First, the poor are ALREADY discriminated against. The majority of the issues in this regard are due to class. It is class warfare, and everyone in poverty is a victim. I agree with many of the general points of the Time article I posted yesterday. Secondly, if you have a program that lets in more disadvantaged/poor, it will be much harder to have a bias as it may be harder to differentiate. For example, if AA was based on class, you would not likely argue someone is a Sup. Ct. justice because AA helped them.
I put this first, because it is amazing to watch you rebut your own argument with my argument, as long as the people in questions are economically disadvantaged instead of racially disadvantaged.
Yes, if AA was based on class (and class is also something that can be used in AA), you would absolutely hear it, and I do hear it. I don't know why you don't.
You yourself assume that Justice Thomas would not be where he was but for AA. If you do not see how offensive that is to a very intelligent hard working person like Justice Thomas, I don't know what else to say.
That didn't seem to stop you from adding several more paragraphs to your post.
I don't see why it would be offensive to say Thomas benefited from AA. Explain it to me. See if you can find words you are willing to write. If you can not find words you are willing to write, ask yourself why.
Affirmative Action has made a lot of good changes, but tweaking the program to not be about race but about giving a benefit to those who have had less of an opportunity to succeed makes sense.
Being black in America means you have less of an opportunity to succeed than a white person of similar economic background.
I don't think that. The Supreme Court thinks that. And that is why it was overturned.
Here's their decision:
https://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=539&page=244
They use the word "automatic" 27 times, and each time, they used it refer to the automatic distribution of points, not automatic admission. They also say that virtually (aka not entirely) all of those that are minimally qualified (not all of those that apply, just the ones that are qualified to go to law school). By comparison, being a Michigan resident got you 10 points, and that was not thrown out. So, even though this system was overturned, it was not because admission was automatic.
Rather, the decision clearly spells out the issue is that the main issue is the inflexibility:
This example further demonstrates the problematic nature of the LSA's admissions system. Even if student C's "extraordinary artistic talent" rivaled that of Monet or Picasso, the applicant would receive, at most, five points under the LSA's system. See App. 234-235. At the same time, every single underrepresented minority applicant, including students A and B, would automatically receive 20 points for submitting an application. Clearly, the LSA's system does not offer applicants the individualized selection process described in Harvard's example. Instead of considering how the differing backgrounds, experiences, and characteristics of students A, B, and C might benefit the University, admissions counselors reviewing LSA applications would simply award both A and B 20 points because their applications indicate that they are African-American, and student C would receive up to 5 points for his "extraordinary talent.
A quote from the very article you linked:
Eyeballing the numbers (and I haven’t done a full statistical analysis on this data because I think it’s kind of missing the point), I see about a three to four point bump for African-American or Hispanic students. By “bump,” I mean to say that if you were a white student, you had a fighting chance to get into Baylor with a 161 or 162 LSAT score. If you were black or Latino, you were in the running with a 159 or 158. There are some outliers, of course — a black kid with a 156, a white kid with a 158 — but, in general, I’m eyeballing the mode for white students at 162, and the mode for blacks and Hispanics at 159 or 158.
So, your claim is that student will look at student, and say to themself, 'Hey, that guy was four whole points lower on the LSAT. They are obviously unqualified to be here.', and further, that the student will make this determination not based in racist thinking, but as a rational determination? I don't understand how you can take this line of argument seriously, and consider yourself a rational person.
This is just one example with a clear breakdown. If you understand the way the LSAT is scored (one answer is not one point) you see a huge preference. Having applied to many of these programs with an LSAT over 160, I can tell you it is tough to get in.
https://www.lsac.org/docs/default-source/research-(lsac-resources)/tr-12-03.pdf
Page 8 shows (eyeball test) that the means score is just over 150 and the standard deviation is close to 10. Getting over 160 shouldn't be that big a deal.
At the internal list I saw, a good friend, who happens to be black got in with under 150 at a school with similar LSAT scores as Baylor.
150 is a full six points lower than the lowest score for Baylor. So, you'll understand if I don't take your word on this seriously.
You did. You stated affirmative action helped Justice Thomas. You just assumed and stereotyped, then tried to defend it when you have no idea what his LSAT score was.
Actually, I initially based it on the discussion concerning Thomas back when he was first appointed. After some research, it seems about right.
This country has a history of oppression. The difference is is "OK" to oppress the poor under the constitution.
Horse hockey. Find the constitutional clause that justifies this statement.
The Baylor document gives a reasonable view. And it was post-Gratz.
It also fails to support your claim that there is a large difference.
Racism already exists. When you put a program in place that lets in lesser qualified individuals, it can create a stigma against that person or persons. It is a targeted stigma based on clear data.
4 points on the LSAT is only "clear data" to those who already have their mind made up, and only seek justification to support it.
I understand the reasons for AA, and I'm not saying get rid of it, just tweak it so it actually represents all the less fortunate. Tweaking AA won't get rid of racism, that is a different issue. It will get rid of a created bias as argued by Justice Thomas. That is why he is against it. So don't take it from me, take it from a genius black jurist who has felt the bias AA creates:
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/24/clarence-thomas-affirmative-action_n_3491433.html
The funny thing is, you pointed out how he stated his diploma was worth $0.15, but he believes AA caused it. You should read the full opinion:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/11-345_l5gm.pdf
I can't help Thomas' blind spot there. There's a reason he was the only signatory on his concurrence.
Let's be clear: he took the hardest classes he could, he got good grades in those classes, and affirmative action played no part in the grades he got. Yet, he somehow thinks it is affirmative action that caused potential employers to dismiss his grades.
1) Do you think it is rational to say Thomas' grades were a result of affirmative action?
2) Do you think anyone who claims Thomas' grades were a result of affirmative action is thinking rationally?
3) Assuming the answer to both 1) and 2) are "No", given that same irrational employer looking at the same grades from the same Thomas, in a world without affirmative action, do you really believe that employer would say acknowledge Thomas' contributions? Why?
What Thomas experienced was plain old racism. From what I can tell, he discovered that it was out of his control, and rather than blame the employers, believed their rationalizations.
All you are doing is justifying your bias caused by AA.
My bias regarding what, in particular?
First, you have no idea what Thomas' LSAT score was, which for Yale, is the biggest factor (Median score of 173). You are just making a biased assumption. Your comments are a clear example of the type of racism that is created by AA.
Only 173? I would have thought Yale would be more selective. it must be all those stupid white people who get in on legacies.
Let's say Thomas was admitted on a score of 178. Does that make his coursework more or less impressive? Let's say he was admitted on a score of 160. Does that make his coursework more or less impressive? To, me, his coursework is equally impressive either way. To me, either way he showed he belonged to be there. You, on the other hand, seem to think people are justified in using that one test score to diminish Thomas' results, and then you are claiming I am the one showing bias.
Ever taken a sociology course? Of course we differentiate. We even mate with people similar to us (not just race). And it is also human nature to have an ego and make you think you are better than you probably are. A survival characteristic. And when you have a mechanism that does differentiate, how can it not cause bias?
I don't see the connection between this paragraph and the position that affirmative action stimulates bias. Affirmative action brings together disparate groups, creating similarities, which according to what you just stated would reduce bias.
That is a ridiculous statement. The reason I use the red head example, is to show that the program creates a bias that was not there before, that can be identified by a trait. Racism will exist no matter what.
Yes, that was my point.
But AA is a mechanism that creates a bias, even for those who are not racist.
Except, it does not. Do
you assume every person who gets help from AA is less capable than one who does not? Is that a rational position to take?
Social inequalities are harmful to everyone, it is important to to question the status quo and to determine whether our kind has the behavioral plasticity to learn how to reduce inequality. If you look at human nature historically, discrimination in some form has always been part of the status quo. Differentiating is part of the human condition, but I believe we can be better. Continue to believe your fantasies.
Again, you just stated something I would state, and as if it was in rebuttal to what I am saying. You encompass multitudes.
