5 ms·

Whereas here at Indiana Univerity Bloomington , we had Prof Rasmussen say a whole bunch of terrible things. Quote: “The whole idea of affirmative action is tha

Whereas here at Indiana Univerity Bloomington , we had Prof Rasmussen say a whole bunch of terrible things. Quote: “The whole idea of affirmative action is that too few black students wouldn [sic] get in without racial preferences, so we need to lower the standard for them and accept that they will do worse academically,” Quote: “geniuses are overwhelmingly male because they combine outlier high IQ with moderately low Agreeableness and moderately low Conscientiousness.” Quote: “Are Women Destroying Academia? Probably,” And since this teacher is tenured, he pretty much has to kill someone to get him out of that job. But keeping people like this one out of classrooms where they have dictatorial powers over grades is essential for all students to function. After all, he has said distinctly disparaging remarks against women, gays, and black people. Has he discriminated in his classrooms against them? (0) https://www.idsnews.com/article/2019/11/professor-criticizes-ius-reponses-to-tweet https://www.idsnews.com/article/2019/11/professor-criticizes... (1) https://www.indystar.com/story/news/education/2019/11/24/eric-rasmusen-says-iu-cant-fire-him-hes-right-heres-why/4272679002/ https://www.indystar.com/story/news/education/2019/11/24/eri... (2) https://www.chicagotribune.com/midwest/ct-iu-professor-eric-rasmusen-20191122-idgr3m4unrb6fiv3wokqukmddy-story.html https://www.chicagotribune.com/midwest/ct-iu-professor-eric-...

redis_mlc 7y ago
> a whole bunch of terrible things. Actually, those statements appear to be largely true and should be studied more to learn why. The first quote is basically the definition of affirmative action. The second quote is supported by the numbers of Nobel Prize laureates, the question is why most winners are still male. The third quote is supported by the rise of expensive non-teaching administrative overhead at colleges, and can be quantified. The problem with SJWs is that their superficial rhetoric prevents addressing actual issues in America. I'm from Detroit, and what I see (reality) has nothing in common with what SJWs say. Disadvantaged minorities are not helped by rhetoric, they're helped by school nutrition and tutoring programs, and yes, efforts to enroll them in college. > Has he discriminated in his classrooms against them? I don't know, since the onus is on you to prove your accusation.
- PaulDavisThe1st 7y ago
  The first quote is absolutely not the definition of affirmative action. It's the definition of a lie told about affirmative actions by opponents thereof. Affirmative action was (and largely is) defined as: given multiple candidates for a position who are equal when considered in aggregate of all matters that exclude race, and therefore an arbitrary choice is required in order to select one of them, choose one whose presence in the relevant population will bring it closer to broader demographics. It means that when you have a black male and a white woman who are equally qualified for the job, you will inevitably have to use some criteria other than their qualifications in order to pick one of them. AA implies considering the impact on racial demographics as one of the criteria to use given that qualifications cannot be used (because they are equivalent).
  - disagreeabletot 7y ago
    Harvard which has access to a very large pool of candidates so would be in a good position to take the best candidates in each racial pool has admitted in court to having different SAT cutoffs for different races. https://nypost.com/2018/10/17/harvards-gatekeeper-reveals-sat-cutoff-scores-based-on-race/ https://nypost.com/2018/10/17/harvards-gatekeeper-reveals-sa... Let's say we lived in a world where racial spoils were being used as a way to distribute contested goods and services. How could I differentiate between this world and the world of affirmative action? In both places the defenders claim to me all the candidates were otherwise identical in aggregate and race was only used as a tie breaker in order to better represent demographics. I put forward some objective measures that show candidates did not appear to be equal in aggregate and they claim these are not a complete measure and once you include a more holistic evaluation then the non-AA candidates were either equal or less good.
    - joshuamorton 7y ago
      > SAT cutoffs for different races. Correct, and this might be meaningful if there wasn't racial bias encoded in the SAT. Just as a guidinf question here, what does the SAT measure?

redis_mlc 7y ago

> a whole bunch of terrible things. Actually, those statements appear to be largely true and should be studied more to learn why. The first quote is basically the definition of affirmative action. The second quote is supported by the numbers of Nobel Prize laureates, the question is why most winners are still male. The third quote is supported by the rise of expensive non-teaching administrative overhead at colleges, and can be quantified. The problem with SJWs is that their superficial rhetoric prevents addressing actual issues in America. I'm from Detroit, and what I see (reality) has nothing in common with what SJWs say. Disadvantaged minorities are not helped by rhetoric, they're helped by school nutrition and tutoring programs, and yes, efforts to enroll them in college. > Has he discriminated in his classrooms against them? I don't know, since the onus is on you to prove your accusation.

PaulDavisThe1st 7y ago
The first quote is absolutely not the definition of affirmative action. It's the definition of a lie told about affirmative actions by opponents thereof. Affirmative action was (and largely is) defined as: given multiple candidates for a position who are equal when considered in aggregate of all matters that exclude race, and therefore an arbitrary choice is required in order to select one of them, choose one whose presence in the relevant population will bring it closer to broader demographics. It means that when you have a black male and a white woman who are equally qualified for the job, you will inevitably have to use some criteria other than their qualifications in order to pick one of them. AA implies considering the impact on racial demographics as one of the criteria to use given that qualifications cannot be used (because they are equivalent).
- disagreeabletot 7y ago
  Harvard which has access to a very large pool of candidates so would be in a good position to take the best candidates in each racial pool has admitted in court to having different SAT cutoffs for different races. https://nypost.com/2018/10/17/harvards-gatekeeper-reveals-sat-cutoff-scores-based-on-race/ https://nypost.com/2018/10/17/harvards-gatekeeper-reveals-sa... Let's say we lived in a world where racial spoils were being used as a way to distribute contested goods and services. How could I differentiate between this world and the world of affirmative action? In both places the defenders claim to me all the candidates were otherwise identical in aggregate and race was only used as a tie breaker in order to better represent demographics. I put forward some objective measures that show candidates did not appear to be equal in aggregate and they claim these are not a complete measure and once you include a more holistic evaluation then the non-AA candidates were either equal or less good.
  - joshuamorton 7y ago
    > SAT cutoffs for different races. Correct, and this might be meaningful if there wasn't racial bias encoded in the SAT. Just as a guidinf question here, what does the SAT measure?