Posted by bad_luck on 2/12/2019 11:17:00 AM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 2/12/2019 11:14:00 AM (view original):
Once again, i'm going to assume you don't actually have any answers.

That is exactly what I said. I don’t have the answer to this problem.

My apologies. I missed this.

@Dino. I think this is the difference in the ideologies. You group people based on certain identities. I like to look at the individual. Ethnicity should never play a role in decision making. The most deserving should always prevail regardless of identifying factors. This is why identity politics annoys me so much.

i thought that way once but i changed my mind.......i believe in govt intervention in some situations....where it is necessary and just..
i dont consider it politics...to me it is a humanity issue.
calling it identity politics distracts from the human reasons of it.
it has lately been shown to many that the supreme court was very wrong about the voting rights act.....the south is still behind.

i do not group people along identity. i approach issues according to values i believe in......the way you try to define my thinking along political lines sets up the wrong discussion.

I don't think it sets up the wrong discussion. I think it sets up an important discussion. From what i'm seeing, you fight for groups of people, whether that be a certain ethnicity, gender, etc.) Is that not grouping people based on their identity? If I am wrong, I am open to being corrected.

Let me ask you question. It is not a "gotcha". It is a serious question.

Should be the best applicant always be admitted? If not, why?

Also, I would love to hear your theory on why the voting rights act was wrong.

Posted by strikeout26 on 2/12/2019 11:41:00 AM (view original):
I don't think it sets up the wrong discussion. I think it sets up an important discussion. From what i'm seeing, you fight for groups of people, whether that be a certain ethnicity, gender, etc.) Is that not grouping people based on their identity? If I am wrong, I am open to being corrected.

Let me ask you question. It is not a "gotcha". It is a serious question.

Should be the best applicant always be admitted? If not, why?

the very best applicants should always be admitted..after the top tier there are just reasons to use affirmative action to have inclusiveness and repair injuries.
there have been patterns of voter suppression laws and fraud in southern states since it has ended...the south is going back to being the south as much as they can.

Okay, see here is where I have an issue. In an attempt to repair injuries from many years ago, we injure people today. Allowing a kid into school that has a 1200/3.6 over a kid with a 1400/4.0 simply because of race is not a just system and it harms those who have earned it. It doesn't repair past injustices. It only boils animosities. The most deserving should always be accepted over the less deserving.

no..the very very best should alwys get in.....society has a purpose in bettering itself.....you always are going to break a few eggs to make an omlette...the big picture is far more important then a few kids needing to apply to more schools.
affirmative action does repair past injustice...obviously.
it has not been shown to boil animosities except among the hard boiled.
schools also have an interest in promoting diversity...it makes for a more desirable student body.

This explains the crux of our disagreement. You see a better society as a more diverse society. Diversity is important. I will not disagree there, but to me a better society is one that promotes hard work and achievement. I believe that each individual should strive to improve themselves. We should not punish those that produce better results. That makes for a worse society in my opinion. This is what affirmative action programs do. They reward the person who has achieved less simply because of a skin color. It is a very unjust practice in my opinion and detracts from the betterment of the world.

Also, I think my original question was worded confusingly. My intended question was "Should the more deserving of two applicants always be accepted? if not, why?"

By the way, Dino, don't take my comments as ridiculing you for supporting affirmative action. As I have said many times, I believe that your views are through a lens of compassion. We just have a disagreement on what is just and right here.

at one time affirmative action was the only way fo many deserving african americans to get into many colleges...it isnt punishment...
i say worry about the african american population more and not about a few white kids who are still going to go to college.

Posted by strikeout26 on 2/12/2019 12:32:00 PM (view original):
By the way, Dino, don't take my comments as ridiculing you for supporting affirmative action. As I have said many times, I believe that your views are through a lens of compassion. We just have a disagreement on what is just and right here.

i think you have been a gentleman and a good person about it and nothing but.
compassion and justice.

Posted by strikeout26 on 2/12/2019 12:20:00 PM (view original):
This explains the crux of our disagreement. You see a better society as a more diverse society. Diversity is important. I will not disagree there, but to me a better society is one that promotes hard work and achievement. I believe that each individual should strive to improve themselves. We should not punish those that produce better results. That makes for a worse society in my opinion. This is what affirmative action programs do. They reward the person who has achieved less simply because of a skin color. It is a very unjust practice in my opinion and detracts from the betterment of the world.

I think you see the world in a way that is slightly refracted from reality.

We don't live in a perfect meritocracy. That Brady White scored high on the SAT test and carried a 4.2 GPA doesn't necessarily mean he achieved the most. It just means he thrived in the system as it's set up.

If we understand that the system might have its own built in biases, then we understand that the results aren't a perfect reflection of achievement.

The simplest way to look at it, at least to me, is this:

Blacks represent 12% of the population. Because we have such a large sample, in a true color-blind meritocracy, blacks would make up roughly 12% of students at elite schools. But they don't.

Why that is is important and still somewhat unknown. But unless there is something about blacks that makes them inherently less capable than whites, there's some other factor in play.