|
|
Re: How Bad it Is
Posted:
Jun 3, 2012 3:22 PM
|
|
Read carefully what President Johnson said. The racist interpretation
of what was said by those like Johnson about what affirmative action
is to be - the type of interpretation you buy into - is like a literal
interpretation of a religious or political document like a bible or a
constitution.
This literal, racist interpretation is the second one you gave below,
which is that affirmative action means having to lower the minimum
requirements so that more applicants of a protected class are
"qualified" - because of the racist idea that those of the protected
class are inherently incapable of becoming qualified enough to meet
the higher minimum requirements as they were before the change.
The proper, non-racist interpretation is based on the first one you
gave below, this non-racist interpretation being that enough of the
protected class can meet the minimum requirements to become qualified
so that a continuing pattern of the protected class being
underrepresented raises a red flag that perhaps there is some
discrimination against the protected class causing that continuing
pattern of the protected class being underrepresented.
This proper, non-racist interpretation that necessarily uses
mathematics covers calling into question "minimum requirements" such
that even though in theory the protected class can meet these "minimum
requirements", in practice they do not. An example is all the various
ways that one can come up with to suppress either the registration to
vote of people of lower socioeconomic status or actual turnout to vote
of people of lower socioeconomic status, where people in protected
classes are disproportionately of lower socioeconomic status.
There are many creative ways that racists can discriminate against
people in protected classes, and the effects of these ways are
mathematically measurable. One of these is this example I just gave.
And so what I have been repeatedly saying here is clearly true:
Without the use of some mathematics in the enforcement of
anti-discrimination law - this some use of mathematics being what
affirmative action (interpreted in a proper and non-racist way) is,
the racists win.
I reiterate what I said in this thread
http://mathforum.org/kb/thread.jspa?messageID=7832222�
and I quote:
"You understand that using "the most qualified" is how an anti-black
bigot employer can discriminate without end and never have to pay the
price if there is NO mathematics used in the enforcement of
anti-discrimination laws, right? All that bigot has to do is this: If
"the most qualified" of all those that applied up to a certain time
was black, just let the laws of probability work over time and keep
taking applications until a white person more qualified applies, and
then hire that white person. So if you are charged with enforcing the
law but you are allowed to use NO mathematics in your mix of tools of
enforcement, how are you going successfully enforce the law and hold
that bigot accountable and prevent all other bigots from doing the
same thing?"
And one final point: This claim of yours below that affirmative action
is the cause of the pass rate of AP calculus exams going down, in line
with your past claims that blacks and Hispanics are not capable of
matching white performance (I can quote your past writings that say
this if you wish) and so including more of them just pulls down
whites, is a racist claim. Because consider the facts: Blacks are
actually disproportionately underrepresented in terms of AP program
participation - which means taking AP classes. This is especially true
in AP calculus - it is still the case that the vast majority of AP
calculus classes all over the country are almost all white, and it is
still the case that almost all AP calculus test takers are white. This
drop in the white passing rate has happened because of schools caving
to the greater and greater pressure over the years by more and more
white parents to allow their kids in the AP calculus classes. And so
the claim that "allowing blacks and Hispanics in the room" which has
almost not at all not happened in AP calculus has caused the drop over
many years of the AP calculus exam passing rate for whites is clearly
a racist claim.
But although blacks are disproportionately not in AP programs, the
passing rate is actually going up among blacks and Hispanics all over
the place:
"AP: More Pass and More Fail"
http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2010/02/11/ap
"STEM Initiative in Mass. Boosts AP Passing Rates, Study Finds"
http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/curriculum/2012/03/a_statewide_program_in_massach.html
Quote: "The greatest benefits came for African-American and Hispanic
students in both high-need schools and what it calls "mid-need"
schools, according to the study."
"Indiana scores AP performance gains"
http://www.doe.in.gov/news/indiana-scores-ap-performance-gains
Quote: "African-American, Hispanic/Latino, and low-income students
increased both their participation and passage rates on AP exams."
On Sun, Jun 3, 2012 at 11:46 AM, Robert Hansen <bob@rsccore.com> wrote:
>
> On Jun 2, 2012, at 1:32 PM, Paul Tanner wrote:
>
> On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 at 12:24 PM, Robert Hansen <bob@rsccore.com> wrote:
>
> What you are suggesting is that the minimum standards should be arbitrarily
>
> lowered
>
>
> This is falsity. I did not suggest that.
>
>
> Then there is nothing "affirmative" about what you are suggesting.
> Affirmative action can mean seeking more "qualified" applicants of a
> protected class or changing the standards such that more applicants of a
> protected class are "qualified". Just ensuring that applicants are not
> discriminated against (your statistics) is civil rights. There is nothing
> "affirmative" about civil rights.
>
> I think Lyndon Johnson made a good case for affirmative action when he said
> (excellent speech writing) ...
>
> "Nothing is more freighted with meaning for our own destiny than the
> revolution of the Negro American...In far too many ways American Negroes
> have been another nation: deprived of freedom, crippled by hatred, the doors
> of opportunity closed to hope...But freedom is not enough. You do not wipe
> away the scars of centuries by saying: Now you are free to go where you
> want, and do as you desire, and choose the leaders you please. You do not
> take a person who, for years, has been hobbled by chains and liberate him,
> bring him up to the starting line of a race and then say, 'you are free to
> compete with all the others,' and still justly believe that you have been
> completely fair...This is the next and the more profound stage of the battle
> for civil rights. We seek not just freedom but opportunity. We seek not just
> legal equity but human ability, not just equality as a right and a theory
> but equality as a fact and equality as a result...To this end equal
> opportunity is essential, but not enough, not enough."
>
> And I think affirmative action was just what was needed to break open the
> doors, not just for blacks, but for women and other groups as well. I also
> think society (now) as a whole is of that opinion, that something beyond
> neutral, something affirmative had to be done to get things going. But that
> was 47 years ago. I am sure that "Plessy v Ferguson" looked right to society
> 146 years ago (the supreme court ruled it after all), but by the 50's and
> 60's it looked very wrong. Today we ask ourselves "What the hell were they
> thinking?" Well, today a lot of people are asking that same question about
> affirmative action (the kind that the supreme court is ruling on, not the
> version in your head).
>
> And back to my main point. Affirmative action in education started out
> subtle but (quickly) became overt and to society and the courts it started
> to look very much like discrimination. Colleges simply couldn't justify
> their actions any longer and as the courts ruled in on the matter, the
> colleges started instituting policies that in effect lowered the standards
> across the board, resulting in the wholesale lack of standards we see today.
> Later I will post why so many classes (and schools even) fail the AP exam
> entirely, which was THE question that more or less resulted in me posting to
> this forum. I found the answer.
>
> Bob Hansen
>
|
|
