If Mort Divine ruled the world

[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)

 

[Einherjar86]

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?

I understand that, and admit that it's a problem. But I don't think this criticism warrants ignoring the problem altogether, and I'm too consumed with other things to think of a different solution.

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

da fuq

 

[Serjeant Grumbles]

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

 

[Einherjar86]

I'd like to play a language game,
It's not so hard, you see--
The meaning of a word's the same
As you want it to be!

Alas, but when I use a word
how do I guarantee
that what I said was what was heard
by you--but too, by me!

 

[rms]

da fuq

idk why you keep bringing up wypipo (did i do this right)

 

[HamburgerBoy]

It does, but that's not actually what happens. Those numbers are statistical conversions derived from a broad number of considerations that go into admissions procedures, not actual "bonuses" applied to SAT scores.

http://thecommunicatedstereotype.com/no-minorities-do-not-earn-bonus-points-on-the-sat/

So, Asian Americans don't have 50 points deducted from their SAT scores, or whatever. Rather, the admissions procedures, on average, appear to disadvantage Asian Americans (again, on average--it doesn't affect every Asian American negatively) in a way that can be correlated to roughly -50 points on an SAT exam.

Basically an argument of semantics. The difference between giving someone +200 points on their SAT on some document, and the difference between treating them as if they had received 200 more points than they really did, is meaningless.

Extracurriculars shouldn't have any part in a university admissions process.

Don't agree with this at all tbh. A GPA or test score is a nice indicator of ability, but it isn't much beyond a filter and bragging piece. An 80th percentile GPA/SAT student that maybe neglects certain areas of study but does something amazing in their free time, e.g. perhaps a music genius that composes a concerto over summer break but neglects their history and biology classes, would be more deserving of entry to a great college than one of the 30k valedictorians produced every year.

 

[Einherjar86]

Basically an argument of semantics. The difference between giving someone +200 points on their SAT on some document, and the difference between treating them as if they had received 200 more points than they really did, is meaningless.

Au contraire! It's fascinating to me that you guys see this as meaningless (more or less). And I really do mean fascinating. I'm fascinated.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Au contraire! It's fascinating to me that you guys see this as meaningless (more or less). And I really do mean fascinating. I'm fascinated.

Explain the significance then. For starters, do you accept all of the following?

1. SAT scores are reported one part of a college application
2. Race is reported as another part of a college application
3. Many colleges practice affirmative action (which I'll define here as the intentional selection of under-represented races during an admissions process)
4. SAT scores and a race checkbox provide easy metrics by which to measure an applicant's worthiness for admission
5. SAT scores, being the easiest measure of scholastic performance, are the easiest way to enforce affirmative action

 

[Dak]

Don't agree with this at all tbh. A GPA or test score is a nice indicator of ability, but it isn't much beyond a filter and bragging piece. An 80th percentile GPA/SAT student that maybe neglects certain areas of study but does something amazing in their free time, e.g. perhaps a music genius that composes a concerto over summer break but neglects their history and biology classes, would be more deserving of entry to a great college than one of the 30k valedictorians produced every year.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blo...st-predictor-future-behavior-is-past-behavior

Psychological scientists who study human behavior agree that past behavior is a useful marker for future behavior. But only under certain specific conditions:

1. High-frequency, habitual behaviors are more predictive than infrequent behaviors.
2. Predictions work best over short time intervals.
3. The anticipated situation must be essentially the same as the past situation that activated the behavior.
4. The behavior must not have been extinguished by corrective or negative feedback.
5. The person must remain essentially unchanged.
6. The person must be fairly consistent in his or her behaviors.

The most consistent predictor of academic success in the four years of undergraduate is the academic success during the preceding four years of high school (including SAT scores). If a person can compose a concerto on their own but fares poorly in school, let them pursue success outside of college, where they are better suited.