411–420 of 660 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No it isn’t. Affirmative action programs in employment are legal.
No, they are not. https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/practices/ Diversity efforts sit in a gray area that is nowhere close to race quotas.
The trick is that affirmative action is sold as an effort to negate other discrimination.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I mean grouping Jews together based on a religious affiliation is just weird -- Reform would look at you really funny if you start talking to them about how Hasids and Orthodox view the world. It is as if Christianity was compressed into Amish, Anabaptists and Catholics and someone said "they are the same people"
It is ultimately a response to the fact that Jews were treated as the same people by policies designed to exclude them. There were no such policies for various Christian groups. Practically for much of this history in this part of the world, "Jewish" has been used interchangeably with Ashkenazi. Jewish is not an ethnicity, but Ashkenazi is, and most of the Jewish people at a place like Harvard (or applied-but-denied)…
This is, to put it mildly, an opinion rather than an established fact. Ethnicity is a social construct, and many Jewish societies do construct an ethnicity that crosses the intra-Jewish Ashkenazi/Sephardi/Persian/etc. lines.
The biggest example of this is of course Israel, but you also see this in other mixed-background Jewish communities like e.g. Los Angeles or France, where a single umbrella Jewish ethnic identity is overlaid on top of those more specific ones.
A dumber community of people, I have never seen.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So, asians are less likely to be leaders because of their race? African-Americans are more likely to be leaders because of their race?
A grades and SAT admission model creates a class that is ~70% Asian. America’s future leadership class is categorically not 70% Asian.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What is a race exactly for humans?
A race is a "folk science" version of an ethnicity (it's defined culturally instead of scientifically). An ethnicity is a genetically similar group of people that often come from the same geographic origin.
"An ethnic group or ethnicity is a category of people who identify with each other, usually on the basis of a presumed common genealogy or ancestry or on similarities such as common language or dialect, history, society, culture or nation. Ethnicity is often used synonymously with the term nation, particularly in cases of ethnic nationalism, and is separate from but related to the concept of races."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
People pushing that argument tend to pretend there's not a significant interlinking between race and class in America.
Isn't that a strong argument for class as a better means for analysis? I mean, if they're so interlinked, why not avoid the pitfalls of racialism?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So, asians are less likely to be leaders because of their race? African-Americans are more likely to be leaders because of their race?
No but it might be possible that an African american with the same grades as an asian american is much more likely to be successful in the future because they got the same results from what is likely a much more difficult starting point. The context of someone's acheivements matters and race is part of that context.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, the difference being that white males hold institutional power in the United States, whereas that isn't true for Asian males (or females).
Are you saying that it is ok to be racist depending on the status of the person?
I understand the point of the argument; systemic oppression comes from power. The argument just seemed odd though.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> not so much between asians and whites. What are you even talking about? https://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?art... Basically all post-slavery discrimination against blacks happened to Asians. Can you please cite anything that can support the opposite claim? It's typically better to argue with facts than making shit up, or worse, misrepresenting the facts due to a systematic removal of history f…
I should have said "as much". My implication is that the gap between asian's and whites is both smaller and closing more rapidly than that between black's and whites, based on what I've read and experienced. It doesn't mean there isn't discrimination (etc). > Basically all post-slavery discrimination against blacks happened to Asians. Can you please cite anything that can support the opposite claim? I'm not arguing t…
You are using Asian's relative success against African Americans to argue that they must therefore not have experienced discrimination. This reasoning is backwards. You ought to first quantify the discrimination (you'll have to figure how to do that yourself) and then see if there's a correlation. Otherwise, you're arguing a fallacy -- a form of affirming the consequent.
If we were to accept your explanation, then we would be forced to conclude that other groups (such as the Hmong or Bangladeshi) who are doing as bad (or perhaps worse) than African Americans must have faced even worse discrimination in America in the past, which I think you'd agree is not true.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Harvard and UC are trying to do different things. Harvard is trying to admit the future leaders of the world, so it can point to them and say “They are Harvard men.” UC is trying to give an academically rigorous education to the most academically qualified students.
So, asians are less likely to be leaders because of their race? African-Americans are more likely to be leaders because of their race?