3 ms·

> because it does not have an excess number of Asian applicants to discriminate against Wrong, because Asians overindex relative to their proportion of the pop

> 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?

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?