Criticism of Josh Gordon and race relations

[Kyriakos]

Even captain Acab was hunting down a White whale

 

[Sommerswerd]

Acrually, there's a pretty decent specific case for diversity in medical degree entry as well. People from disadvantaged or diverse backgrounds are more likely to want to go back and practice in those communities, both improving the standard of healthcare availability in those areas and providing role models for the next generation.

'Sides which, medicine is a bit of a cartel. There's a lot more people who would be able to do it, than ever get in and earn that degree. The idea that unqualified applicants are getting medical degrees is a pretty big furphy. In such a situation of superabundance of qualified candidates it's entirely reasonable to give thought to having the most socially beneficial possible cohort, and consider things like diversity and likely social returns.

"Furphy" ... nice I had to look that one up, but it certainly seems appropriate. Med school is extremely rigorous... I think that med school grads would be a little wary of the claim that "unqualified" people were able to graduate en masse with medical degrees.

 

[Farm Boy]

How do you feel about racial/ethnic diversity as a virtuous goal in-and-of-itself? Do you embrace it? Reject it outright? Feel some trepidation/suspicion? I ask because I have observed this perspective can greatly impact views on appropriate solutions.

I get the feeling I took this entirely more Look Who's Coming to Dinner than you meant it?

 

[caketastydelish]

That people who say "the blacks" like that's been an acceptable way to describe people since the 1970s aren't in much of a position to pontificate on race relations.

I honestly don't see how "the blacks" is better/worse of a phrase than "the whites". (personally I would just take the "the" out of both).

 

[caketastydelish]

I'll tell you, when I want really insightful commentary on race relations in America, the first place I'm going to turn is a forum made almost entirely of non-black, affluent, suburban computer game enthusiasts.

So just because people aren't black means they can't face racial discrimination . Middle easterners face at least as much discrimination as blacks, and Mexicans arguably face even more. Throughout my high school days the Mexican kids were treated like complete dirt by nearly all the faculty, and people in general think the least of them. As far as the bigots (which there are many of) are concerned, "they're illegal, they don't belong here in the first place." In the words of Ann Coulter:

"civil rights are for blacks" "What have we done to the immigrants? We owe black people something. We have a legacy of slavery. Immigrants haven 't even been in this country."

Lots of other minorities face *at least* as much discrimination as blacks, only without any effective organizations of their own to (partially) combat it... at least blacks have the NAACP, panthers, etc. Other minorities who often face at least as much discrimination as blacks have nothing to contend with. But since this forum is made of mostly non-blacks, we are irrelevant.

And again, there's not a doubt in my mind that black people experience racism. I've said in this very thread the double standard of people hating black rappers for rapping about drugs and sex when the white rock and roll and country guys sing about the same things. But to say racism is a conversation that only black people should be allowed to have (or even simply one only whites can't have) is silly.

Such a hypothetical situation - in 1800 one hundred Africans were running away from slave hunters - assuming 50 of them were smart and 50 were dumb - people from which of the two groups were statistically more likely to get caught, those from the smart group or those from the dumb group ???

Can't believe other than like one person this went unnoticed. If most posters on CFC genuinely thought this, Downtown would have a much more valid point.

Oh right, a literal net.

Ok, please correct me if I've misunderstood you: You're saying that the reason that recent African immigrants do better in American society than the descendants of African slaves is because the slave trade caught only the stupid Africans, thus removing them from their home population and raising their average intelligence?

This is the guy which thinks black people need another 10,000 years to catch up with whites, that Rhodeisa "wasn't really" apartheid, that the Confederacy was good, etc. Don't be surprsied at all that it's what he really thinks.

Yeah, I'm the real racist. :lol. WON'T SOMEBODY THINK OF THE YOUNG, WEALTHY COLLEGE-EDUCATED WHITE MEN ON THE INTERNET

Archbob and Domen both don't know what they're talking about, but the majority of the "young, wealthy college-educated white men on the internet" here actually agree with you. I'm not even saying you're a "real racist". You certainly are better than Domen and Archbob. On the other hand you automatically shut everyone down just because you presume they come from a privileged status (which may or may not be true in the first place), and then say because of that status they can't know what they're talking about. If a white person got a degree in middle eastern studies and dedicated their life to everything they could possibly know about Iran and Iranian culture they would know more than me. Likewise, a psychiatrist with a great aptitude for absorbing information fast and worked his/her butt off in medical school would know more about Schizophrenia than me, despite having it myself.

Your argument is "since they don't face discrimination they don't know what discrimination is". Absolute strawman.

 

[Traitorfish]

I honestly don't see how "the blacks" is better/worse of a phrase than "the whites". (personally I would just take the "the" out of both).

It's not that the term is inherently more objectionable than "black people" or "African-Americans", it's that the way it's used has unpleasant connotations. Like "the gays" or "the Jews", it doesn't reflect well on the words surrounding it. Using the term doesn't indicate that you're racist, but it does indicate that you're socially tone-deaf.

 

[Kyriakos]

It's not that the term is inherently more objectionable than "black people" or "African-Americans", it's that the way it's used has unpleasant connotations. Like "the gays" or "the Jews", it doesn't reflect well on the words surrounding it. Using the term doesn't indicate that you're racist, but it does indicate that you're socially tone-deaf.

"The Greeks" have a word for it.

 

[Traitorfish]

I think there's a difference, there. Terms like "the Greeks" or "the Scots" or even "the African-Americans" carry a sense of community, of people-hood. It describes a collectivity. "The blacks" doesn't carry those connotations, it simply connotes a shapeless mass of individuals.

 

[Kyriakos]

I think there's a difference, there. Terms like "the Greeks" or "the Scots" or even "the African-Americans" carry a sense of community, of people-hood. It describes a collectivity. "The blacks" doesn't carry those connotations, it simply connotes a shapeless mass of individuals.

I agree, of course. But in some degree the issue is still not the actual form, but more of a tone as you said, ie something not being evident in writing (unless it is either prevalent or very deliberate).

Eg in the 6th century AD, Justinian closing down the last purely Greek philosophy oriented schools (eg by Simplicios of Cilicia) would have connoted "greek" negatively, while today it would not be meant in such a way.

 

[Domen]

Note that they said "If they dropped race-based affirmitive action", which means they actually do have it. The school itself admitted it.

There's tons of Affirmitive action lawsuits each year usually by whites and Asians, the two groups getting the short end of the stick when it comes to Affirmitive action. And its not just heresay, the average test scores for whites and Asians that get admitted is generally signficantly higher than Blacks and Latinos.

1. Unique doesn't mean that race-based affirmative action is unique to UNC. In the context of that sentence, unique means that only UNC conducted a study and there the study is unique, not the policies.

2. Look at universities average test scores for incoming freshmen by race. Whites and Asians average scores are significantly higher than most other minorities. The bar for these two groups to be admitted is much higher. It may not be a quota, but it serves the same purpose.

3. Admissions should be based on grades, test scores, awards and achievements, and maybe a personal statements. There is no room for this race-based affirmative action.

And no, universities don't treat all minorities equally when it comes to admissions, otherwise admissions test scores would not be so different.

Equal treatment has no correlation to test scores. Again assuming the "test scores" are SATs, and for simplicity Let's say for example that University X has decided on the following admissions criteria:

1. That they will admit any student that is a scholar athlete (3.0 GPA+varsity sport) and at least a 900 SAT
2. They will admit any student who has high honors (3.8 GPA) and at least a 900 SAT
3. They will admit any student who has a parent alumnus, at least a 2.5 GPA and at least a 900 SAT

Student A is Latino, has, 2.7 GPA, 900 SAT and a parent alumnus -Admitted
Student B is Black, has a 3.2 GPA, 1000 SAT and plays varsity Soccer - Admitted
Student C is Asian has a 3.7 GPA, 1400 SAT - Not admitted

Do you see that they were treated equally under the admission criteria? Now lets say instead that Student C had a 3.8 and was admitted. Do you see how easy it is to have equal treatment of these minorities and the Asian student still have a higher SAT score? The fact that the Asian student has a higher SAT does not mean he was subjected to a "higher bar." Test scores are just not relevant to the point your trying to make, because Universities consider and value far more factors than test scores in admissions.

Also when you are comparing test scores, you are comparing admitted students right? So that has no relevance to your discriminated against greivance applicants that were supposedly denied admission b/c of quotas right?

As for how minority status actually factors into admissions, I already explained this (multiple times), so I guess now you can just believe whatever you want ...

Do U.S. universities also apply affirmative actions when it comes to achievements in sports?

Edit:

I've found the following data:

Spoiler :

 

[Senethro]

no domen no

 

[Domen]

Why no affirmative action in sports? For example lower the rims on basketball hoops for Asian players, or something like this.

Though that would be difficult to apply in practice, in cases when ethnically mixed teams play against each other. So this is difficult to apply in team sports. But in individual sports - why not? And in case of taking into account achievements in sports during admissions to universities - why not?

=================================

What I've recently noticed is that contestants of Kenyan or Ethiopian origin - if some participate - win nearly all marathons taking place in Europe. Perhaps Kenyans and Ethiopians should have a slightly longer distance to run than other contestants during each marathon, to make things just.

Or we might organize separate marathons for "Kenyans-Ethiopians" and separate ones for "everyone else" (including West Africans).

 

[Lay_Lay]

...name five rap songs and/or five rappers

By order of my discovery: Run DMC, Beastie Boys, Fat Boys, Vanilla Ice, Naughty By Nature, etc.

The great white suburban high school version of 80's rap. Total John Hughes movie rap experience. Not the same.