If Mort Divine ruled the world

[Dak]

I'd expect you of all people to acknowledge that intent cannot be proven or effectively demonstrated one way or another, based on the data provided by the study.

I'm referring to Affirmative Action, or policies which may be referred to as such even if not specifically. For example:

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...affirmative-action-college-admissions-n582981

A Texas law guarantees admission to the university for students in roughly the top ten percent of the graduating class of any Texas high school. To fill the remaining slots, about one fourth of each entering class, the school considers several other factors, including an applicant's race.

It's only a fourth, but it's still an example of intentional racism, and Clarence Thomas agrees:

Justice Clarence Thomas, in joining the dissent, said the decision "is irreconcilable with strict scrutiny, rests on pernicious assumptions about race

 

[Einherjar86]

But the school said The Top Ten percent plan can go only so far, because the Texas public school system remains largely segregated. It sought the flexibility to admit minority students who, though they were not in the top ten percent of their classes, have valuable experiences, such as an African-American student who was a student body president in a mostly white school.

Race is only one of several other factors. This is far from intentional racism, as the degree to which race comes into play varies, is buried or entangled with other considerations, and cannot be isolated as the sole point of determination. I know it's easy to claim intention in situations like this, but the intent is distributed among multiple people and throughout various rounds of automated and institutional filtering. If this constitutes intention, then it's not intention in the way we typically mean it. In fact, it's almost the opposite--it's systemic, not intentional.

There's an argument to be made concerning the troubling attention to race, but I'm still not sure it amounts to racism. This word has a history and cultural context, and unfortunately we can't just bandy it about as though it was birthed from a vacuum.

 

[CiG]

Given that, why are voter I.D. laws called racist and is it justified to call it so?

 

[rms]

Given that, why are voter I.D. laws called racist and is it justified to call it so?

no one talks about voter ID laws after studies showed that asians and native americans were the most effected btw

 

[rms]

it's systemic, not intentional.

don't get how the two are separated let alone always separate

There's an argument to be made concerning the troubling attention to race, but I'm still not sure it amounts to racism. This word has a history and cultural context, and unfortunately we can't just bandy it about as though it was birthed from a vacuum.

k. what's the word now since racism has at least 3 definitions now, that are all used today interchangeably.

 

[CiG]

no one talks about voter ID laws after studies showed that asians and native americans were the most effected btw

Oh interesting!

 

[Einherjar86]

Intention, or intent, is an individualistic premise. It refers to a continuity between action and psychic content. When we're dealing with large numbers of people, systemic or institutional organizations, it becomes logically tenuous (I'd say impossible) to make that kind of intentional claim. Hypothetically speaking, even if we said that a large group of people shared a universal intention, we would be applying the word "intention" to a complex body, not to an individual psyche. As soon as you begin moving away from an individual, intention becomes increasingly suspect.

As far as racism goes, I have a strict definition that derives from the historical and cultural effects of racial disparity. I don't think bigotry against whites constitutes racism, but that doesn't mean I don't see it as a problem. Additionally, I don't think the West is currently suffering intensely from racism against white people, although I think there are a LOT of white people who like to claim that (including outlets like Breitbart and Infowars, which generate a ton of followers). Racism has a history and a context. Adhering to this definition doesn't put whites in danger of falling victim to "reverse racism" or some other contemporary rhetorical phenomenon. Being as simple and reductive as possible, racism means long-term historical effects of social and governmental organization on non-European peoples.

This is absolutely a problematic definition, but I'm trying to be concise.

no one talks about voter ID laws after studies showed that asians and native americans were the most effected btw

Oh interesting!

That's not correct as far as I know. Hispanics are affected the most.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...s-we-did-the-research/?utm_term=.d65a7bed2e49

http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/688343

 

[CiG]

The whole power + prejudice = racism thing?

Seems very convenient to me, I just prefer the universally agreed upon definition.

 

[Einherjar86]

Except it's not universally agreed-upon. It's just a popular misapplication of the word.

But then, that's how language evolves. So maybe a couple hundred years from now racism can mean bigotry against any people because of ethnic background or skin color. I just don't prefer to use it that way, and I think it distracts from the conversation.

 

[CiG]

Couple hundred years from now we'll probably all be the same colour.

Except it's not universally agreed-upon.

Fine, near-universally agreed upon. You're in the minority.

 

[rms]

That's not correct as far as I know. Hispanics are affected the most.

Asians win 3 out of 4 there so I'll take that as a W. I'm on my phone so I'll reply to the rest later

 

[Einherjar86]

I don't understand what that means, but okay.

 

[rms]

I don't understand what that means, but okay.

 

[rms]

Intention, or intent, is an individualistic premise. It refers to a continuity between action and psychic content. When we're dealing with large numbers of people, systemic or institutional organizations, it becomes logically tenuous (I'd say impossible) to make that kind of intentional claim. Hypothetically speaking, even if we said that a large group of people shared a universal intention, we would be applying the word "intention" to a complex body, not to an individual psyche. As soon as you begin moving away from an individual, intention becomes increasingly suspect.

I have no problem saying that the board of admissions at X college (princeton in this case) has the intention of discriminating based on race. Does that mean everyone that makes these decisions/voices input has prejudiced intent? Not necessarily, but I don't think that matters in this case. As the sample size appears to be large enough and the gap (200 points likely on a 3-4 thousand point 'spectrum') is also large enough.

To me, a fascinating angle is juxtaposing this to the housing discrimination on the private side. Most people, I would think, would agree the intent is racially based discrimination. I have a problem with it being called systemic, but not that they are in fact discriminating/taking advantage of racial problems.

Being as simple and reductive as possible, racism means long-term historical effects of social and governmental organization on non-European peoples.

k, then Princeton is being racist. Unless we need to have centuries to quantify 'long.' If so, then we can call it short term racism.

 

[Einherjar86]

When we compare overall turnout in states with strict ID laws to turnout in states without these laws, we find no significant difference. That pattern matches with most existing studies. But when we dig deeper and look specifically at racial and ethnic minority turnout, we see a significant drop in minority participation when and where these laws are implemented.

Hispanics are affected the most: Turnout is 7.1 percentage points lower in general elections and 5.3 points lower in primaries in strict ID states than it is in other states. Strict ID laws mean lower African American, Asian American and multiracial American turnout as well. White turnout is largely unaffected.

You said that Asian Americans were the most affected. Seeing as the article states something different, "I'll take that as a W."

I have no problem saying that the board of admissions at X college (princeton in this case) has the intention of discriminating based on race. Does that mean everyone that makes these decisions/voices input has prejudiced intent? Not necessarily, but I don't think that matters in this case. As the sample size appears to be large enough and the gap (200 points likely on a 3-4 thousand point 'spectrum') is also large enough.

To me, a fascinating angle is juxtaposing this to the housing discrimination on the private side. Most people, I would think, would agree the intent is racially based discrimination. I have a problem with it being called systemic, but not that they are in fact discriminating/taking advantage of racial problems.

k, then Princeton is being racist. Unless we need to have centuries to quantify 'long.' If so, then we can call it short term racism.

I don't see re-enfranchisement as racist, since overall white enrollment is not being grossly impeded. White students being denied a place at Princeton, or any other college, are still finding placement at alternative choices. That's less common for minority applicants.

 

[Dak]

Being as simple and reductive as possible, racism means long-term historical effects of social and governmental organization on non-European peoples.

So then there can be no individual racism?

I understand arguing the lack of intent when we move into larger groups of people, but I don't think that holds when you have levels of hierarchy making aims, determinations, and approvals. When the masses by more Coke than Pepsi, we can't talk about intent on the broad scale. When a university institutes special admissions processes which take the check in the race box into account, and the process leads to the (or the approximate) desired shift in outcomes, we cannot refer to this as accidental or incidental - intentional makes much more sense.

 

[rms]

You said that Asian Americans were the most affected. Seeing as the article states something different, "I'll take that as a W."

I read that line and I don't know how they reached that conclusion with the graph available

 

[Einherjar86]

So then there can be no individual racism?

As I've already said, there can be individual bigotry or prejudice. I define racism differently.

I understand arguing the lack of intent when we move into larger groups of people, but I don't think that holds when you have levels of hierarchy making aims, determinations, and approvals. When the masses by more Coke than Pepsi, we can't talk about intent on the broad scale. When a university institutes special admissions processes which take the check in the race box into account, and the process leads to the (or the approximate) desired shift in outcomes, we cannot refer to this as accidental or incidental - intentional makes much more sense.

I wouldn't refer to it as accidental, but I wouldn't call it intentional either. It's something more like conditioned or determined. It's also important to keep in mind that when I call these admissions procedures systemic, I'm associating their existence with racial disparities that preceded them. It's all part of a set of systemic conditions.

I read that line and I don't know how they reached that conclusion with the graph available

It has to do with the difference in turnout between general elections vs. primaries.

 

[Dak]

Edit: I understand the reasoning for giving extra attention to persons from marginalized groups, but I don't think the answer lies in giving passes on subpar performances. People generally only give as much as they have to to get what they want. If you know you can get something with less effort because of something outside of your control, why put in the effort?

http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/07/24/targeting-meritocracy/

Related to systemic issues and misconceptions about meritocracy. Excellent blog post.

 

[rms]

since overall white enrollment is not being grossly impeded.

the non Euro bold was highlighted for asians, as they are victims of racism under your definition (time being fuzzy)