Immigration is a huge selection bias. Immigrants are richer, healthier and more successful compared to similar groups.
Berkeley College Republicans hold intentionally racist Bake sale
- Thread starter useless
- Start date
Immigration is a huge selection bias. Immigrants are richer, healthier and more successful compared to similar groups.
No they don't. Not if they actually understand statistics and have looked at the data. And I see you can't refute the logic of my arguments. As for politicians, they don't want to address the incovinient answers I asked.
Racism is not affecting college admissions.
Glad we cleared that up. Cancel the bake sale.
MobBoss
Off-Topic Overlord
As long as it done along racial lines it is precisely rasist.
Yes, AA is racism. Continually claiming its not doesnt change that fact. Case in point, if AA gave white people the advantage that it offers, there would be no question it would be racism. Ergo, it is. No question about it.
Plenty of white people get AA.
MobBoss
Off-Topic Overlord
Proof please.
Hanging on my office wall.
And programs such as this:
http://www.csuohio.edu/offices/affirmativeaction/veterans.html
And this:
http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/golden3.htm
MobBoss
Off-Topic Overlord
Verterans programs arent really AA....and that link is for employment opportunites, not educational preferences.
Second link isnt even about AA at all, but something called 'legacy preference'...giving children of alumni preference as opposed to race.
It seems your claim that AA helps whites is based upon programs that arent even really defined as AA.
Second link isnt even about AA at all, but something called 'legacy preference'...giving children of alumni preference as opposed to race.
It seems your claim that AA helps whites is based upon programs that arent even really defined as AA.
Latin Americans are also immigrants, and yet they do poorly on college admissions.
In fact, I question your statement that immigrants are generally better off than their counterparts. If they were doing good, they would stay in their place of origin. The elites have it good anywhere, even in Africa. From what I know, nations usually export their poor and unemployed to a greater extent than their entrepeneurs (who also immigrate, but to a lesser degree).
Nope, I am pretty certain that your average African immigrant comes from a poorer background than your average black american. After all even upper middle class Africans make less than your average black american.
And note that the children of those immigrants, born and raised as black americans, still outperform not only other blacks but also whites. This is proof that it is not racism that is "keeping the black man down", but other factors.
wolfigor
Emperor
as far as I know veteran comes of all colours, and these programs do discriminate by race.
They only give some employment help to people that served the country, independently from rage, religion, gender, political affiliation, sexual orientation, etc.
AA is by definition discriminatory: it gives advantages to groups of peoples, categories, on the base of race (and sometime gender).
We may argue if it generates a positive effect for the country or not, but there is no doubt that AA is a discriminatory practice.
I don't think that any african american student today was subject to slavery in his life.
Playing the slavery card is a bit silly... as a friend of mine said (USA born, from greek parents): "we [Greeks] have been slave of the Turks for centuries, why can't we get some AA to help?".
AA, by helping selected "races" really damages those people and ethnic groups that really need help.
I fully subscribe to this point!
I know several people (working in my company) that came to Europe from Vietnam with nothing: really boat people.
They didn't get any special AA help, they never complained, and they made it.
I have a deep respect for them.
If there were active AA programs probably they would be ditched to hire some people from the minorities protected by AA.
Wait, sorry, what? I've been following along here, and my take is roughly akin to MB's. I do not treat people differently based on their skin color or ethnicity. My goal and hope for the world is for everyone to ignore skin color and ethnicity. If, as you say, AA is not racist because its goal is zero racial discrimination, then it follows that I am not racist either by the same standard.
BvBPL
Pour Decision Maker
Affirmative action is not racist.
Racism is the idea that race is a key determinate of human characteristics. In other words, blacks have certain a priori characteristics based on their race.
Alternatively, racism can be defined on prejudice against members of certain races or ethnicities, often predicated on the assumption, above, that one’s race defines one’s life.
Neither of these apply to affirmative action. It may be reasonable to call affirmative action discriminatory, but it is not racist.
Racism is the idea that race is a key determinate of human characteristics. In other words, blacks have certain a priori characteristics based on their race.
Alternatively, racism can be defined on prejudice against members of certain races or ethnicities, often predicated on the assumption, above, that one’s race defines one’s life.
Neither of these apply to affirmative action. It may be reasonable to call affirmative action discriminatory, but it is not racist.
Is it? Because you won't get there. Some people may feel they are pursuing a goal, except that their way of pursuing it will never achieve that goal.
This is one of those cases.
White people have a head start over black people. That's just the history of the US. And it remains current now. It's not like the current US climate is free of racism or the effects of past racism. It is something felt every day. The fact that many have largely overcome it does not mean that it does not present obstacles that many other haven't been able to overcome.
So you have all these obstacles that many haven't been able to overcome without help. And many of the ones who have overcome did have help. Now you remove the help. Where does that leave you? You haven't removed the head start that whites have. You haven't removed the obstacles that blacks face that whites do not face.
You want a society where "everyone to ignore skin color and ethnicity", you have to be willing to work to make it happen. Choosing to do nothing is choosing to be certain that it does not happen. Not in the foreseeable future, at any rate. The rate at which these things happen on their own is very, very, slow. If ever.
If you want to just stand back and see if the problem will go away on its own. And not take any steps to make that happen, not not mitigate the obstacles that were deliberately placed to prevent it, not mitigate the historical circumstances that make it far more difficult to overcome, not undo any of the damage that has been done, that continues to be done on a day to day basis, that just is not color blind.
Personal responsibility does not say "Oh, maybe they do face all these extra obstacles we've placed in their path, but it's not our responsibility to help them. They have to take responsibility for themselves." No, that's not personal responsibility. Personal responsibility says "I have benefited at their expense, I owe some mitigation or remediation of that harm done to them".
As a mitigation or remediation, AA is trivial.
I think I've isolated the issue.
Some of us are working off the first definition, and some of us are working off the second definition.
Merriam-Webster said:
Some of us are working off the first definition, and some of us are working off the second definition.
Bamspeedy
CheeseBob
If the country is somewhat respectable in being 'open', then the country of origin usually doesn't have that much input into who they 'export'. With legal immigration then the country of destination picks and chooses who they want into their country. The US is often the beneficiary of Brain Drain, to the detriment of other countries.
The Green Card Lottery is random, but that doesn't account for most immigrants.
Student and work visas are generally the smarter and more well off. Maybe not in every case, but generally speaking. Sure, perhaps the ultra elite (top .01%) may stay in their country, especially if they have political power, but that doesn't mean there isn't lots of others, who are above the average (anywhere in the top 50%) that would love to move to the west. But they aren't likely to attract a school or business to sponsor their immigration unless they are in the top 1% (in smarts, skills, or whatever). And if the immigrant 'pays their own way' without a sponsor, they have to be well off to afford to do so.
Family visas can be random. Demographics for Fiancee visas can vary if we are talking about a fiancee from Europe or from Southeast Asia. Demographics of the average Fiancee/Spouse who stayed in home country will be different compared to someone allowed into the US on a student or work visa who then met and married an American and are applying for AOS (Adjustment of Status).
Refugees could be random, but just for the sake of being fair I'll give you this one if you say this category is usually poor.
True that the immigrant was poorer prior to immigrating, which is why they want to immigrate, even if they were 'well off' in their country of origin.
Possibly proof that the immigrants came from well to do families, i.e. socio-economic factors.
It seems quite clear to me that any factor at play is socio-economic (including cultural factors), not racism.
Cutlass keeps repeating the same thing, but has not addressed why Asians succeeded where Latin Americans failed or why african immigrants and their children outperform whites in college admission. Racism did not keep Asians down and it is not keeping Africans down either, this much is a fact.
If the true issues are socio-economic (as evidenced by the fact that some black groups and some other minorities are doing great), than what is the point of seeking a racial remedy? Once you consider the inherent problems of racial "remedies", like their discriminatory and necessarily subjective nature, it becomes damn clear that they're nothing short of disgraceful.
Cutlass keeps repeating the same thing, but has not addressed why Asians succeeded where Latin Americans failed or why african immigrants and their children outperform whites in college admission. Racism did not keep Asians down and it is not keeping Africans down either, this much is a fact.
If the true issues are socio-economic (as evidenced by the fact that some black groups and some other minorities are doing great), than what is the point of seeking a racial remedy? Once you consider the inherent problems of racial "remedies", like their discriminatory and necessarily subjective nature, it becomes damn clear that they're nothing short of disgraceful.
Formaldehyde
Both Fair And Balanced
And yet they still suffer from the effects of that deliberate brutal repression of their rights, which has occurred for 340 of the 390 years that blacks have been in this country. As a group, they are still clearly feeling the effects of that overt racism. Yet a minority feel completely reluctant to help them overcome those inherent problems which continue to plague them.I don't think that any african american student today was subject to slavery in his life.
Playing the slavery card is a bit silly... as a friend of mine said (USA born, from greek parents): "we [Greeks] have been slave of the Turks for centuries, why can't we get some AA to help?".
AA, by helping selected "races" really damages those people and ethnic groups that really need help.
And as the article I posted above clearly points out, that AA "damages" those in obvious need of that aid is a myth.
And so do I for some of them. But many of the "boat people" were actually successful businessmen, leaders of their community, and even members of the military who had to flee Vietnam in rightful fear of their lives for their support of war crimes. Or in some cases, even their own crimes against humanity. Yet they were never tried for those crimes.
There is nothing prejudicial about AA. And not all discrimination is racism. Some white women prefer black males as lovers. That doesn't make them racists. The only people who seem to think that AA is racist is a small group of conservatives. Even prominent Republican presidents have openly supported AA.
