment. I'm against it. Always, and in all cases. Even if the speculated deterrence effect worked, it wouldn't change the fact that capital punishment is immoral.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday March 02 2015, @08:57PM
I do not understand it because those intangibles do not exist. How whites are treated in the US is the baseline. None are ever given anything because they are white, someone has to earn everything they ever get. Which is how it should be for everyone but you SJW types simply can't deal with that because it means you can't treat minorities special just because some people are assholes. You can't assuage your unearned guilt. So you twist reason to the breaking point to justify your racism. Yes, racism. You are racist if you discriminate in favor of any race, no matter their situation. No exceptions, no excuses.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 02 2015, @09:14PM
I do not understand it because those intangibles do not exist.
Well, I certainly can't argue with that!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 02 2015, @11:04PM
But did you get free donuts?
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Monday March 02 2015, @05:05PM
Well, sure. Christianity is inherently far more violent than Buddhism. That doesn't stop violent Buddhist extremist groups from forming.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 02 2015, @06:54PM
You're just making Harris's point for him by pointing that out. Find me a violent extremist Jain (follower of Jainism). You probably can't. Even if you could, it would be impossible to reconcile their actions with recourse to their religion. If someone is committing violence in the name of Jainism, they're being a bad Jain. They're not acting in harmony with their religion's teachings. With Islam, it's a different story. There are times when violence is acceptable, even commanded, under Islamic teachings.
To the extent that Muslims are non-violent in these circumstances, it's because (like Christians and Jews) they've accepted that there are parts of their religion that must be ignored to bring them into alignment with modernity. Islam and Christianity both prescribe violent death for certain crimes, such as the stoning of adulterers. Christians have given up the practice. Islam is having a harder time letting go of such things.
Or, maybe it's not having a harder time letting go. One explanation, suggested by the late Christopher Hitchens, is that Islam is the youngest of the modern religions and still going through the process of transformation that Judaism and Christianity had to undertake in order to adjust to secular, pluralistic, society. There are doctrinal aspects to Islam that make this progression slower, more painful, and which cause temporary local reversals in progress. Islam is unique in that it claims to be the final solution to life, covering all aspects of the human condition. It also claims to be the last and perfect revelation from God. I don't think these are insurmountable difficulties, but they don't help.
Islam's older brothers had a head start, and in the fullness of time it will catch up. That moment can not come soon enough, but for tens of thousands of Muslims, it will have come too late.
(Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 02 2015, @07:57PM
Jaynists would have a field day with Jainists. The hero of Canton believes in grenades, guns, girls, and lots of them.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Monday March 02 2015, @08:01PM
Yep, this is easily the biggest factor that makes it hard for me to self-identify as a "liberal". I'm totally for things like social welfare systems so people aren't living under bridges, and proper regulation for industries, fuel-economy standards, strong environmental protection policies, reproductive rights, and I even like the idea of the Basic Income. But this racism-is-OK-if-you're-not-white stuff really turns my stomach.
(Score: 1) by Azuma Hazuki on Monday March 02 2015, @09:17PM
I'm with you on this. There is an unfortunate postmodern streak in the "liberal" movement in the US, where emotion is elevated above reason and people start with a conclusion and attempt to spin the facts to fit it. I've spent years and years battling this in the apologetics movement, so it chaps my ass to see it coming from "my side." People want to feel instead of think, because it's easier. It's time we faced the hard truth about the Abrahamic religions though; Judaism is almost extinct, Christianity is a mass of errors and varies wildly from Jesus' frothing apocalyptic rantings, and Islam never had an "enlightenment" that stuck; they're mired in the dark ages
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Tuesday March 03 2015, @05:54PM
http://monsterhunternation.com/2015/02/23/the-social-justice-warrior-racist-reading-challenge-a-fisking/ [monsterhunternation.com]
Enjoy!
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 02 2015, @09:20AM
This is not a reverse racism. It is just a racism against the Asians. The similar was practiced against the Jews.
Funny thing. Jews had been discriminated against. After the Nazi genocide, however, anyone who says pips against the Jews, however reasonable, is now shunned.
(Score: 0, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 02 2015, @09:23AM
Shut up, Ethanol-fueled! This is not even a "I am not a racist because. . ." post!
(Score: 2, Funny) by Ethanol-fueled on Monday March 02 2015, @02:24PM
I didn't post that, but I would like to point out that Asians are good students because they're beat like dogs and excommunicated from the family if they get anything less than straight-A's.
I know, because I lived next door to an Asian family once. They had like 4 generations living in a 1-bedroom apartment and they were all sitting all over the floor on rugs drinking tea all day. And when their kids came home with anything less than straight A's, all you would hear was, "ChingachongabungbangdongtakamakaHAIIIEEEE!" *Crash!* *Bang!*
It sounded a lot like that noise Mortal Kombat's Raiden [xboxachievements.com] makes when he does that flying-through-the-air move.
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Tuesday March 03 2015, @06:01PM
Well, at least Asian parents still have *expectations* of their kids.... it's been pointed out that when we stopped having expectations and started treating 'em as special snowflakes, that's when education started failing our kids.
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 2) by Marneus68 on Monday March 02 2015, @09:25AM
>It is just a racism against the Asians.
And against whites too apparently. Depending on the bonus they get.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Monday March 02 2015, @10:07AM
There is no such thing as "reverse racism". A black man who is racist is simply RACIST. An Asian who is racist is simply RACIST. A caucasian who is racist, is also simply RACIST.
This idea of "reverse racism" only helps to validate the worthless SOB's in the world who think that it is somehow "right" to advance other people at the expense of white, male, heterosexual, Christian people.
Racists and bigots are nothing more and nothing less than racists and bigots. Don't dignify the rat bastards with some kind of qualifier, such as "reverse".
(Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 02 2015, @01:45PM
This idea of "reverse racism" only helps to validate the worthless SOB's in the world who think that it is somehow "right" to advance other people at the expense of white, male, heterosexual, Christian people.
Let me take a wild guess.. you are 1) white, 2) male, 3) heterosexual, and 4) Christian
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 02 2015, @02:27PM
None of which would affect the validity of his arguments.
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Tuesday March 03 2015, @06:04PM
If one thinks the poster's race, gender, orientation, or religion affects the validity of his arguments -- how is that not racism?
Flip it around. Does "black, female, lesbian, pagan" sound like it should affect same?
If that inverse makes you sputter with indignation, consider that it's an invalid criterion in BOTH directions.
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Monday March 02 2015, @02:59PM
As AC has already stated - none of those facts affects the validity of my statement.
What - do you also suspect that because black people complained about slavery, their complaints were invalid because they were black? Come on, dude, get a grip on reality.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 02 2015, @03:22PM
Well, it reminds me of a charity mailing for spinal cord injury research I received a long time ago. Their spokesperson was Christopher Reeve, he wrote the letter, I think it was for his foundation. "Can you possibly imagine, me walking again and enjoying a full life" was part of the pitch, although it was more elegantly put.
I didn't donate to his charity.
I thought if he was smart, he would be a spokeperson for a different kind of medical research (ALS for example), explaining in graphic detail some of the hardships the victims and their caregivers are going through, which people like himself never have to deal with. That would impress people because he would've demonstrated capacity for empathy, and not just for others in the exact same situation (spinal cord injury) that he was in.
Empathy is impressive. Just saying WAAAAAHHHH, I deserve this and that! I'm way more qualified than they are, that's no fair!! is not, except maybe to Slashdot and SN mods. It's pathetic really.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday March 02 2015, @04:09PM
Oh? Valuing a person's argument because of the color of their skin isn't racist as nine kinds of hell is what you're saying? I respectfully disagree.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Monday March 02 2015, @07:59PM
Actually, I thought he made a good spokesman. He clearly knew what he was talking about. (He as also well known, and already wealthy enough to be able to afford all the palliative care available.)
You make a good logical point, but people are basically emotional reasoners. Logic is too slow. and our brains aren't well adapted to it. Emotionally he was appealing in the same way a baby seal is. (Well, ok, not quite the same way, but he appealed to the same general parts of our thinking. It was part of why he made a good actor.)
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 1) by TWX on Monday March 02 2015, @02:42PM
I think that the point of using the label, "reverse racism," is that it's racism that probably does more harm to the racist or to those of the race of the racist than racism by the majority does.
If members of a majority race that are in a position of being mainstream and having a major degree of power or authority are racist to a a member of a minority race that has less power and whose culture isn't mainstream, then the person that's the minority is usually fairly strongly affected.
If members of a minority race that aren't mainstream and have only limited power are racist toward the majority race, then it hurts other members of the minority race as it reinforces stereotypes held by racists in the majority race, and may even contribute to racism in those that aren't particularly bigoted to start with.
IBM had PL/1, with syntax worse than JOSS...
and everywhere the language went, it was a total loss.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday March 02 2015, @03:01PM
You seem to be looking at things from a very academic viewpoint. Yeah - I think you're "correct", but damned near no person in real life sees things that way.
Racism is just to damned ugly a thing for either the perpetrators or the victims to view so clinically.
(Score: 1) by TWX on Monday March 02 2015, @03:30PM
It is ugly, but when one strips it back to the calculus one can begin to understand why it's so ugly and what it might take to stop it. Unfortunately it doesn't take very much to perpetuate it either, on the part of either group, even if only one of those groups is significantly affected by it.
IBM had PL/1, with syntax worse than JOSS...
and everywhere the language went, it was a total loss.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday March 02 2015, @04:05PM
With any luck, you'll be ready to tackle all the tribal feuds that plague the mideast, much of south-west Asia, and other regions of the world. Good luck with that! I can imagine that without tribal feuds, the mideast would have become the cultural center of the world long ago!
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday March 02 2015, @04:15PM
Not bloody likely. Every nation in the mid-east except Israel by law and culture oppresses or kills people for being anything outside the heterosexual-male-muslim demographic. And those are the "moderates" we keep hearing about. Hate of everyone unlike you is not a solid foundation for a center of culture.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday March 02 2015, @07:42PM
How can you even say that? Their culture is DURABLE. It lasts. Remember when all of (or at least the vast majority) Europeans were laboring under an oppressive church, suffering with all kinds of crazy superstitions, sleeping in rat-infested houses, shitting in the streets? The Mideast didn't go through those dark ages along with Europe.
Islam has withstood the test of time better than Christianity has, truth be told.
Now, FFS, don't take that to mean that I like or respect Islam. I'm merely pointing out facts.
For the MOST durable civilization known to man, look to China. India is no laggard in durability either. Europeans? Just recent upstarts, on the grand scale of things.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday March 02 2015, @08:18PM
You missed the important part... "civilization" requires that you be civilized. They are not. Civilized societies do not push their ideals upon others via force.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by TK on Tuesday March 03 2015, @02:48PM
Civilized adj
See: Us
Barbaric adj
See: Them
It's all relative. They may be forcing their ideals of theocratic law on others via localized violence while we force our ideals of capitalistic boot-licking on them via globalized violence.
The fleas have smaller fleas, upon their backs to bite them, and those fleas have lesser fleas, and so ad infinitum
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday March 03 2015, @02:59PM
Wait, have we been invading countries other than Iraq and Afghanistan and nobody told me? Seems to me it was the whole Arab Spring thing where the people demanded what they wanted all through the region that got us where we are now.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 3, Disagree) by Thexalon on Monday March 02 2015, @04:08PM
Another way to gut-check this issue: If you're white or Asian, and you had the option of becoming black or Hispanic, would you take it? And how about the reverse?
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday March 02 2015, @04:20PM
It was a nice try but you're horribly, horribly wrong. The worst damage from any kind of racism is the spreading of hatred. You discriminate against any demographic and they are going to hate you for it. Social Justice has without question set back racial relations worse than anything since slavery.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Thexalon on Monday March 02 2015, @05:00PM
Tell that to a family of somebody who was killed because they were a black. And then told it was "justified", even though there is video demonstrating that is total nonsense. And then having all the political leaders line up in support of the killers. And then having a large number of people donating money to the killer(s).
The only way your argument makes any kind of sense is if you're saying that resentment over reverse racism is the primary reason that racist attacks on black people happen. But that claim utterly fails to hold any kind of water, because racist murders of black people happened for decades before the concept of "affirmative action" was invented.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 02 2015, @05:19PM
I can be against racially motivated police brutality AND affirmative action--both spread hatred and resentment.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday March 02 2015, @05:57PM
^^ What the AC said. I still stand by my statement. Spreading hatred is worse than killing; it is the root cause of all related killings and ensures that they and all other hate-based activities will never end.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Monday March 02 2015, @07:36PM
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by nukkel on Monday March 02 2015, @08:38PM
Buddhist friends tell me this is far from an original concept.
That's right; I remember Yoda already said that way back
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 03 2015, @01:39AM
Eh, OK, as soon as such a person exists.
(Score: 2) by turgid on Monday March 02 2015, @09:05PM
It's also called "positive discrimination." It was very fashionable in the UK in the 70s and 80s especially among lefty-types. The Labour Party used it famously in their all-women shortlists, to get more female MPs elected. So it was used to counter traditional sexism as well as racism.
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 5, Insightful) by CirclesInSand on Monday March 02 2015, @09:12AM
This isn't helping blacks and hispanics either. Do you really think they are doing fine taking freshman classes with students who score an average of 280 points higher on SATs, and categorically got better grades in high school?
There are a wide range of colleges. Telling someone that they are qualified for a top college when they would be more successful (and not drop out of) a lesser ranked college is not helpful.
If anyone is interested in debates, this one is fairly well informed on the subject : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bm5eph0g_Ag [youtube.com]
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 02 2015, @09:17AM
"Not a racist because not being a racist actually hurts those that I am racist about." This one is kinda twisted. Could be an actual point. So we keep blacks and hispanics out of colleges?
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Marneus68 on Monday March 02 2015, @09:22AM
> So we keep blacks and hispanics out of colleges?
Yeah, but only the ones with shitty grades, you know, the way it already works for white people.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 02 2015, @09:26AM
"I am not a racist because I want to keep whites out of college too!" Well, consistent, at least. But do you think SAT scores have anything to do with it?
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Monday March 02 2015, @10:17AM
Whoa - I'm not sure that you've thought that through.
Okay - we got a pool of people applying for college. Some are black, some white, some hispanic, some asian.
Your black people get a nice huge bonus tacked on to their test scores.
The hispanics get a bonus too.
White people don't seem to get any bonus, and maybe a small penalty.
Asians get a HUGE penalty.
So - who gets in? Some qualified blacks, along with a lot of unqualified blacks. Some qualified hispanics, along with a handful of unqualified hispanics. Whites? Only the cream of the crop. Asians? Only the creme de la creme.
So, many qualified white people are disqualified and barred from top colleges just for being white. WORSE - Asians are just barred from college unless they are over-qualified for the various geek clubs.
Sorry, it isn't working out the way you describe at all. Whites and asians with great grades aren't getting a fair shake at all here.
(Score: 1) by Ethanol-fueled on Monday March 02 2015, @02:27PM
Stacking the deck against Whites and Asians with regard to college admissions doesn't prevent Google from hiring mostly Whites and Asians. [mashable.com]
If Google sees through forced diversity bullshit, chances are that others do as well.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday March 02 2015, @03:05PM
I'm sure that some others do. But - we still have quotas for all government agencies, for all government contractors, and for the vast majority of large corporations. Every company wants to hire a black female, regardless of her qualifications. Just so long as she has some degree - any degree - she is a valued asset to them. Give her an office, and a title, and they have their "token" female and "token" black all rolled up in one.
Ever wondered what it's like to BE that "token"? It must suck. NO ONE likes you, or respects you, I would imagine.
(Score: 1) by t-3 on Monday March 02 2015, @04:03PM
Well, any whites or asians qualified to work at Google have degrees right? So they are the best of whites and asians who actually got accepted to college, which has already been shown to discriminate against them. So Google is happy with discrimination at college because it makes their hiring process easier. None of this is actually true though.
Whites are the vast majority of the population, followed by blacks and asians. Hispanics are actually the second largest group, but "hispanic" is a pan-color term for the descendants of Spanish colonialism and their victims so it's not a racial distinction really worth making. In any case, whites have such an advantage in sheer numbers that any discrimination probably doesn't even show up statistically if it does exist. Maybe the stereotypical studiousness ascribed to Asians has led to discrimination by colleges? If the majority of asians are being pushed to study, they probably have better SAT scores on average but are not actually smarter or more creative than anyone else? The numbers seem to support this (pages 7-8, second url), and also show that a 50 point bias still puts asians on average ahead of everyone else.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_States#Race_and_ethnicity [wikipedia.org]
http://media.collegeboard.com/digitalServices/pdf/research/2013/TotalGroup-2013.pdf [collegeboard.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 02 2015, @09:25AM
No, moron, students with lower grades would do better going to colleges where they can be more competitive.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 02 2015, @11:04AM
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Monday March 02 2015, @02:35PM
"I'm not a racist because I try hard to look like I'm not racist by spamming comments everywhere on the Internet."
(Score: 1) by Ethanol-fueled on Monday March 02 2015, @08:01PM
I am a racist, but an equal-opportunity one. It depends on how many bad stereotypes of a certain group I encounter in X period of time.
Here at the DMV now there are 3 primary groups - whites, asians, and hispanics. Only one of the three groups is bringing their crying babies in with them and allowing theIr older youngins to run around unleashed? Care to guess which one?
If you guessed the correct answer, you just might be a racist.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 02 2015, @09:35PM
Let me guess. Fuck you.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 02 2015, @09:21AM
this fucking this is called "reservation" it has to have political roots somewhere .. its a truckload of bullshit
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 02 2015, @09:29AM
"I am not racist because, reservation, political, shit. . . ." Dude, you are never going to be in the running with "I am not a racist because" posts like this! The only way you could win is if we had a legacy system that reserved slots for the sons of rich racist alums!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 02 2015, @09:34AM
you don’t get it man .. I don’t want to run anywhere .. I don’t want to win anything .. I don’t want to go to any crap ass American college .. I just wanna tell you that This has political roots .. no one cares about the black /Asians .. they are insects in America .. this is politically motivates .. got it ? now shut the fuck up
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 02 2015, @09:45AM
"I am not racist because... shut the fuck up".
Got it, if that's all you got, then that's all you got.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 02 2015, @09:47AM
Won't get you into Harvard, though.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday March 02 2015, @09:53AM
But will get him into the Tautology club [xkcd.com]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 02 2015, @10:30AM
Who or what is this Harvard?
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 02 2015, @09:54AM
I never said I’m not a racist .. so don’t use that sentence every time like a retard .. everyone is racist .. it's human nature .. even people who claim they are not .. it's just that people don’t need to bring racism into every aspect of life ..
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 02 2015, @09:59AM
"I'm not racist because everyone is racist"...
Meh
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 02 2015, @10:01AM
yeah meh fucking goat
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 02 2015, @09:59AM
"I am not a racist because
quoteI never said I’m not a racist .. so don’t use that sentence every time like a REDACTED/quote."
It is far worse than I thought possible. Minus 150 points.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Monday March 02 2015, @10:23AM
GP has a point, and you're failing to see it.
EVERYONE has preferences. Those preferences include the appearance of the people they surround themselves with. Call it racism, or whatever. Many black people prefer black faces around them - that is, they prefer familiar features in their friends. Blacks aren't unique at all. Little boys and girls around the world, no matter their color, culture, religion, or whatever, PREFER to have familiar looking people around them, with whom they can relate. Shared history, shared religion, shared racial traits, shared national background - each of these has a bearing on the "familiarity" of people they meet.
Yes, people much prefer to be around people who are like themselves, than to be surrounded by complete strangers with whom they share no common values.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 02 2015, @10:28AM
Whats GP ?
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 02 2015, @10:32AM
No, they don't. Are you possible South African? White South African?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 02 2015, @05:05PM
Little boys and girls around the world, no matter their color, culture, religion, or whatever, PREFER to have familiar looking people around them, with whom they can relate.
I'm not sure I believe this. Anecdotal counterexample: in my neighborhood we are fairly racially mixed; my kids are caucasian (Scandinavian/British/German ancestry), the next-door neighbors are hispanic, and the kids a few doors down are black. None of the neighborhood kids seem to care about the race or color of their playmates. If anything, I think my kids seek out friends who are different from them because they enjoy novelty.
I don't doubt that you've observed the preference you mention, but we need to have a nature vs nurture discussion. The behavior of young children is largely based on the behaviors they see in their parents, and parental influence on social interaction takes hold around age 3. Little boys and girls around the world who have xenophobic parents will certainly prefer familiar looking people around them, since that's what their parents are teaching them by example. That doesn't mean that it's human nature, nor that it's the ideal state or even an acceptable one. Understandable, yes, but neither default nor optimal.
Now, how is the AC going to respond to this one? Here's my best guess:
I'm not racist because my kids have black friends
(Score: 3, Interesting) by q.kontinuum on Monday March 02 2015, @10:43AM
Sounds logic, but shouldn't stop there. Next question should be, *why* do they have worse grades? I don't believe in intellectual superiority of one ethnic above another. If some ethnics live on average in worse conditions, these conditions have to be changed. If the worse grades are caused by racist teachers, the bonus points might actually be a workaround (the solution would be to educate racist teachers).
Another approach would be to check the current dropout-rate of different ethnics and check them against their bonus-points. Are the dropout-rates of blacks or hispanics actually higher? Or do they compensate worse previous grades somehow? (And before any white guy feels discriminated now: I'm not per se assuming they'd be more diligent; just there might be a chance growing up in a worse condition might make them fight harder to get our of these.)
Registered IRC nick on chat.soylentnews.org: qkontinuum
(Score: 4, Insightful) by jmorris on Monday March 02 2015, @07:52PM
Next question should be, *why* do they have worse grades?
Yes, lets have that discussion. It would be a very productive one if it were actually allowed to take place. But it has no place in THIS discussion.
Reality is what IS, not what shoulda, coulda, oughta be. Reality is that a university faces vast differences in test scores with very painfully observable differences by race, class, etc. They have policy decisions to make, and are currently making pretty much the worst one possible, to discriminate based on race and do do it long enough they have a track record proving it harms the very people they claim they want to help. Putting students in courses with people who scored hundreds of points higher on the SAT is a sure fire way to cause them to fail and drop out. Those students almost certainly could have done fine in less rigorous programs. Pretty much the only logical conclusion to be drawn from the actual practice is that it isn't done for the benefit of the students, it is done for the feels of the SCHOOL ADMINISTRATION. So they can feel good about their social justice credentials, give themselves gaudy awards, and keep Al Sharpton from staging riots.
I don't believe in intellectual superiority of one ethnic above another.
I know it is accepted as Holy Writ and everyone is expected to mouth the platitude, what in the name of Science leads you to think it is actually so?
Human Biological Diversity. Google it. Humans vary in almost every other way, it is irrational and silly to think that the one way we are exactly the same (taken only on large scale population ratings, everyone agrees we vary as individuals) on a racial basis is in the brain. Of course we have statistical variation by race in things mental. We know some groups exhibit more or less ability in different intellectual tasks. We aren't permitted to apply the methods of Science to ask meaningful questions in this area, but some of the variations are pretty obvious.
Remember, if we want[1] to "Celebrate Diversity" it means there needs to be diversity. Not just in genitalia, skin pigmentation and other unimportant things. We are unique among the animals for our minds, if we all think (or are forced to by PC) exactly alike there isn't any diversity to celebrate.
Are the dropout-rates of blacks or hispanics actually higher?
They are. Much higher. Criminally higher.
[1] And we do. A civilization that can successfully harness the power of diversity has very measurable advantages vs those who can't. Because NOBODY is best at everything. Success at any task is easier when division of labor can be draw from as varied a pool as possible.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Grishnakh on Monday March 02 2015, @08:13PM
Racist teachers could certainly be a factor in why minority students have worse GPAs, but it seems a bit unlikely when many minority students come from school districts where they are in fact the majority. Why would a white racist teacher go teach school in an inner-city school that's all black? Of course, for minority students coming from schools where they are in fact minorities, this could be a factor.
However, this article is about SAT tests. These are totally color-blind. They're not related to high-school GPAs in any way; they're a standardized test that you take (usually in a totally different location, at least that's how it was when I was in school) and are graded by machine, except for the essay part. And even that might be difficult to be racist with because surely they don't let the graders see the names of the students as that would obviously bias them.
The appalling thing here is that it's Asians, who are themselves a minority, and a smaller one than blacks and Hispanics, which are being given the worst treatment here. I really don't see how this can be justified without a completely racist argument.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by TWX on Monday March 02 2015, @02:21PM
Most schools offer at least remedial courses for those that are accepted with deficiencies. It's also incredibly unlikely that they'd accept a student that was deficient in the area that the student claimed to want to study, so deficiencies to make-up would be for non-core subject matter.
IBM had PL/1, with syntax worse than JOSS...
and everywhere the language went, it was a total loss.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 02 2015, @02:32PM
Do you really think they are doing fine taking freshman classes with students who score an average of 280 points higher on SATs, and categorically got better grades in high school?
The SAT and high schools only care about rote memorization. They're quite meaningless. I guess that still doesn't help these people, but I'm tired of people referring to standardized test scores from abysmal tests and grades as if they mean anything at the moment; they don't. Plenty of rote memorization 'geniuses' pass the SAT and high school with ease, and if the university/college is good, they'll be weeded out almost immediately in classes pretty much designed to weed out such individuals.
(Score: 5, Informative) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Monday March 02 2015, @09:32AM
A study of cultural bias in the SAT test pointed out that a particular question had the answer "lemons". (I'm afraid I don't recall the question, just the answer.)
Hispanics fared poorly on that particular question, because lemons are not widely consumed; Hispanic culture favors limes.
Quite commonly bias is quite subtle, but real.
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 02 2015, @09:38AM
"What are GM vehicles called?"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 02 2015, @10:55AM
No va? Chevy Nova? (Of course, if you are a monolinguist, this will not be funny)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 02 2015, @11:10AM
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 02 2015, @09:39AM
"I am not a racist because . . . I am not a racist?" MDC, you are not playing the game right! And while we are at it, what are the possible and average points on the SATs, so we might have some idea of just how not racist we are being in objecting to the bonus/penalties?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 02 2015, @09:51AM
That is simply not true. We use lemons in our food at all times. Rarely limes.
I am Spanish.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 02 2015, @09:55AM
But you're not Mexican. Could this be the source of the confusion?
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/lim%C3%B3n#Spanish [wiktionary.org]
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/citr%C3%B3n#Spanish [wiktionary.org]
(Score: 2) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Monday March 02 2015, @10:37AM
I've lived among Mexican-American people most of my life, however I have only met a very few Spanish people in the US.
I apologize, I do realize that the term "Hispanic" means someone of Spanish descent, but in my specific case, I intended it to mean someone from Latin America.
I once had a Spanish girlfriend; she was very proud of the fact that she was Spanish and not Mexican.
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Monday March 02 2015, @10:40AM
-*- Dread Pirate Roberts: "No good, I've known too many Spaniards!"
Wait, is that racist?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 02 2015, @04:15PM
Grasping at straws, man.
Do you know what the Spanish word for limes is? "Limones." Looks pretty darn close to "Lemons", doesn't it?
Look up your specific SAT example question and post it here if you want to convince others. Then bring back around 50 other culturally biased questions to boot, since a single question will not change the score.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 02 2015, @10:30PM
One of the major objections to Pearson|SAT|whatever is that if your kid does more poorly than expected, you can't look at the questions and lodge a complaint that the questions|"correct" answers are nonsense|subjective.
The test contents are "intellectual property".
Hurrah for the Neoliberal takeover of the educational process!
-- gewg_
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 02 2015, @09:39AM
Seems a better fit.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 02 2015, @09:50AM
"I am not a racist because I believe in a meritocracy!" Number 8? Who's keeping track? Is this the Libertarian meritocracy, the Asian exam culture meritocracy, or the cracker meritocracy?
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 02 2015, @09:48AM
So many mod points wasted on the "I'm not a racist but" troll.
Nice to know that you can't criticize affirmative action without being labeled a racist.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 02 2015, @09:51AM
It's not sincere. He's even trolling people who are speaking out against racism. It's for the lulz, no real conviction or beliefs.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 02 2015, @10:06AM
Not sincere? That hurts more than all the troll mods! Racism is wrong, absolutely wrong. The Fine Article here is racist, and will give opportunity to all our resident racists to say they are not racists, because, you know, numbers and stuff. I think it is best to nip this kind of soft racism in the bud, to call it out, and most importantly, to ridicule it. Sorry that you do not seem my sincerity or approve of my methods. OP AC O/O.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 02 2015, @10:11AM
Identify the so-called "racism" in the LA Times article.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 02 2015, @10:29AM
Identify the so-called "racism" in the LA Times article.
This is rather tiresome, but since there seems to be such a need for people to realize that they actually are being racist, even though they are not aware of it, here goes.
SAT scores are a rather arbitrary measure of a students potential. Admission offices know this. And the scores are culturally and otherwise biased. And besides, no one has the right to demand that they be admitted to a particular college, that means just that they are a dick. Colleges have interests in having a student body that is appropriate for educational purposes, which means the definitely do not want the "best of the best", a la Men in Black. So for one ethnic group to suggest that they are being discriminated against on the basis of marginal differences in a marginally significant factor in admissions sounds suspicious. And good thing it is not caucasians! Do you now that more African Americans are in jail, as a percentage of their population, than whites in America? Do you know what that means? Just facts. Funny such a respectable paper as the LA Times would run such a racist piece.
(OH crap, I just realized that if I leave the incarceration number like that, the racist morons will still not get it. OK, short lesson in institutional racism. Black people do not commit more crimes because they are black. They might be arrested and prosecuted more because they are black. People who commit crimes are usually poor. So if you look at the rates based on income and wealth, it has nothing to do with race. Get it? Not more violent. Not a culture of something or another. Not any less intelligent, to address our point here. So how do colleges and universities deal with that?)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 02 2015, @10:47AM
Admit a number of other races to confirm the one in majority they are superior: how better to reinforce this than admitting a bunch of moron from other races.
Of course, it wouldn't help if more Asians get in, they'd crush the supreme race moral and accelerate their xenophobia against the mighty China... not yet the appropriate time to do it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 02 2015, @11:46AM
They are a factor among other factors, not arbitrary.
Opinion. If this was true, the test could be fixed. Or are arbitrary bonuses and penalties the way to soften the "cultural bias"?
Really? I guess black students that originally challenged segregation weren't making demands to be let in past racist admissions systems.
Many colleges have an interest in profit. A huge student body with a high dropout rate is profitable. Students that got in with much lower SAT scores will have a higher dropout rate. Whoops! I forgot that "SAT scores are a rather arbitrary measure of a students potential'!
A 280 pt difference (between a black and asian student) is hardly marginal. What is true is that the asian students have higher SAT scores, and have to compete among themselves rather than the general population.
We wouldn't want whites to complain about racism. Racism against whites doesn't exist!
Just off-topic facts.
Here's the reporter's contact page [latimes.com] and email [mailto]. I'm sure he'll want to correct the article using your suggestions.
The study [princeton.edu] cited in the LA Times article has a solution you would support:
If you believe that blacks are being incarcerated unjustly, perhaps lowering those rates would result in an eventual, immediate, and fair increase in admissions?
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 02 2015, @06:45PM
Many colleges have an interest in profit. A huge student body with a high dropout rate is profitable. Students that got in with much lower SAT scores will have a higher dropout rate.
"I am not a racist because University of Phoenix!" Good one!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 02 2015, @09:56AM
"I am not a racist because the AC saying I am a racist is a troll"? You are not even convincing yourself with this. How about a better contribution to the discussion? Something about college admissions, entitlement, institutional racism, equal opportunity, and money would be good.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 02 2015, @10:09AM
Students with lower SAT scores are likely to be less intelligent. So giving a point bonus to students of a particular racial background means you will allow dumber students to enroll. A better idea to increase diversity on campus would be to offer more attractive merit based scholarships and need based scholarships. Poor students that meet the minimum requirements get scholarships, and minority students can get a more money at the same SAT/ranking as other students. Don't have the money to do that? Heavily promote cheaper online classes or raise tuition yet again.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 02 2015, @10:25AM
I'm not racist because I don't believe in the theory of multiple intelligences [wikipedia.org].
Long live the only and mighty IQ.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 02 2015, @10:58AM
"I'm not racist because I can't read the post I'm trolling." SAT has at least two portions, and tests a variety of skills. SAT is not an IQ test, but a lower SAT score will correlate with lower intelligence, however you want to define intelligence.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 02 2015, @10:13AM
Racist!
(Score: 3, Informative) by Wootery on Monday March 02 2015, @10:01AM
The summary seems to imply that the existence of a -50 'penalty' is the outrageous part here, but removing that penalty wouldn't solve the issue: it's still harder to get in if you're ethnically Asian.
If you add 50 to the 'handicap' for all races except Asian, that's exactly equivalent to the current -50 penalty.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 02 2015, @12:46PM
The summary addresses both parts of the problem:
(Score: 5, Interesting) by bradley13 on Monday March 02 2015, @10:29AM
Affirmative action - admitting poorly qualified people based on their race (or gender, or whatever) - has always been a really dumb idea. Well-meant, but absolutely dumb. Consider:
- A college admits person of category X with low scores. The federal government runs statistics and notes how many X's fail out of the college. So the college is under pressure to pass the X's through the program.
- Some of the X's go on to further studies - let's take medicine as an example. The whole story repeats: medical schools are under pressure to increase their diversity, so they admit underqualified X's. At which point they are under further pressure to graduate these students, even when they actually should fail. So now we have underqualified doctors.
Consider the effect on the qualified people from the protected category! Everyone in the group is under a permanent shadow, because of a program that was supposed to help them.
Specific example: In my CS PhD program, there was a hispanic woman who was clearly there because of her minority status. She flat out said that she intended to exploit her double-minority status to the hilt, to land jobs regardless of her actual qualifications. The rest of the women in the program cringed, because this is exactly the kind of attitude that could make their future careers more difficult, by making people question their qualifications because of their gender.
Where there are genuine biases, we need to work on those. For example, from what I read, the US currently has a huge bias against boys in the education system. Large numbers are diagnosed with ADHD and drugged into docility, because teachers are unwilling to admit or deal with gender-based behavioral difference. This has resulting in ever-lower college admission rates for boys. Rather that introducing affirmative action for men, one should attack the real problem: feminized schools, zero-tolerance policies, etc..
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 02 2015, @10:48AM
"I am not a racist because I am a boy, and
Large numbers are diagnosed with ADHD and drugged into docility
.
And I knew this one chica in school who was gaming the system." You got issues.
(Score: 5, Informative) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Monday March 02 2015, @10:50AM
To get into caltech one has to be really good at math and science; some students are admitted who are really poor writers.
Those students are required to attend a special summer session before the beginning of their freshman year, during which they are taught to write.
Rather than lowering the bar for the disadvantaged classes, how about giving them extra help? Tutoring and such.
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 02 2015, @11:08AM
Firstly lowering/different standards to achieve target racial demographics is a stupid and bad idea. Doubt you'd want the pilots of your airliner passing because they were black and there weren't enough black pilots ;).
But basically they're saying that the SAT test isn't that useful a test for selecting candidates. There's no actual "pass" score that's useful, so they can set different pass points based on race and still end up with graduates of desired quality. If this is not true then they'll just have to let fewer blacks in till enough blacks get better at the SAT.
I don't think you can have a "better" test because if you do a cultural and experience diversity test, the Asian Americans will probably go to tuition for that too and learn them some hip-hop (in additional to violin, piano, tennis and starcraft ;) ) and maybe do some charity/aid work too. While the poor blacks stuck in inner cities might not do as well in such tests. Proponents of "winner-takes-all" systems should take note.
A possible workaround is to have vocational paths of high standard too: http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/articles/2013-04-29/what-germany-can-teach-the-u-dot-s-dot-about-vocational-education [bloomberg.com]
See also the Finnish approach - their priority is equality in that everyone gets good education - there's not supposed to be a huge difference in quality amongst schools, thus there's no big "battle" to go to particular schools.
p.s. I suppose it's a good thing for the Hawaiians and "Other Pacific Islanders" that they are no longer put in the same category along with Asians ;).
(Score: 2) by bzipitidoo on Monday March 02 2015, @04:46PM
Why is this even necessary? You say "desired quality", but it seems that standards are adjusted to the available space, rather than the other way around of adjusting the available space to the standards. What do we do about a bigger high school graduating class? Hire more professors? Not entirely. We raise standards! That is totally backwards. It gives the lie to the whole idea of merit.
But why? Why even do this screening? Shouldn't every high school grad who sincerely wants a college education be able to go? Don't we have the space? Is it lack of money? Richest nation in the world, and we can't afford to educate everyone, WTF? The system of grants and scholarships is pretty patchy, and as for student loans, well, we know that's a whole different game of exploitation of the young. To their shame, universities indulge in a lot of financial scams, such as the textbook racket, the 4 year degree plan that actually takes 5 or 6 years, refusing to accept credits for classes taken at other institutions, and of course the football program. Lately, we've had the problem of the administrative level sinecure, and the outrageous compensation of even the ones who do a good job. Then there's the whole question of how teaching should be done. Is the lecture really the best way? In a classroom? I like seeing pushback on these issues with open textbooks and MOOCs.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 02 2015, @05:36PM
Why even do this screening? Shouldn't every high school grad who sincerely wants a college education be able to go?
In the USA they like having winners and losers. Allowing everyone into college who has a reasonable chance of graduating college is unamerican.
And yes it is due to the lack of resources. There are just so many teachers, professors, labs and particle accelerators available for students.
Plus they prefer to have expensive wars in the middle east, very expensive warplanes and ships, and billion-dollar bailouts for bankers.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by f4r on Monday March 02 2015, @11:18AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CvYSPxvrq5s [youtube.com]
Do not use as directed.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 02 2015, @11:28AM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 02 2015, @11:41AM
Newsflash: American Universities are fellow travelers with the ideals and spirit of Communism, and have been so, overwhelmingly, for 30 years. Income redistribution, forced 'equality,' social utopianism, and shock studies on 'social justice' are all hallmarks of this school of thought. So much so, it's impossible to imagine a University education (in the U.S.) without it.
These articles get thrown out periodically to create fodder for our two minutes of hate against the U.S.A., and should be regarded as such.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 02 2015, @01:32PM
...Understand that the purpose of modern American “education” is not to educate students. It is primarily to provide cushy, subsidized sinecures for liberal administrators and faculty while, secondarily, providing a forum to indoctrinate soft young minds in the liberal fetishes du jour. Actually educating students is hard, and a meaningful education is anathema to liberalism. In the liberals’ ideal world, the universities would simply fester with leftist nonsense and not even bother with trying to teach their charges anything at all. And today, it’s pretty close to being the liberals’ ideal world...
Read more at:
http://townhall.com/columnists/kurtschlichter/2015/03/02/lets-destroy-liberal-academia-n1963149?utm_source=thdaily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl&newsletterad= [townhall.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 02 2015, @11:24PM
a forum to indoctrinate soft young minds in the liberal fetishes du jour
"Indoctrinate"? Yeah. "Liberal"? Not so much.
Clearly, you (and the brain-dead writer of the linked article) haven't been on a campus in over a generation.
Clearly, you accept the Neoliberal media's swill without question.
Now, go to a campus bookstore|library and try to find a book that is pro-Communism.
You are a very silly consumer of very silly propaganda.
This guy has it closer to right:
Education Has Little To Do With Knowledge [dissidentvoice.org]
.
...and, BTW, anything in a URL that contains utm_ is just noise; half of your link is just garbage.
Try trimming that out that next time and see if the link doesn't work just as well.
Oh, and townhall.com ??
and
Get real.
-- gewg_
(Score: 2, Offtopic) by nitehawk214 on Monday March 02 2015, @03:19PM
Programming is all about knowing when to boil the orange sponge donkey across the phillipines with an orangutang gorilla crossed with a ham sandwich to the fourth power of twelve across the nile with an awful headache from the previous night when all of alfred's naughty jalapeno peppers frog-marched the nordic elves across the loom-lined geronimo induced swamp donkey over and above the fortran fortified kilomanjaro fence past the meticulously crafted anti disgusting sponge cake scenario where all the hats doth quoteth the milk which is not unlike the super werewolf from the infinite realm of ninja-step. it's hard to define, really.
"Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh
(Score: 4, Funny) by nitehawk214 on Monday March 02 2015, @03:20PM
I am also an idiot for posting this to the wrong article.
"Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh
(Score: 2) by linuxrocks123 on Monday March 02 2015, @06:08PM
I assume the right article was the one about Markov chains, but you still would have been posting random nonsense. So, umm, not much worse to do it here.
(Score: 1) by nitehawk214 on Monday March 02 2015, @11:51PM
Yeah, I should have linked the text to Coding Horror [codinghorror.com] as well. This was the first Markov Chain that I have ever read and I always think of it when someone asks me "what is programming?"
"Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh
(Score: 3, Funny) by The Archon V2.0 on Monday March 02 2015, @08:26PM
That's OK. This is about the only thread in the comments that didn't at some point accelerate me a bit faster down the road to Aneurysm City.
(Score: 2) by richtopia on Monday March 02 2015, @03:54PM
I'm not applying for colleges anymore, but whenever I have to identify I just say Mixed.
It is somewhat true. I'm German and English.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 02 2015, @04:24PM
You might as well forget about getting in even, if you're in the top 5% test scores, unless mommy and daddy are rich.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 02 2015, @09:10PM
Wait... they actually do this? How do they make sure they are not being gamed?
You could totally game the system. Fill in the wrong form here and there. And poof you are of a different ethnicity. Sign up under the other ethnicity get the boost on the paperwork. When you get in change it to be correct. Or leave it and get extra benefits. Seriously? They did this?
Dont think so? I did it by ACCIDENT 25 years ago (maybe that is why I got accepted?!). They were offering me full ride scholarships. Which I turned down because I felt it was wrong to take someones else place in line. I ended up paying my way thru with some help from 3 Pell grants and a small loan.
However, the problem does solve itself. They dont call them freshman weeder classes for no reason at all... Those who are not really qualified will not be there for long as they will fail out with a side of debt to go along with it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 03 2015, @12:00AM
A professor friend of mine told me that in his experience foreign Asian students approach college differently than most Americans do. They tent to help each other and focus on grades above all else. So they engage in a lot of behaviors we would classify as cheating whereas they are familiar with schooling as a series of check boxes so what's the big deal? The teaches then have to work to avoid stereotyping foreign Asian students and discounting their achievements because 'they probably did not earn them'. I wonder if that phenomenon had any impact on this study?