451–460 of 660 posts
Stuyvesant used to have 13% African American students in the 1970s, matching the overall population. The test system didn't change, but the African American demographics in Stuyvesant dropped to 1%. Does this mean that the impacts of discrimination increased over time?
Thank god we're not speaking German... Thank god we have diversity and hate crime laws instead of colonizing mars and beyond... The weak will reap what they sow.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A grades and SAT admission model creates a class that is ~70% Asian. America’s future leadership class is categorically not 70% Asian.
Why not? If Asians are hardworking enough to occupy 70% of the top positions, why not?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
He explicitly said income equality is unachievable. I didn't put those words in his mouth. You can't answer the question of "when" if a person has already decided the goal is unachievable. Again, those were his words not mine The temporary measures will end WHEN people are genuinely interested enough to help regardless of whether they created the problem. That is my answer. You just don't like it. And that's ok....
When, in the history of humanity, has income ever been at an acceptable level of equality? If you/the people who support such a policy can't define an explicit goal then I'd say that's pretty unachievable.
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)…
Say what? See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Catholicism#United_States
I propose creating a school that only looks at quantitative measures, gives a single test once a year that is grueling in mathematics, science, logic, reading, and writing. They just pick the top x-percentile of students. If there is a tie, students are picked randomly. We can call it the HackerNews Academy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, not really. The California legislature (for example) is less than half white.[1] You could argue white males are overrepresented in some circumstances, but claiming white males hold institutional power exclusively (which is what you inferred) is just plain wrong. [1] https://www.library.ca.gov/Content/pdf/crb/reports/CRB_2017-...
Per your link, the CA Senate is 75% white.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Indeed no one is entitled to go to Harvard, but Harvard is also not entitled to federal research grants that are being funded by taxing Asian Americans under the same laws as other Americans, so I guess we are at an impasse.
>but Harvard is also not entitled to federal research grants There is no entitlement. The government is purchasing research for the money. There is no obvious connection between Harvard's undergrad admissions practices and the money Harvard gets for research.
Obviously it won’t, because if banning ROTC from your university doesn’t get your access to federal funds cut off affirmative action certainly won’t but they could.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It is very clear that race-conscious admissions are systematically racist and discriminatory. Every time the SCOTUS hears one of these cases they acknowledge that, but the justification is that these classes are/have been historically discriminated against and constitutional admissions which take race into consideration are a temporary measure to right these historical wrongs by leveling the playing field. So the e…
> but the justification is that these classes are/have been historically discriminated against and constitutional admissions which take race into consideration are a temporary measure to right these historical wrongs by leveling the playing field. So under that thought process... when does the temporary measure end? Is there a specific goal? Or is it something unachievable like "when income inequality is fixed".
There simply is not a quick easy solution and those who are not oppressed simply have no real frame of reference to understand the problem. I encourage every person who feels these programs are unfair to spend time volunteering in poor minority communities.
It's like we have these two irreconcilable ideas: - Diversity is good - Discrimination is bad When 50% of the world's population is from China/India, how do you both promote diversity and not discriminate?
Stop treating it like an exclusive club that hands out occupational licenses for an elite class of the well connected few and give as many people as you can a quality education. With the money that these universities receive that should be possible. If increase in the amount of students would have even remotely kept pace with funding we wouldn't have the need to treat this like a zero-sum race game.