4 ms·

> I merely said the percentage of whites is the same between schools which do and do not use affirmative action, in both schools which are prestigious and those

> I merely said the percentage of whites is the same between schools which do and do not use affirmative action, in both schools which are prestigious and those which are not. But this isn't true. Berkley is 25% white, Harvard is ~40% white, Tulane is 61% white. If what you said were true, all three would have similar white populations. Let me try and clarify this for you one last time. Not all schools get them same population of applicants, so you would not expect all schools to get the same population of attendees. National target schools, and schools in areas with large Asian populations, may have relatively large Asian populations. But other schools, including relatively selective ones, in areas with smaller Asian populations, will not have many Asian applicants. If such a school wants to engage in Affirmative action programs, it cannot do so by discriminating against Asian applicants, because it does not have an excess number of Asian applicants to discriminate against. You have claimed previously that such a thing cannot happen, and that even if it did that it "doesn't matter at all". What I have shown are highly selective schools with applicant pools that have a relatively small number of Asians, and I previously demonstrated that such schools engage in affirmative action programs. This demonstrates that such schools disfavor white students when favoring minority applicants. > Except the evidence is overwhelming that Asians have to have higher SAT scores, stronger extracurriculars, and stronger profiles to be admitted compared to both whites and other minorities. Right, now apply the exact same argument to white applicants in comparison to other minorities in regard to the schools I mentioned like Tulane, Emory, Chapel Hill, etc. You would expect white students to be overrepresented compared to the baseline population (much as Asian students are in schools that they target), but they aren't, while Hispanic and Black students often are overrepresented. So can you explain to me how precisely the same behavior is harmful racism against Asians when done by Berkeley or Harvard, but somehow doesn't happen, or if it does it "doesn't matter" when it's at Tulane or Emory and impacts white students? I'll also mention that twice now you've accused me of white supremacy based solely on your assumption that I am white, and your further belief that a white person, I cannot be harmed by affirmative action policies. In reality, it appears that your actual belief is that affirmative action that harms white people "doesn't matter", and that because it "doesn't matter" a White person cannot be harmed by it. > Your claim that all races must have equal representation to their proportion of the population ignores the impact of culture on outcomes. I, uhh, I didn't make this claim. > No, I claimed affirmative action was illegal under the Civil Rights Act and racist. So when you said "Affirmative action is bad for society.", you didn't mean that ending affirmative action would be good for society? What's the option I'm missing? > And you dismiss minorities' opinions as invalid and dismiss the fact that a majority of minorities say they don't want race to be taken into account in the workplace (see the Vox link in my previous comment). I remain confused, I side with the majority on responses to the vox link. While I didn't explicitly state it here[0], my response there should make it clear that I also don't believe that companies should consider race when making hiring or promotion decisions. Like, I'm already on record saying the opposite of wat you think I'm saying. I've never said anything that implies otherwise, so I don't know why you're claiming that I disagree with minorities about this thing when I don't. Like, it's also not a good idea to treat minorities as a monolith. While you clearly oppose Affirmative Action, 80% of Hispanic adults and 70% of Black adults do support them[1], so claiming that I am ignoring minorities simply because I disagree with you is to disregard, well, quite literally the majority of nonwhite Americans, who also disagree with you. And that's fine! Minorities aren't monolithic and you're perfectly free to disagree with anyone you like, but please refrain from accusing me of white supremacy simply because I disagree with you, it's rude. [0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32186694 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32186694 [1]: https://news.gallup.com/poll/352832/americans-confidence-racial-fairness-waning.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/352832/americans-confidence-rac...

ceeplusplus 4y ago
> because it does not have an excess number of Asian applicants to discriminate against Wrong, because Asians overindex relative to their proportion of the population in higher education institutions which don't use affirmative action. That's a statistical fact. Even if you have only 5% Asian applicants, Asians could still represent a plurality of the qualified applicant pool that should be admitted. > This demonstrates that such schools disfavor white students when favoring minority applicants You cannot show that whites are disfavored when the percentage of whites at these schools is equal to or higher than schools which do not use affirmative action. That is basic science 101: you cannot show an effect exists when your stats show the opposite. > while Hispanic and Black students often are overrepresented Easily explained by the fact that those schools use affirmative action. Show me a school that doesn't use it with blacks overrepresented. > done by Berkeley Berkeley is banned from using affirmative action or considering race in admissions in any way. Please get your facts straight instead of lying. > at Tulane or Emory and impacts white students Your own stats show it doesn't impact white students at those schools. > [1] California, the most liberal state in the nation, rejected affirmative action by a 15 point margin at the ballot box. I have to question the legitimacy of your polling data here if it claims 62% support AA. > please refrain from accusing me of white supremacy simply because I disagree with you I accuse you of white supremacy because you are a white supremacist. You enforce views which discriminate against Asians and which do not discriminate against whites, and you do so with a tone of moral superiority. That is white supremacy.
- joshuamorton 4y ago
  > Wrong, because Asians overindex relative to their proportion of the population in higher education institutions which don't use affirmative action. Asian applicants also overindex relative to their portion of the population at higher institutions that do use affirmative action. This doesn't tell you anything! And Asian applicants overindex more significantly at Chapel Hill than at Berkeley, relative to the state and local population, which is important, because both schools are mandated to accept around 80-90% in state students. (And of course it's actually not clear that Asians overindex at UC Berkeley. The bay area is ~30% Asian, which is similar to Berkeley's demographics) > You cannot show that whites are disfavored when the percentage of whites at these schools is equal to or higher than schools which do not use affirmative action. That is basic science 101: you cannot show an effect exists when your stats show the opposite. Yes, you can, because as you yourself just said, the important thing is the acceptances relative to the candidate pool, and the candidate pool at these schools doesn't have a large number of Asians. You're (wrongly) relying on the base rate fallacy, which leads to an unsound and invalid conclusion. And this makes sense, in areas where Asian students make up the plurality of qualified applicants, the schools will discriminate against them. But in areas where white students make up not just the plurality, but the majority of qualified applicants, schools will instead discriminate against white students. In all cases the goal is to reduce the most populous group and increase the least populous ones. > Your own stats show it doesn't impact white students at those schools. Only if you continue to commit the base rate fallacy. > Berkeley is banned from using affirmative action or considering race in admissions in any way. Please get your facts straight instead of lying. Yes, now, but you keep complaining about how it used to! > California, the most liberal state in the nation, rejected affirmative action by a 15 point margin at the ballot box. I have to question the legitimacy of your polling data here if it claims 62% support AA. Compare to recent measures in Colorado and Washington, which were basically 50/50. Politics is more complicated > You enforce views which discriminate against Asians and which do not discriminate against whites Again, this is simply untrue. White students are affected by such policies. As I've now demonstrated three or four times. > and you do so with a tone of moral superiority. Moral superiority meaning, what, exactly? That I disagree with you about a particular ethical question?

ceeplusplus 4y ago

> because it does not have an excess number of Asian applicants to discriminate against Wrong, because Asians overindex relative to their proportion of the population in higher education institutions which don't use affirmative action. That's a statistical fact. Even if you have only 5% Asian applicants, Asians could still represent a plurality of the qualified applicant pool that should be admitted. > This demonstrates that such schools disfavor white students when favoring minority applicants You cannot show that whites are disfavored when the percentage of whites at these schools is equal to or higher than schools which do not use affirmative action. That is basic science 101: you cannot show an effect exists when your stats show the opposite. > while Hispanic and Black students often are overrepresented Easily explained by the fact that those schools use affirmative action. Show me a school that doesn't use it with blacks overrepresented. > done by Berkeley Berkeley is banned from using affirmative action or considering race in admissions in any way. Please get your facts straight instead of lying. > at Tulane or Emory and impacts white students Your own stats show it doesn't impact white students at those schools. > [1] California, the most liberal state in the nation, rejected affirmative action by a 15 point margin at the ballot box. I have to question the legitimacy of your polling data here if it claims 62% support AA. > please refrain from accusing me of white supremacy simply because I disagree with you I accuse you of white supremacy because you are a white supremacist. You enforce views which discriminate against Asians and which do not discriminate against whites, and you do so with a tone of moral superiority. That is white supremacy.

joshuamorton 4y ago
> Wrong, because Asians overindex relative to their proportion of the population in higher education institutions which don't use affirmative action. Asian applicants also overindex relative to their portion of the population at higher institutions that do use affirmative action. This doesn't tell you anything! And Asian applicants overindex more significantly at Chapel Hill than at Berkeley, relative to the state and local population, which is important, because both schools are mandated to accept around 80-90% in state students. (And of course it's actually not clear that Asians overindex at UC Berkeley. The bay area is ~30% Asian, which is similar to Berkeley's demographics) > You cannot show that whites are disfavored when the percentage of whites at these schools is equal to or higher than schools which do not use affirmative action. That is basic science 101: you cannot show an effect exists when your stats show the opposite. Yes, you can, because as you yourself just said, the important thing is the acceptances relative to the candidate pool, and the candidate pool at these schools doesn't have a large number of Asians. You're (wrongly) relying on the base rate fallacy, which leads to an unsound and invalid conclusion. And this makes sense, in areas where Asian students make up the plurality of qualified applicants, the schools will discriminate against them. But in areas where white students make up not just the plurality, but the majority of qualified applicants, schools will instead discriminate against white students. In all cases the goal is to reduce the most populous group and increase the least populous ones. > Your own stats show it doesn't impact white students at those schools. Only if you continue to commit the base rate fallacy. > Berkeley is banned from using affirmative action or considering race in admissions in any way. Please get your facts straight instead of lying. Yes, now, but you keep complaining about how it used to! > California, the most liberal state in the nation, rejected affirmative action by a 15 point margin at the ballot box. I have to question the legitimacy of your polling data here if it claims 62% support AA. Compare to recent measures in Colorado and Washington, which were basically 50/50. Politics is more complicated > You enforce views which discriminate against Asians and which do not discriminate against whites Again, this is simply untrue. White students are affected by such policies. As I've now demonstrated three or four times. > and you do so with a tone of moral superiority. Moral superiority meaning, what, exactly? That I disagree with you about a particular ethical question?