4 ms·

I'm pretty sure I didn't use the phrase affirmative action so I'm rather taken aback that you think I don't know what it means. I'm sure you don't know what κα

by araneae 16y ago

I'm pretty sure I didn't use the phrase affirmative action so I'm rather taken aback that you think I don't know what it means. I'm sure you don't know what καλημέρα means, but I have better chance at being right because it's in Greek. And I wouldn't rub your face in it anyway. But since you brought it up... At Caltech they didn't say they didn't use affirmative action at all. They said they didn't lower the "academic" criteria- i.e. test scores and GPA- for minority students. They do that at some schools. I wouldn't know about MIT.

_pius 16y ago
And I wouldn't rub your face in it anyway. Funny, you certainly had no problem rubbing your offensive, misguided views about minority students in my face. They said they didn't lower the "academic" criteria- i.e. test scores and GPA- for minority students. They do that at some schools. I wouldn't know about MIT. They don't do that at any schools in the United States, actually ... at least not at any in compliance with Federal law.
- araneae 16y ago
  First you say I used the phrase affirmative action when anyone could see that I didn't. And then you say that I have offensive and misguided views about minority students when I have not professed any views about minority students. I don't think I'm being overly inventive when I say you seem rather inventive.
  - _pius 16y ago
    And then you say that I have offensive and misguided views about minority students when I have not professed any views about minority students. Sure you have, scare quotes and all. From your comment: The point was that the stereotype is formed quite strongly because those groups do exist on campus .... If there were no academic differences between the regular student body and minorities or athletes people wouldn't make those "offensive" generalizations.
    - araneae 16y ago
      How is that misguided or offensive? It's simply a fact that if you lower academic standards for athletes, then the stereotype will be that the athletes are of lower academic caliber. Because they are. It was a statement of fact. I suppose the truth can be offensive...
      - _pius 16y ago
        I suppose the truth can be offensive... Except that it's not the truth ... no schools do that for minority students. It's a strawman.
        araneae 16y ago
        It's not a strawman. At UoM, the point system was designed so that being a racial or ethnic minority was worth the same number of points as a full grade point (i.e. a white student with a high school 4.0 was equivalent point-wise to a black student with a high school 3.0.) For athletes, I remember it was about 1/5 of that amount of points, but I could be wrong on that score. Having taught at UoM, I can say that unfortunately this translated to their performance on exams as well...
        _pius 16y ago
        If you taught at U of M, I'd imagine you're at least passingly familiar with Gratz v. Bollinger, in which the Supreme Court explicitly made what you're talking about illegal. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gratz_v._Bollinger http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gratz_v._Bollinger So yes, it's a strawman ... no schools do that anymore. Lots of schools never did it. And the schools that were doing so, were doing so with a fundamental misunderstanding of and in non-compliance with both the spirit and letter of the law.
        araneae 16y ago
        The methodology has changed. Now they use humans instead of a point system. The result is identical. Entering "minorities" and athletes enter with lower GPAs and SATs. It's a fact, not a strawman.
- anamax 16y ago
  > They don't do that at any schools in the United States, actually ... at least not at any in compliance with Federal law. Actually, they do. The Supreme Court decision involving the University of Michigan Law School explicitly allowed that practice. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grutter_v._Bollinger http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grutter_v._Bollinger * The Court's majority ruling, authored by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, held that the United States Constitution "does not prohibit the law school's narrowly tailored use of race in admissions decisions to further a compelling interest in obtaining the educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body."
  - _pius 16y ago
    You're reading the wrong ruling: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gratz_v._Bollinger http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gratz_v._Bollinger
    - anamax 16y ago
      Huh? Gratz didn't overturn Grutter. (They were issued the same day.) Grutter says that some things are permissible while Graz says that some other things aren't.
      - _pius 16y ago
        Gratz didn't overturn Grutter. (They were issued the same day.) Yup ... I was outside the Supreme Court that day, actually. :) Gratz makes clear that point systems are illegal, which was my claim. I never claimed that affirmative action or race considerations are illegal, writ large.
        anamax 16y ago
        > Gratz makes clear that point systems are illegal, which was my claim. The original claim was "They said they didn't lower the "academic" criteria- i.e. test scores and GPA- for minority students." Grutter said that they could use race to decide admit certain folks according to different criteria than they use for other folks.

by araneae 16y ago

_pius 16y ago

And I wouldn't rub your face in it anyway. Funny, you certainly had no problem rubbing your offensive, misguided views about minority students in my face. They said they didn't lower the "academic" criteria- i.e. test scores and GPA- for minority students. They do that at some schools. I wouldn't know about MIT. They don't do that at any schools in the United States, actually ... at least not at any in compliance with Federal law.

araneae 16y ago
First you say I used the phrase affirmative action when anyone could see that I didn't. And then you say that I have offensive and misguided views about minority students when I have not professed any views about minority students. I don't think I'm being overly inventive when I say you seem rather inventive.
- _pius 16y ago
  And then you say that I have offensive and misguided views about minority students when I have not professed any views about minority students. Sure you have, scare quotes and all. From your comment: The point was that the stereotype is formed quite strongly because those groups do exist on campus .... If there were no academic differences between the regular student body and minorities or athletes people wouldn't make those "offensive" generalizations.
  - araneae 16y ago
    How is that misguided or offensive? It's simply a fact that if you lower academic standards for athletes, then the stereotype will be that the athletes are of lower academic caliber. Because they are. It was a statement of fact. I suppose the truth can be offensive...
    - _pius 16y ago
      I suppose the truth can be offensive... Except that it's not the truth ... no schools do that for minority students. It's a strawman.
      - araneae 16y ago
        It's not a strawman. At UoM, the point system was designed so that being a racial or ethnic minority was worth the same number of points as a full grade point (i.e. a white student with a high school 4.0 was equivalent point-wise to a black student with a high school 3.0.) For athletes, I remember it was about 1/5 of that amount of points, but I could be wrong on that score. Having taught at UoM, I can say that unfortunately this translated to their performance on exams as well...
        _pius 16y ago
        If you taught at U of M, I'd imagine you're at least passingly familiar with Gratz v. Bollinger, in which the Supreme Court explicitly made what you're talking about illegal. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gratz_v._Bollinger http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gratz_v._Bollinger So yes, it's a strawman ... no schools do that anymore. Lots of schools never did it. And the schools that were doing so, were doing so with a fundamental misunderstanding of and in non-compliance with both the spirit and letter of the law.
        araneae 16y ago
        The methodology has changed. Now they use humans instead of a point system. The result is identical. Entering "minorities" and athletes enter with lower GPAs and SATs. It's a fact, not a strawman.
anamax 16y ago
> They don't do that at any schools in the United States, actually ... at least not at any in compliance with Federal law. Actually, they do. The Supreme Court decision involving the University of Michigan Law School explicitly allowed that practice. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grutter_v._Bollinger http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grutter_v._Bollinger * The Court's majority ruling, authored by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, held that the United States Constitution "does not prohibit the law school's narrowly tailored use of race in admissions decisions to further a compelling interest in obtaining the educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body."
- _pius 16y ago
  You're reading the wrong ruling: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gratz_v._Bollinger http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gratz_v._Bollinger
  - anamax 16y ago
    Huh? Gratz didn't overturn Grutter. (They were issued the same day.) Grutter says that some things are permissible while Graz says that some other things aren't.
    - _pius 16y ago
      Gratz didn't overturn Grutter. (They were issued the same day.) Yup ... I was outside the Supreme Court that day, actually. :) Gratz makes clear that point systems are illegal, which was my claim. I never claimed that affirmative action or race considerations are illegal, writ large.
      - anamax 16y ago
        > Gratz makes clear that point systems are illegal, which was my claim. The original claim was "They said they didn't lower the "academic" criteria- i.e. test scores and GPA- for minority students." Grutter said that they could use race to decide admit certain folks according to different criteria than they use for other folks.