Criticism of Josh Gordon and race relations

[Archbob]

I read your points #1 and 2#. But you didn't answer my questions. Is Blacks' failure more the result of:

A. societal/environmental bias outside of their control or;
B. Personal culture/values/conduct
C. Equal parts of both?

And if it is C, then please give me the same analysis of other races/ethnicities (or just Asians if you prefer).

The article you linked contradicts the point you are trying to make. Two statements I noticed - "Officials at the Project on Fair Representation say they are looking for students at other schools to come forward to provide evidence for future suits" and "Mr. Blum said that his organization is currently hoping to interview more applicants who were rejected from the University of ..." So this is a lawsuit by a bunch of rejected students trying to sue the school that rejected them alleging racial bias. The attorney/representative states outright that he is hoping to recruit more disgruntled rejects to join in his attacks against the schools that rejected them.

So I have two thoughts on this:

1. This article refers to a lawsuit. People file lawsuits all the time over all kinds of BS. As you can imagine, I have a lot of anecdotal experience with this I could share... The fact that they are suing, alleging quotas proves nothing. All I see is disgruntled rejected applicants alleging racial bias.

2. It is ironic that you are citing this article, because this is exactly the kind of conduct that you are arguing Blacks need to stop engaging in, right? These students are getting a result they don't like in life and then alleging it is the fault of racist institutional bias against them instead of taking personal responsibility for their own rejections, right? Or is this different somehow?

Hmmm... I don't think you read my post That's cool, it was a little long. In any case if you read the last paragraph, you will see that I agree with you 100%. I don't think you were ramming anything. Your point is valid and I just wanted to acknowledge/cosign it.

1. 50 years ago I'd say it was social/environmental bias, but today, I'd say its more personal values/culture/conduct which is largely dependent on the community you are in.

2. I don't see how you concluded what you did from my article, specifically with quotes like:

“The unique thing about UNC is that they did a study in which they concluded that if they dropped race-based affirmative action and instead implemented a top-ten-percent plan like Texas, the number of minorities on their campus would go up, not down,” he said. “So, for them to continue using race-based preferences is not fair. It’s actually limiting the number of minorities that can attend that school, and we believe the court will find that it’s unconstitutional.”

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.

Look at another top institution that is color blind like MIT(at least claims to be):

http://web.mit.edu/ir/pop/students/diversity.html

You'll find that the % of students from different races that are admitted is significantly different from a school like Harvard that tries to strive for racial diversity.

 

[warpus]

Do you think this is unique to America? Capitalism absolutely devalues community relative to the individual. So does democracy. Individual rights. Private property. Privacy in general. Pretty much every concept of modern society. Do you think America is more impacted by that than anywhere else?

I don't think it's unique to America, but from my experience America is a very good example of it. Without strong communities - much more financial support for community-building projects, a much better social safety net, etc. the poor of the country are always going to be hit the hardest.

We might well be, in my opinion, but I'm wondering if you were implying something closer to 'uniquely impacted' rather than 'more impacted'.

Sorry, not sure what you mean here.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I don't think it's unique to America, but from my experience America is a very good example of it. Without strong communities - much more financial support for community-building projects, a much better social safety net, etc. the poor of the country are always going to be hit the hardest.



Sorry, not sure what you mean here.

You answered. In your initial comment it came across as "America has abandoned community while the rest of us know better"...in your clarification it is more in line with my own view, that the abandonment of community is universal to the developed world and America is just further along, leading the way down the road to perdition that everyone is trying to get down faster (for no good reason).

 

[Old Hippy]

Maybe I should go ahead and say it: America lacks strong communities. There are some, but they are far and wide between. The focus is on the individual - and not on the community - and that is a large problem leading to many other ones.

a good point
I have been following your community stuff and agree with you, one thing that seems to get overlooked with 'boot strapping' is that a strong community needs a lot of help to grow, I live in the inner city, its being gentrified, but will always be edgy and fringe in nature. but has a mixed class of artists and Yuppies (is that word still used) driving up property prices for 20 years(medium house prices $1M) and homeless, unemployed, drug users, and the mental ill that have made it their home since the seventies,a time they could afford to live here. it has a strong community focus from churches to housing co-opps to local council, with 5 drop in centres within walking distance from my place, the driving force behind most things are the newer arrivals. because we have the money time and know how to get things going, but still very much agree that all people should have control of their own choices. its not about charity but opportunity. Little would have occurred if it was left to the marginalized to get things going, due to lack of resources, yet when we hear of US marginalized communities they are expected to have the know how and financial backing to get things going without much outside help and guidance in how to do it

@ tim yes it was a dysfunctional community in the seventies and there are many dysfunctional communities in Australia

 

[Farm Boy]

Maybe I should go ahead and say it: America lacks strong communities. There are some, but they are far and wide between. The focus is on the individual - and not on the community - and that is a large problem leading to many other ones.

I don't think it's unique to America, but from my experience America is a very good example of it. Without strong communities - much more financial support for community-building projects, a much better social safety net, etc. the poor of the country are always going to be hit the hardest.

Farm Boy: You make it sound like I'm implying that African American communities don't value hard work though. That is not at all what I was trying to get at in the couple posts I've made about the subject in this thread. A community that values personal growth of constituent members is only a part of what makes a community a good one for such a thing. The community has to support you in many ways - work ethic is on you - the individual. The community can either support it or discourage it - and a strong community will often do the previous, and not the latter.

I'm not trying to make it sound like you think people starve with food stamps under their work boots, or whatever that old nasty joke was. But I'm reading this and compiling it together. I've got so far:

Strong communities tend to lift up their members. One of the principle ways they do this is by encouraging and enabling culture of hard work that helps lift people up. People can break free of poverty with this powerful influence.
Stronger communities will do this better than poorer(quality) communities. Poorer(economically) communities will be hit the hardest by failure to do this.
America lacks a quality national community and statewide communities to even out the disparity in the quality, leading to economic(then probably looping back) disparities between smaller communities.

With the understanding that I haven't been calling you a racist, with the understanding that black communities in America have a lot of things working against their economic success, isn't this an argument that there indeed are things very wrong with communities that maintain high rates of poverty generation over generation over generation? Cull out the stupid implied blame that this is the poor's own fault and they deserve it, that isn't included here. Also build in the fact that people have indicated on several occasions that they get tired of me pointing out the fact that rural American communities and cultures suffer from deeper and higher rates of poverty than do urban centers with higher rates of dark pigmentation.

 

[Hygro]

Sommerswerd making this thread breathable again. I always love hearing about college admissions from the inside. It's such an integral part of our country, the same way who controls the utilities, what gets financed from whom, etc.

 

[warpus]

isn't this an argument that there indeed are things very wrong with communities that maintain high rates of poverty generation over generation over generation?

Well, what you're pointing to now is that socioeconomic mobility in the U.S. is pretty bad - it's not easy for people to break out of one social class and join another. Entire communities seem to be stuck in the same old, same old.. That's not very good. That sucks.

I would say there are problems with some communities - but the larger problem is that there is no national sense of the importance of community building - for the benefit of all. Why do ghettos exist in the first place? Why isn't more money being put into inner city schools? Inner city parks? Why isn't more money put into public transport, public spaces for people to meet, and why is there such great racial segregation?

Don't take my post to mean that the points I am touching on are the points. They are just some examples of a huge systematic problem. I'm not sure if it's ever really going to go away - America is a country partially founded on the principles of individualism. Maybe that's not the right word to use, but I can't think of a better one. Anyway, I think there are a lot of good things about that - but also some bad things. Such as that it doesn't tend to promote good community building - and coupled with the horrid socioeconomic mobility thing in the U.S. - those two factors sort of make it really crappy for a lot of African-Americans. Then there's racism on top of that AND a lot of historical stuff on top of that such as institutional racism. That's a lot of BS for a people to deal with.

So that's what I think is going on. Not all, but I think those are some of the big points. But like I said I don't live in the U.S. so take this as an honest attempt at a look by an outsider.

 

[Domen]

Look at another top institution that is color blind like MIT(at least claims to be):

http://web.mit.edu/ir/pop/students/diversity.html

Check: http://web.mit.edu/ir/pop/students/graduation_rates.html

Interesting that multiracial students there have 100% graduation rates (highest of any group).

 

[Sommerswerd]

Thanks Hygro, that was a really nice thing to say

1. 50 years ago I'd say it was social/environmental bias, but today, I'd say its more personal values/culture/conduct which is largely dependent on the community you are in.

So it seems then that you are saying that my parents generation can blame societal/institutional bias, racism whatever, for their poor economic status, but as for my generation, well its our own fault... Is that a fair assesment of your general point?

2. I don't see how you concluded what you did from my article, specifically with quotes like:

“The unique thing about UNC is that they did a study in which they concluded that if they dropped race-based affirmative action and instead implemented a top-ten-percent plan like Texas, the number of minorities on their campus would go up, not down,” he said. “So, for them to continue using race-based preferences is not fair. It’s actually limiting the number of minorities that can attend that school, and we believe the court will find that it’s unconstitutional.”

Now going back to your article, notice the word "unique." That word tells us that proof of the stuff you are complaining about, whatever that might be, is unique to UNC right? This directly contradicts your point no?

Also, race-based affirmative action sounds really ominous, but nowhere does the article define race-based affirmative action as "quotas." And while it seems clear that you WANT race-based affirmative action to mean "quotas", I have very clearly explained that it in fact does not, and I have provided a detailed explanation of exactly how race-based affirmative action actually works in the admission process from first-hand experience. However, my explanation (reality) does not fit your narrative (in particular I gather that you did not realize Black=Asian=any minority in admissions). So it seems that you are choosing to reject this information in order to maintain your pre-conception (and with it, your greivance) that Asians for example are "being screwed" out of admissions they rightfully deserve (by your standards of deserve) in favor of less worthy Blacks. Is that right?

 

[Zack]

Aren't racial quotas illegal (in the US) anyways?

 

[Sommerswerd]

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

Again, admitted what? That they have "race-based affirmitive action?" To paraphrase Inigo Montoya , "race-based affirmitive action" doesen't mean what you seem to have your heart set on it meaning. It does not mean quotas, and it does not advantage Blacks over Asians.

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.

First of all, as I explained, you can't group them like that sorry. For Affirmative action purposes in admissions, Asian=Black=Latino, sorry this fact is inconvenient to your desired narrative.

And again, in any case, the fact that there are lawsuits proves nothing. There are tons of lawsuits evey year period. I would be more interested to hear hear about recent cases preferably involving an Ivy League School since that is what we were discussing (UNC is not an Ivy League School and neither is MIT ), where there was a verdict finding that there was race-based affirmative action based on the quotas you keep complaining about. A lawsuit (typically made by a disgruntled person who was rejected by the school), is an accusation a verdict is proof.

However, you will have a tough time finding any proof of quotas, because of a pesky little SCOTUS case called Regents of the U. of Cal v. Bakke, which found quotas unconstitutional in college admissions... So in other words, there are no quotas in college admissions, because they're illegal and have been since 1978. So how does this affect your point about Asians getting the "short end of the stick" because of quotas?

 

[Archbob]

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.

 

[Sommerswerd]

The overwhelming mindset since then has been "blame whitey or everyone else for all our problems". How has that worked out for the blacks? What has it gotten them?

"Self-victimisation" ideology is of particular interest to me. Particularly, I am intrigued by the ease with which people are able to identify and condemn this behavior in others while simultaneously justifying themselves engaging in it.

For example, you self-victimize Asians by essentially complaining that "the University system is oppressing/mistreating us with all these pro-Black/anti-Asian quotas." How do you distinguish this from the "blame the Man" pattern that you condemn Blacks for? Aren't you doing the same thing, blaming "the system" as being unfair?

The main reason is that we value education far more than even whites. When I was younger, we had to get all A's or the parents would ground us until the next report card came out

This dovetails nicely with the above point as I have some contemporaneous anecdotal information to add. My wife and I volunteer to do the required alumni interviews of applicants to our alma mater (we attended the same University). The University asks alums nationwide to interview applicants who live in their area. The University already has their grades, SAT scores etc., obviously, but they ask us, the alumni, to determine whether the applicants have anything to offer in order to enrich the cultural and social climate of the school. In other words, our job is to get to know them and report whether we think they will fit in and enrich the experience of their fellow students. I have 2 such interviews this weekend.

My wife and I were discussing a trend we have noticed with a seemingly disproportionate amount of the Asian applicants. Compared to other applicants they seem less able to talk about their activities outside of academics. Other applicants seem to bring a much richer more complete package, including hobbies sports, extracurriculars, making them more attractive applicants. For reference, this is an Ivy League school.

I mention this because your post, particularly the lawsuits got me thinking. Maybe part of the outrage is an incorrect pre-conception that college admission is all about grades and being told that by your community, but then being rejected by your choice school despite having good grades,leading to anger and scapegoating, ie "It must be those Blacks and their unfair quotas! I deserved to get in more than them because my grades were better! Meanwhile the Latino kid you feel is unworthy plays 3 sports and had a part time job all through high school, and worked as a volunteer mentor for the at-risk inner city youth in his neighborhood... while you (not you personally, the hypothetically mistreated by the quota system Asian) just spen6t 100% of your spare time studying to get "all A's"

So in my interview all you have to talk about is homework and how much time you spend studying ... So then you are outraged that you don't get admitted and you want to sue for "racial discrimination"... makes sense to me. Does that make sense to you?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

A jerk who works hard and gets good grades...


is still a jerk.

 

[Sommerswerd]

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.

I think you mis-read my post. I said "proof" was unique, but even still... Proof of what? Quotas? We have already addressed that canard, right?

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.

I notice that after your quota argument has failed utterly, you fall back to labeling things "the same as quotas" And What test scores? The SAT? Assuming it is the SAT (or something similar) there is no correlation between test scores and the bar to entry (see my explanation below)

The larger issue, is that you seem to buy into the mentality that High test scores/grades = (or should equal) Admission. This makes sense, given your earlier statements about the community you experienced growing up. They told you that getting all A's was the most important thing, so you WANT it to be the most important thing... But its not. They were wrong.

But this perfectly illustrates WHY Asians get higher test scores (I am just assuming you premise is correct to keep the debate moving). Because according to you, they are taught to prioritize that over everything else. So while in reality, they could get into college with a well rounded background and an 850 SAT score, they focus like a lazer to get a 1300 SAT score. If a higher percentage of Asian families take this approach (which you stated they do, and again I am just accepting most of your premises here) then it makes sense that Asian test scores would be higher on average.

But can you see then, that the higher average SATs among Asians is not a result of a higher bar being imposed on them by the University? The higher bar (at least in terms of test scores) is being imposed by their community.

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.

No. Maybe this is how it will work at Archbob University when you found it. I will caution you though, that only or primarily admitting students based on academics will make for a hellishly boring campus that NOBODY will want to attend... in other words a bankrupt school. At existing Universities they prioritize a multitude of factors, and this is often NOT grades and test scores. I think that the 100 and 200+ year old Universities have earned the right to decide their own admission criteria regardless of what you think it "should" be. Harvard has thrived for over 370 years presumably without your guidance right?

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 ...

 

[Zack]

Are you talking about SAT scores without writing? Those are ridiculously low otherwise.

edit: Actually they still seem pretty low even without writing... (A and B that is)

 

[Archbob]

"Self-victimisation" ideology is of particular interest to me. Particularly, I am intrigued by the ease with which people are able to identify and condemn this behavior in others while simultaneously justifying themselves engaging in it.

I think the original discussion was since affirmative action exists and yes it favors black people in general. The whole mindset of "its everyone else's fault" needs to die and something else needs to take its place. Generally, yes we may complain about affirmative action and a select few once every few years tries to sue a school(and they usually win), that is not the pre-dominant mindset. We gripe about it but our response is simply to work harder to be even more qualified and be so much better than the other kids so the schools can't deny us. Our victim mentality isn't nearly as strong and we generally don't call for change and instead try to beat the system. And you know what, it works a lot better than trying to blow up the system at every turn. You're right, every race does it at some time because no race is perfect, we just don't do it to an extent that its really detrimental to us.

I mention this because your post, particularly the lawsuits got me thinking. Maybe part of the outrage is an incorrect pre-conception that college admission is all about grades and being told that by your community, but then being rejected by your choice school despite having good grades,leading to anger and scapegoating, ie "It must be those Blacks and their unfair quotas! I deserved to get in more than them because my grades were better! Meanwhile the Latino kid you feel is unworthy plays 3 sports and had a part time job all through high school, and worked as a volunteer mentor for the at-risk inner city youth in his neighborhood... while you (not you personally, the hypothetically mistreated by the quota system Asian) just spen6t 100% of your spare time studying to get "all A's"

Generally once a school decides to go "colorblind"(like U-Mich) the number of African-Americans admitted as a % of the student body readily decreases and is usually distributed back to other races with Whites and Asians gaining the most.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...-falls-as-michigan-rejects-affirmative-action

I'm not arguing that affirmative action is right or wrong or that is racial diversity is more/less important that academic merit, but to say that affirmative action treats all minorities the same is flat out false.

Generally colorblind schools like MIT when compared to other schools of the same tier like Harvard will have less blacks as a % of the student populace. MIT also counts in extra-curricular activities and such when deciding admissions, they just don't care about race or diversity as much.

There no way you can assert that Black=Latino=Asian=other minority when it comes to college Admissions. Both the different in % numbers of each ethnicity between schools that claim colorblindness and schools that don't and the average Test Scores between races tell you that differences races are held to different standards.

Actually they still seem pretty low even without writing... (A and B that is)

Without writing 900 and 1000 are really low, I'd be surprised if Harvard admitted any of those students.
Harvard and Ivys may pay attention to extra-curricular activities, but most large state school don't pay near as much attention to anything else except grades and test scores.

 

[Zack]

you're really posting this stuff with a straight face after how many times you've said crap like "blacks need to stop blaming whitey for holding them back"

 

[Timsup2nothin]

The whole mindset of "its everyone else's fault" needs to die and something else needs to take its place.

Apparently you are proposing we switch to "it's affirmative action's fault".

 

[Archbob]

Apparently you are proposing we switch to "it's affirmative action's fault".

No, I'm saying it should change to looking at themselves as much as blaming everyone else.