SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
CNN reports that the Supreme Court of the US (SCOTUS) by a vote of 6 - 2 has upheld a Michigan law banning the use of racial criteria in college admissions, finding that a lower court did not have the authority to set aside the measure approved in a 2006 referendum supported by 58% of voters. "This case is not about how the debate about racial preferences should be resolved. It is about who may resolve it," wrote Justice Anthony Kennedy. "Michigan voters used the initiative system to bypass public officials who were deemed not responsive to the concerns of a majority of the voters with respect to a policy of granting race-based preferences that raises difficult and delicate issues." Kennedy's core opinion in the Michigan case seems to exalt referenda as a kind of direct democracy that the courts should be particularly reluctant to disturb. This might be a problem for same-sex marriage opponents if a future Supreme Court challenge involves a state law or constitutional amendment enacted by voters. Justice Sonia Sotomayor reacted sharply in disagreeing with the decision in a 58 page dissent. "For members of historically marginalized groups, which rely on the federal courts to protect their constitutional rights, the decision can hardly bolster hope for a vision of democracy (PDF) that preserves for all the right to participate meaningfully and equally in self-government."
The decision was the latest step in a legal and political battle over whether state colleges can use race and gender as a factor in choosing what students to admit. Michigan has said minority enrollment at its flagship university, the University of Michigan, has not gone down since the measure was passed. Civil rights groups dispute those figures and say other states have seen fewer African-American and Hispanic students attending highly competitive schools, especially in graduate level fields like law, medicine, and science. "Today's decision turns back our nation's commitment to racial equality and equal treatment under the law by sanctioning separate and unequal political processes that put undue burdens on students," National Education Association President Dennis Van Roekel said in a statement. "The Supreme Court has made it harder to advocate and, ultimately, achieve equal educational opportunity."
(Score: 3, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday April 23 2014, @10:02PM
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by RobotLove on Wednesday April 23 2014, @10:40PM
But it has been scientifically proven that we subconsciously discriminate. So while we may think we are admitting based on "nothing but merit", we are not. This is what affirmative action fixes. Affirmative action says, "Left to your own devices you will not choose based on merit but will subconsciously prefer some group. However, by forcing your admissions to reflect actual demographics, we actually ensuring you are choosing based on merit."
Anyone who actually believes on basing admissions on merit alone must support affirmative action.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday April 23 2014, @10:42PM
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by RobotLove on Wednesday April 23 2014, @10:49PM
No, it doesn't. It says that no particular color is more special than another. It does this by ensuring that the demographic of the people you pick matches the demographic of the population at large. It does this because your mind cannot be trusted.
I used to think affirmative action was just reverse discrimination, but then I had it explained to me that we always discriminate, without knowing it, even when we think we aren't. Affirmative action ensures we cannot, even if we want to.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday April 23 2014, @10:55PM
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by GeminiDomino on Thursday April 24 2014, @12:31AM
It's not PC to point it out, but that's reasoning from the conclusion. The assumption that inequality of demographics is indicative of discrimination/bias rather than relative ability requires the assumption that there is, in fact, no difference in abilities between demographics. Which tends not to be tested, because it's discriminatory.
"We've been attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of our culture"
(Score: 2) by Angry Jesus on Thursday April 24 2014, @11:54AM
> It's not PC to point it out, but that's reasoning from the conclusion.
Ah yes, if it weren't for a conspiracy by the evil, lying political correctness police to silence anyone with the the facts, we'd all know that <insert minority social group in your country> is genetically inferior.
(Score: 1) by GeminiDomino on Friday April 25 2014, @08:53PM
Your frothing and pointless strawman doesn't change the fact that the error in logic I pointed is, in fact, an error in logic.
"We've been attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of our culture"
(Score: 2) by Angry Jesus on Friday April 25 2014, @08:58PM
> Your frothing
Lol, project much?
> and pointless strawman doesn't change the fact that the error in logic I pointed is, in fact, an error in logic.
No, the error in logic is yours. It's conspiracy theory bullshit where the proof is in the lack of proof.
(Score: 1) by GeminiDomino on Friday April 25 2014, @09:41PM
Except I made no assertions about results, only about methodology. So that's where your strawman comes in. Apparently, you can't handle your dogma being exposed for what it is.
"We've been attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of our culture"
(Score: 2) by Angry Jesus on Friday April 25 2014, @10:44PM
> Except I made no assertions about results, only about methodology.
Lol, the old "just saying" defense. Hey, it is possible you are a murderer, but it isn't PC to say that so it tends not to be investigated. Just saying.
The actual fact is that there has been PLENTY of investigation into "racial" differences in ability and the only guys who claim to have found positive results just also happen to hang with neo-nazi types. [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 1) by GeminiDomino on Friday April 25 2014, @11:29PM
That's not true at all. There was also that one (can't find a cite now, but I'm sure you're familiar with it) that found the disparity in the results of standardized testing (I believe it was the SAT), and drew the conclusion that the test was "culturally biased."
The fact that you continue to try to attribute racist leanings to me based on nothing more than my objection to "facts" which are nothing near, though, makes it obvious that talking to you is pointless tail-chasing.
"We've been attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of our culture"
(Score: 2) by Angry Jesus on Saturday April 26 2014, @01:47AM
> That's not true at all.
That's just wishful thinking on your part. You've done nothing to back up your claims.
> There was also that one (can't find a cite now, but I'm sure you're familiar with it) that found the disparity
> in the results of standardized testing (I believe it was the SAT), and drew the conclusion that the test was "culturally biased."
So wait, you are citing something that contradicts your premise - that unbiased studies showed that there were racial differences in intelligence - and you think that proves your point? WTF?
> The fact that you continue to try to attribute racist leanings to me based on nothing more
> than my objection to "facts"
Yeah your objection to facts, facts that you yourself have now cited, is pretty much the problem here.
(Score: 1) by GeminiDomino on Saturday April 26 2014, @03:28AM
So wait, you are citing something that contradicts your premise - that unbiased studies showed that there were racial differences in intelligence - and you think that proves your point? WTF?
It doesn't contradict my premise. The study showed a statistical difference, and the conclusion was that the problem was with the test, not with the assumption. That's a methodology problem.
At this point, I can't tell if you're being deliberately obtuse or not.
"We've been attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of our culture"
(Score: 2) by Angry Jesus on Saturday April 26 2014, @03:49AM
> It doesn't contradict my premise. The study showed a statistical difference, and the conclusion
> was that the problem was with the test, not with the assumption. That's a methodology problem.
So what? How does that have any bearing on anything relevant here? A study that, by your own words, did not show one way or the other has absolutely no bearing on the fact that all the studies that have shown a difference were associated with neo-nazis.
> At this point, I can't tell if you're being deliberately obtuse or not.
Right back at you.
(Score: 1) by Daiv on Thursday April 24 2014, @01:36PM
Please tell me WHY the demographics of the people picked HAS to match the population at large. According to that logic, whichever demographic reproduces the most SHOULD be the most picked. That's quite the slippery slope you're setting up.
(Score: 1) by RobotLove on Thursday April 24 2014, @02:54PM
Because it's the simplest way to reduce subconscious discrimination. There may be other, more accurate, ways of reducing this bias, but a simple rule of "We will ensure our employee demographic matches the cultural demographic" is the easiest to follow, the simplest to implement, the one everyone can understand.
I (and the rule) don't care who reproduces the fastest. I (and the rule) only care about what the current demographics are.
(Score: 1) by Daiv on Thursday April 24 2014, @08:38PM
Your explanation in no way makes sense. It doesn't appeal to any sort of correctness. You seem to have the most shallow thoughts on the subject and can't possibly understand the real-world implications of what you're spewing. You haven't established at ALL _why_ what you're selling is the right answer. How is your answer the best one? And best for WHO?
As someone who has a degree in Ethics, I could probably go on for paragraphs on how absurd your answer appears to be, but I'll leave it at this:
I reject your explanation completely.
(Score: 1) by RobotLove on Thursday April 24 2014, @11:11PM
Let's go back to the problem. We have subconscious cognitive biases that discriminate against certain demographics within our society. So when we think that we are selecting on merit alone, we are not. This is fact.
What is a simple, cost-effective, measurable way to combat this?
Smarter people than I, whose reasoning I (think I) understand have suggested Affirmative Action as a solution. It accomplishes the goals we set for ourselves (eliminate the subconscious bias against certain demographics) in a simple, cost-effective and measurable way.
If you know a better one, I'm sure there's a ton of people who would be very interested in your solution.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Angry Jesus on Thursday April 24 2014, @12:09AM
> Affirmative action says your skin color makes you more worthy than someone with different skin color.
No, AA acknowledges that is how the system has always worked and tries to change the weighting it to make it more equitable.
If you think the system ought to be different, then at a minimum there needs to be a plan in place to change the system before you throw out AA's weighting. Otherwise all we are left with is the same system we've always had with the same lopsided weighting in favor of whites that we've always had.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday April 24 2014, @12:43AM
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Angry Jesus on Thursday April 24 2014, @12:58AM
> Already is. Throw the bastiches in jail when you can prove they've done something wrong. Is a good plan.
The day being a legacy is illegal you'll have a point.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday April 24 2014, @01:25AM
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday April 24 2014, @01:31AM
Double comment on account of someone was distracting me and I gave up.
Legacies aren't really a white issue. More an 'entitled twats who also happen to mostly be white' issue. That they flatten the diversity curve is the least of their sins.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Angry Jesus on Thursday April 24 2014, @01:40AM
> Legacies aren't really a white issue. More an 'entitled twats who also happen to mostly be white' issue.
> That they flatten the diversity curve is the least of their sins.
Oh yeah, I forgot you are the guy who thinks that not only do we not have a problem with structural racism, but that it is impossible for structural racism to exist. An analysis slightly above the level of object permanence.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday April 24 2014, @01:58AM
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Angry Jesus on Thursday April 24 2014, @03:21AM
> institutional racism is just a term that gets flung around to get all the benefits of playing the race card yet avoid having to prove actual racism.
The proof is the simple and undisputed fact that actual representation is not anywhere near proportional to demographics.
> But what I meant is legacies don't have the numbers to make much of a difference.
So, not only does poof have to be simple enough for a 5-year old to recognize, it also must be large-scale in order to qualify.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday April 24 2014, @11:29AM
Logic FAIL. Demographics are not and should not be used or you neglect actual qualification. Last I looked, minorities disproportionately lived in poor neighborhoods with shit schools and thus had less of an opportunity to become qualified. Not their fault. Not my fault. Not any university's fault. Just the truth.
Is that a shit position to be in? Sure. Does it mean unqualified people should get admitted? Nope. Racism cannot be balanced out with more racism. More racism only increases the hate and prolongs the underlying problem.
Oh, come on. You had a halfway decent argument going with the first one. Don't fuck it up by trolling in the second half when you knew damned well what I meant.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Angry Jesus on Thursday April 24 2014, @12:03PM
> More racism only increases the hate and prolongs the underlying problem.
AA is an acknowledgement that the current situation is shit and that wholesale change of the system can not happen until there is adequate representation among the people with the power to do something about it. You know what actually prolongs the underlying problem? Throwing up your hands and saying that it's "just the truth" and expecting the situation to sort itself out.
> Oh, come on. You had a halfway decent argument going with the first one.
> Don't fuck it up by trolling in the second half when you knew damned well what I meant.
So, pointing out the logical conclusion of your argument is trolling? How convenient for you.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday April 24 2014, @01:03PM
Oh, I'll grant you it's good-hearted but it's counterproductive. It only increases racial hatred when someone gets a spot they don't deserve because of their skin color. Witness my very much non-racist ass being pissed off about it and consider how people of a less enlightened disposition are taking getting fucked out of admittance. There is not a damned pro-active thing that can be done to solve the issue, only reactive. By that I mean throwing anyone you have evidence of racial discrimination in a position of power from in federal butt-pounding prison.
Putting words in my mouth is. I've no issue with, and would even be in favor of, getting rid of the practice but I don't see it as much of a problem due to the fairly small effect it has; efforts are better spent where they will do more good more quickly. But you seem to want a flamewar today, as usual, rather than rational discussion.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Angry Jesus on Thursday April 24 2014, @01:13PM
> It only increases racial hatred when someone gets a spot they don't deserve because of their skin color.
Wah, wah, wah. Loss of unearned privilege is sooo unfair! All those people who have to live lives of repression because they were born with the wrong skin color, its just better that they get to be the repository of all the hatred in the country. So much better that way.
Answer this - what is wrong with racism? Really, what is the problem with racism?
> Putting words in my mouth is.
Oh bullshit. Your rebuttal was juvenile and I spelled out exactly why it was juvenile. There was no words put in your mouth, only a description of why your argument was so weak.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday April 24 2014, @01:20PM
Ooooh, you used the privilege buzzword. You lose.
And now since you want so badly to make a flamewar of this...
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Angry Jesus on Thursday April 24 2014, @01:39PM
> Ooooh, you used the privilege buzzword. You lose.
How convenient for you to pick unstated arbitrary lines that other people are not permitted to cross in a discussion.
Answer the question:
Why is racism bad?
Failure to answer will be yet another example of you running away because you've been argued into a corner of your own illogic.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday April 24 2014, @02:08PM
I'll answer something else instead since you don't see why using the privilege buzzword was so absurd and argument-stopping.
Privilege comes from the Latin for "private law", meaning one set of rules for one group and one for another. This means you lose because that is exactly what anyone using it is advocating, special treatment under the law or rules for <popular group of the day>. You are saying one group who advocates against any private law is the beneficiary of private law that you cannot point to and thus you must institute private law against them to correct it.
Okay, it's a stupid question but I've an answer I'm rather fond of, so WTF. Most people can rarely go five minutes without taking an affirmative action towards being some flavor of asshole, which is quite sufficient and logical to hate them for. Hating them for something they had no say in like skin color shows that you're too much of a moron to realize this and are just spewing unearned hate indiscriminately.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Angry Jesus on Thursday April 24 2014, @02:33PM
> Privilege comes from the Latin for "private law",
So you are a dictionary pedant. Of course, like all such pedants, the only definition that counts is the one that is most convenient for you.
See the first (and therefore most common usage) in the oxford english dictionary: [oxforddictionaries.com]
Therefore the advantage of not growing up in a ghetto, not getting substandard education, of not being looked at as an outsider and all the other stuff that comes with being a member of the dominant social group is indeed privilege.
The problem with being a dictionary pedant is that when your entire argument is based on that kind of over-simplification, then it all falls apart once that definition shown to be incomplete.
Answer the question:
Why is racism bad?
Failure to answer will be yet another example of you running away because you've been argued into a corner of your own illogic.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday April 24 2014, @02:54PM
Nope, that's simple luck of the draw. Equal opportunity and equal rights means nobody gets to hold you down and that you can be assured equal treatment under the law, not that you get given a leg up if you happen to get born into a shitty situation. I got dealt an extremely shit hand by birth but you don't hear me bitching about it or asking for handouts I haven't earned.
I did give an answer, see above. It's not the answer because it's a big question with many answers, but it's one of the ones I'm most fond of.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Angry Jesus on Thursday April 24 2014, @03:23PM
> Nope, that's simple luck of the draw.
Yeah, luck of the draw to be born into an oppressed social group. That's not racism at all, just random luck.
> I got dealt an extremely shit hand by birth
Yeah? So you were born into a group that society has singled out for oppression? I don't think so.
> you don't hear me bitching about it or asking for handouts I haven't earned.
That's the very definition of unearned privilege -- you don't have to ask for it, it just comes to you without you even noticing. Your position is like those people who say, "How come there isn't a white history month? Why do blacks get a whole month and whites don't get any?" When in practice every month in the USA is white history month.
> I did give an answer, see above.
Oh, I thought that was just random babble. You think racism is a bad thing for society because some people get mad when they don't get to fully enjoy the historical privilege of their social group? Great analysis, for a 5 year old.
The correct answer is that racism is bad because it causes unequal opportunity. That's it, all the other problems with racism like the ugliness of hatred are ants next to the behemoth of unequal opportunity. AA attempts to equalize opportunity, so that no racial group is privileged with more opportunity than any other with the end goal of racial egalitarianism eventually becoming self-sustaining.
You are all hung up on the specifics without paying attention to the end result. Classic forest and trees thinking.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday April 24 2014, @03:35PM
Depressed not oppressed. Anyone still oppressing is breaking the law and can be dealt with.
Yes, though they mostly just exterminated us, and damned poor to boot.
You seem to think I'm white and have bunches of this magical privilege while I look down on the poor colored help and say get a job. You are mistaken.
You asked why it was bad, not bad for society. Be specific if you want a specific question answered. You seem to already be sure of an answer though, so I won't bother disabusing you of your holy writ.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Angry Jesus on Thursday April 24 2014, @03:51PM
> Depressed not oppressed
Really? You want to try that dictionary pedant shit again?
> Anyone still oppressing is breaking the law and can be dealt with.
That's more five year old thinking. If it isn't single-hop, point-A to point-B, then it isn't happening despite the end result being very clear.
> Yes, though they mostly just exterminated us, and damned poor to boot.
ooooh you have a secret and are so special because of it.
> You seem to think I'm white
I think you are not a member of a social group that is particularly oppressed in the USA and thus enjoy the privileges of not being any of those groups. But even if you are an uncle tom type that wouldn't make your argument any more true.
> You asked why it was bad, not bad for society. Be specific
Hah. Oh yeah, lets try to direct the discussion away from the point and that you can't dispute. Run away from facing your own illogic again. Tell you what, just leave the word "society" out of the answer, it is still just as true.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday April 24 2014, @04:03PM
Oh you did not just call me an Uncle Tom. We're done, you just lost your favorite playmate, racist boy.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Angry Jesus on Thursday April 24 2014, @04:35PM
> Oh you did not just call me an Uncle Tom. We're done, you just lost your favorite playmate, racist boy.
Oooh, fauxrage FTL! You don't get to claim secret membership of an oppressed group as giving you authority on the topic and then argue that oppression doesn't exist without being called out for hypocrisy.
What you are is running away from the arguments that you can't dispute. As is usual for you.
Let's recap from the beginning:
TPM> Jailing people for acts of racism is the way to correct racism in the USA.
ME> Gives example of how college legacies legally perpetuate racial privilege
TPM> That doesn't count because it doesn't directly effect enough people.
TPM> Being born into a socially oppressed group is just "the luck of the draw" like being born to a poor family.
ME> That would only be true if poverty were not so strongly correlated with oppressed groups.
TPM> You can't use the word "privilege" because the dictionary says it only means "legal" privilege
ME> OED says your definition is ridiculously incomplete, that "privilege" is the correct term.
TPM> Racism is bad because people used to being on the winning side get all hateful when they don't get that benefit anymore.
I don't think you are consciously racist, but hardly anyone ever is. I think you just choose to be willfully ignorant as to how modern racism works. Your "luck of the draw" comment really makes that clear. That is naked privilege talking or the shallow thinking of a five year old.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by frojack on Wednesday April 23 2014, @10:53PM
That is a bogus argument that throws out the baby with the bath water.
And it would be easily solved by removing name, gender and even address from admission forms and replace it with
a unique, but randomly assigned number.
Nobody would know who they were reviewing, and the only place you have to watch is the number assignment system.
Instead, you champion a system that destroys merit, and substitutes gender or color in its place.
And you justify it by saying "all the other kids are doing it". Unbelievable!
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 24 2014, @12:46AM
Even if you removed name, gender, and address, the admissions board would know by the high school attended.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Thursday April 24 2014, @12:57AM
Probably not.
All they need to know is the grades, and the standing of the high-school as a whole.
Besides, there are almost no all single gender or all single race schools in the US any more,
so even knowing the high school won't get you labeled.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 1) by urza9814 on Thursday April 24 2014, @01:35AM
Colleges also look at extracurricular activities. Like what sports you did (sprinter vs. mile runner for example, though that's certainly no more definitive than school) or what clubs you were involved with (president of the NAACP chapter perhaps?)
Of course, there's also factors against affirmative action to consider here. Like the people you'll always have saying 'they only got in because of their race'. People who actually did get in on merit have their achievements cheapened because everyone assumes they only got in because of their skin color.
(Score: 1) by RobotLove on Friday April 25 2014, @01:32AM
Sure, unless there's some sort of interview portion. What then?
I'm pretty sure I didn't say that. If that's what you got, I'm sorry. What I intended was to say, "If you actually cared about selecting on merit, you would advocate for Affirmative Action."
Sorry if this is a double-post.
(Score: 2) by starcraftsicko on Wednesday April 23 2014, @11:25PM
Technically, [citation needed]. But I'll agree anyway.
Depends on how you do it. If you don't see the student until the admission decision, it'd be hard for skin color to be a factor. Other key identifiers could be covered until the initial decision is made. The opportunity for 'ism's creep in when we try to 'take everything into account'.
I fixed that for you. And once corrected, I can't help but to agree. ;)
I don't know what merit is... but once I define it as something other than "proper demographic ratio", affirmative action and other demography based programs start to look suspect.
There. Helped again. Obligatory xkcd [xkcd.com].
This post was created with recycled electrons.
(Score: 1, Troll) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday April 23 2014, @11:32PM
My rights don't end where your fear begins.