Zone1 What is race realism?

[Lisa558]

Coyote

Legacy has lower standards as well. So?

So we have three groups:

1) Legacies, who are favored for financial reasons, and where race is not a factor

2) Non-legacies
a) blacks, who are favored for racial reasons
b) whites and Asians, who are discriminated against in order to open up more slots for blacks

Discrimination based on race is against the law, and it will be decided so by the SCOTUS.

 

[Coyote]

Coyote

So we have three groups:

1) Legacies, who are favored for financial reasons, and where race is not a factor

Legacies by far are white.

2) Non-legacies

a) blacks, who are favored for racial reasons
b) whites and Asians, who are discriminated against in order to open up more slots for blacks

Yet Whites and Asians still take many more slots than blacks (out of proportion to their representation in the population).

You left out other groups that get preferential treatment: first generation students. Also gender can play a role in admissions. Just like schools strive try to increase racial and ethnic diversity, they also strive to increase admissions in favor of gender. For example in fields traditionally dominated by men, they will admit more women and in fields traditionally dominated by women, they will admit more men.

Discrimination based on race is against the law, and it will be decided so by the SCOTUS.

So is discrimination based on sex.

So is this the world you want? Where the vast majority of those accepted are White? First generation college students (who, I might add, are also disproportionately Black, Latino, Native American, but also include Appalachians, seldom get an opportunity despite meeting the minimal standards for admission? These groups are far less likely to have access to college prep or advanced placement courses.

Admissions and a college education has NEVER been just about GPA or test scores, nor should it be. It is also about educating people who can give back to their communities by serving them. This is particularly needed in the medical field where there is a critical shortage of medical professionals willing to work in certain communities.

Many schools give special consideration to native American students (a group even more under-represented than Blacks in admissions), but no one gripes about that.

If EQUITY in the admissions process matters, then all forms of preferential treatment that aren’t strictly GPA and test scores should be abolished: gender, Native American, first generation, legacy and athletes because they all are “unfair”. I don’t think it really matters for many, it is only race that matters. No one is calling for other preferences to be abolished.

 

[Riff Raff]

Legacies by far are white.

Yet Whites and Asians still take many more slots than blacks (out of proportion to their representation in the population).

Admissions should never be engineered by racial quotas. Whites and Asians are not admitted by race. Their race is just incidental. They are admitted primarily on merit.

You left out other groups that get preferential treatment: first generation students. Also gender can play a role in admissions. Just like schools strive try to increase racial and ethnic diversity, they also strive to increase admissions in favor of gender. For example in fields traditionally dominated by men, they will admit more women and in fields traditionally dominated by women, they will admit more men.

Social engineering by bias for someone will always result in discrimination against someone else. Ideally, merit is the priority, but certainly not race.

So is this the world you want? Where the vast majority of those accepted are White?

As expected in a majority white nation with admissions primarily based on academic merit. It's fair.

If EQUITY in the admissions process matters, then all forms of preferential treatment that aren’t strictly GPA and test scores should be abolished: gender, Native American, first generation, legacy and athletes because they all are “unfair”. I don’t think it really matters for many, it is only race that matters. No one is calling for other preferences to be abolished.

"Equity" is incompatible with American society. It's a term used by those who divide society into groups they pit against each other. Race groups are a particularly destructive form of disunity.

 

[IM2]

Scientific findings about the genetic reasons for intelligence and crime have been denounced, but never debunked.

The following passage comes from A Troublesome Inheritance: Genes, Race, and Human History, by Nicholas Wade:

------------

Such a link has been asserted by a research team led by Michael Vaughn of Saint Louis University. He and his colleagues looked at the MAO-A promoters in African Americans. The subjects were the same 2,524 American youths in the study by Shih mentioned above. Of the African American men in the sample, 5% carried MAO-A promoters, the condition that Shih had found to be associated with higher levels of delinquency. Members of the two-promoter group were significantly more likely to have been arrested and imprisoned than African Americans who carried three or fur promoters. The same comparison could not be made in white, or Caucasian males, the researchers report, because only 0.1% carry the two-promoter allele. (page 56)

------------

What he is saying is that two alleles of the MAO-A gene contribute to criminal behavior, and that they are much more likely to be found in blacks than in whites. I am confident that more gene alleles promoting crime will be discovered, and that blacks will be much more likely to have them than whites. The discoveries will be made despite sanctions and taboos against looking for them by those who fear the truth.

They have been denounced and debunked. Since race is a construct there are not racial genetic differences.

 

[IM2]

So is this the world you want? Where the vast majority of those accepted are White? First generation college students (who, I might add, are also disproportionately Black, Latino, Native American, but also include Appalachians, seldom get an opportunity despite meeting the minimal standards for admission? These groups are far less likely to have access to college prep or advanced placement courses.

Solid point Coyote. The drastically poor white person gets screwed by the so called racial fairness people.because they won't have access to the resources needed. But this opposition is about one thing and one thing only and we both know what it is.

 

[monkrules]

Admissions should never be engineered by racial quotas. Whites and Asians are not admitted by race. Their race is just incidental. They are admitted primarily on merit.


Social engineering by bias for someone will always result in discrimination against someone else. Ideally, merit is the priority, but certainly not race.


As expected in a majority white nation with admissions primarily based on academic merit. It's fair.


"Equity" is incompatible with American society. It's a term used by those who divide society into groups they pit against each other. Race groups are a particularly destructive form of disunity.

The word "equity" jumped out instantly. Under current "woke" bullshit thinking, it means making sure everyone attains equal results regardless of their efforts, intelligence, drive, determination, or talents.

Equality is what we should strive for. A society in which everyone has the opportunity to WORK, educate themselves, A and strive to create the life they want for themselves. But there are NO guarantees in life.

America has always been focused on "merit." You can set your sights as high as you please but what you attain depends on your efforts. Not on handouts from government, schools, and businesses.

There are always some exceptions. Kids from rich families will always have an easier path. But most wealthy people start at the bottom, and it is MERIT that determines where they end up.

Lowering standards, doing away with entry exams, simply assures that we'll end up with loads of unqualified people in fields across the board, from business to medicine. Would anyone choose to go to a second rate, possibly totally unqualified doctor? That's where the woke ideas about equity will take us.

 

[IM2]

The word "equity" jumped out instantly. Under current "woke" bullshit thinking, it means making sure everyone attains equal results regardless of their efforts, intelligence, drive, determination, or talents.

Equality is what we should strive for. A society in which everyone has the opportunity to WORK, educate themselves, A and strive to create the life they want for themselves. But there are NO guarantees in life.

America has always been focused on "merit." You can set your sights as high as you please but what you attain depends on your efforts. Not on handouts from government, schools, and businesses.

There are always some exceptions. Kids from rich families will always have an easier path. But most wealthy people start at the bottom, and it is MERIT that determines where they end up.

Lowering standards, doing away with entry exams, simply assures that we'll end up with loads of unqualified people in fields across the board, from business to medicine. Would anyone choose to go to a second rate, possibly totally unqualified doctor? That's where the woke ideas about equity will take us.

America has never focused on merit. Documentation shows this. Only one group was accorded "merit." All others were deemed less than and of less merit by physical appearance or from the lack of a male sex organ. Standards were altered or ignored to provide opportunities to that one group. So then when members of that group who have benefitted most start rambling on about how America has focused on merit, all I can think about is this statement:

“We live in a society of an imposed forgetfulness, a society that depends on public amnesia.”

 

[IM2]

"Scientific racism, sometimes termed biological racism, is the pseudoscientific belief that empirical evidence exists to support or justify racism (racial discrimination), racial inferiority, or racial superiority.Historically, scientific racism received credence throughout the scientific community, but it is no longer considered scientific. Dividing humankind into biologically distinct groups is sometimes called racialism, race realism, or race science by its proponents. Modern scientific consensus rejects this view as being irreconcilable with modern genetic research. 

Scientific racism misapplies, misconstrues, or distorts anthropology (notably physical anthropology), anthropometry, craniometry, evolutionary biology, and other disciplines or pseudo-disciplines, in proposing anthropological typologies supporting the classification of human populations into physically discrete human races, some of which might be asserted to be superior or inferior to others. Scientific racism was common during the period from the 1600s to the end of World War II. Since the second half of the 20th century, scientific racism has been criticized as obsolete and discredited, yet has persistently been used to support or validate racist world-views, based upon belief in the existence and significance of racial categories and a hierarchy of superior and inferior races."

Scientific racism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

So teaching what people here construe as CRT is wrong and the theory roundly denigrated, but this long discredited claptrap gets serious discussion as a valid topic here at USMB.

 

[IM2]

Coyote

So we have three groups:

1) Legacies, who are favored for financial reasons, and where race is not a factor

2) Non-legacies
a) blacks, who are favored for racial reasons
b) whites and Asians, who are discriminated against in order to open up more slots for blacks

Discrimination based on race is against the law, and it will be decided so by the SCOTUS.

Most legacy students are white because of past racial discrimination.
Your number 2 is s lie.

Asians get the same race consideration as blacks. Whites are the majority of students in every college that is a HWCU. So whites are not being discriminated against.

The case before the supreme court does not show that Asians were discriminated against to let blacks in. The case shows that it was less qualified white legacy students who are taking seats from more qualified minority students. A real court would reject this case. But the right wing racist Star Chamber we have now will probably continue their judicial activism.

 

[IM2]

What college did you work at Lisa?

 

[Lisa558]

Legacies by far are white.

So what? Race is irrelevant - it’s simply about money.

Yet Whites and Asians still take many more slots than blacks (out of proportion to their representation in the population).

So what? Whites and Asians take more slots than blacks because, as a group, they are the best qualified based On their proven academic success.

You left out other groups that get preferential treatment: first generation students. Also gender can play a role in admissions. Just like schools strive try to increase racial and ethnic diversity, they also strive to increase admissions in favor of gender. For example in fields traditionally dominated by men, they will admit more women and in fields traditionally dominated by women, they will admit more men.

I’m opposed to all favoritism, but it is most pronounced and broad-sweeping among black admits.

So is discrimination based on sex.

So is this the world you want? Where the vast majority of those accepted are White? First generation college students (who, I might add, are also disproportionately Black, Latino, Native American, but also include Appalachians, seldom get an opportunity despite meeting the minimal standards for admission? These groups are far less likely to have access to college prep or advanced placement courses.

Admissions and a college education has NEVER been just about GPA or test scores, nor should it be. It is also about educating people who can give back to their communities by serving them. This is particularly needed in the medical field where there is a critical shortage of medical professionals willing to work in certain communities.

Many schools give special consideration to native American students (a group even more under-represented than Blacks in admissions), but no one gripes about that.

If EQUITY in the admissions process matters, then all forms of preferential treatment that aren’t strictly GPA and test scores should be abolished: gender, Native American, first generation, legacy and athletes because they all are “unfair”. I don’t think it really matters for many, it is only race that matters. No one is calling for other preferences to be abolished.

The only favoritism I would support would be by SES, as I’ve repeatedly said. Kids from poorer families who have done exceptionally well would get an “edge.” This would still capture blacks, since on average they are poorer, but also include Native Americans you bring up, as well of course as poor white kids. The difference is - race would be irrelevant.

When I’ve brought this up, black activists and their white leftist enablers protest. They say it would work to the disadvantage of blacks by giving opportunity to poor whites, and they want the benefit going solely to blacks. Now, isn’t THAT racist?

 

[Lisa558]

What college did you work at Lisa?

You honestly think I’m going to answer that and come close to giving give away my identity? Get real.

 

[Coyote]

Solid point Coyote. The drastically poor white person gets screwed by the so called racial fairness people.because they won't have access to the resources needed. But this opposition is about one thing and one thing only and we both know what it is.

I tend to agree, it is mainly race, otherwise it would extend to all advantaged groups but it seldom does. I know where I work, one of the professions we offer degrees in, is heavily white and male, so for years we have attempted to recruit more women and minorities. The still have to meet the standards for admissions.

 

[Friends]

They have been denounced and debunked. Since race is a construct there are not racial genetic differences.

They have been denounced. They have never been debunked. Where is there evidence of intrinsic racial equality? Race is an issue where the more one ignores science the more enlightened one is said to be.

-------------

"The Inequality Taboo," by Charles Murray, Commentary, September 2005

The Harvard geneticist Richard Lewontin originated the idea of race as a social construct in 1972, arguing that the genetic differences across races were so trivial that no scientist working exclusively with genetic data would sort people into blacks, whites, or Asians. In his words, "racial classification is now seen to be of virtually no genetic or taxonomic significance."

Lewontin's position, which quickly became a tenet of political correctness, carried with it a potential means of being falsified. If he was correct, then a statistical analysis of genetic markers would not produce clusters corresponding to common racial labels. In the last few years, that test has become feasible, and now we know that Lewontin was wrong.

Several analyses have confirmed the genetic reality of group identities going under the label of race or ethnicity. In the most recent, published this year, all but five of the 3,636 subjects fell into the cluster of genetic markers corresponding to their self identified ethnic group. When a statistical procedure, blind to physical characteristics and working exclusively with genetic information, classifies 99.9 percent of the individuals in a large sample in the same way they classify themselves, it is hard to argue that race is imaginary.

http://www.iapsych.com/wj3ewok/LinkedDocuments/Murray2005.pdf

-------------

This is a good experiment because it can be repeated again and again. Putting this in my own words I will say that a person's race can usually be determined by appearance and always by DNA analysis.

Now that there is scientific proof that race is an important biological category It becomes relevant to see how the races differ in genetic inclinations toward high intelligence and inclinations toward crime. I an confident that the genetic evidence will confirm what has always been known about non cosmetic racial differences.

 

[Lisa558]

Most legacy students are white because of past racial discrimination.
Your number 2 is s lie.

Asians get the same race consideration as blacks. Whites are the majority of students in every college that is a HWCU. So whites are not being discriminated against.

The case before the supreme court does not show that Asians were discriminated against to let blacks in. The case shows that it was less qualified white legacy students who are taking seats from more qualified minority students. A real court would reject this case. But the right wing racist Star Chamber we have now will probably continue their judicial activism.

First, Asians do not get the same race qualifications as blacks. Get real. Why do you think Harvard devised that insulting and irrelevant “personality“test? It was a way to score Asians low on subjective measures and justify why such smart, academically gifted kids were rejected. And why do you think TJ High School (prestigious, competitive) eliminated their entrance exam? Because Asians were acing it, and they wanted to reduce the number of Asians.

Second, the case before SCOTUS is employing a strategy. They knew that if they made it Asians rejected in favor of lower-qualified blacks, it would be harder to win. There is such a environment of favoring blacks that it would be a tougher case, and so they deliberately decides to make it against whites. Read some of the writings posted as to why they decided to proceed this way.

The end result will be that race cannot be factored into an admissions decisions. But fear not, family circumstances can still be considered, meaning poorer kids can get an edge. Since blacks are more likely to come from poorer families than whites, they will still get an edge. The difference is: poor whites will get an edge as well.

Finally, since you ask me questions, let me ask you: Why do you think LaShana from the middle-class suburbs should get admitted over Johnny from a run-down apartment in Brooklyn when Jonny’s grades and entrance scores are so much better than hers?

 

[Coyote]

So what? Race is irrelevant - it’s simply about money.

So what? So unfairness only matters when it is race based (in favor of one specific race)?

So what? Whites and Asians take more slots than blacks because, as a group, they are the best qualified based On their proven academic success.

And that is the only determinant in your mind for admission into college? Despite the fact it never has been? Or that it is grossly unfair as well since it favors those who can afford classes and tutors to help them pass SAT’s etc or go to schools that offer advanced placement courses? Your view would create a more elitist monochrome campus. Celebrating a potential “victory” in this case also means many first generation students will remain outside the increasingly elitist institutions. You might want to tell all those parents their wasting money on building college résumés for their kids from kindergarten on up.

I’m opposed to all favoritism, but it is most pronounced and broad-sweeping among black admits.

Oh please. I already pointed out that legacy and doner admits get far more admission slots than blacks, as do athletes.

The only favoritism I would support would be by SES, as I’ve repeatedly said. Kids from poorer families who have done exceptionally well would get an “edge.” This would still capture blacks, since on average they are poorer, but also include Native Americans you bring up, as well of course as poor white kids. The difference is - race would be irrelevant.

Native Americans get the same edge blacks do, but are even less represented per their proportion in the population. So do poor white kids as they are usually first generation.

However, part of the university mission is creating a campus and a culture that represents a diversity of ideas, cultures and backgrounds. It has never been just academics.

When I’ve brought this up, black activists and their white leftist enablers protest.

Why do you label anyone who disagrees with you that why?

They say it would work to the disadvantage of blacks by giving opportunity to poor whites, and they want the benefit going solely to blacks. Now, isn’t THAT racist?

Who has said they want benefits going solely to blacks?
Presumably I am one of those “white leftist enablers” yet I support preferences based on economic status, under represented minorities, first generation, especially those who will go back to serve in their communities (some scholarships require that).

I support campus diversity and since whites and Asians are already admitted far in excess of the population proportions, keeping a few slots for these others is no different legacy admissions.

 

[Coyote]

First, Asians do not get the same race qualifications as blacks. Get real. Why do you think Harvard devised that insulting and irrelevant “personality“test? It was a way to score Asians low on subjective measures and justify why such smart, academically gifted kids were rejected. And why do you think TJ High School (prestigious, competitive) eliminated their entrance exam? Because Asians were acing it, and they wanted to reduce the number of Asians.

Second, the case before SCOTUS is employing a strategy. They knew that if they made it Asians rejected in favor of lower-qualified blacks, it would be harder to win. There is such a environment of favoring blacks that it would be a tougher case, and so they deliberately decides to make it against whites. Read some of the writings posted as to why they decided to proceed this way.

The end result will be that race cannot be factored into an admissions decisions. But fear not, family circumstances can still be considered, meaning poorer kids can get an edge. Since blacks are more likely to come from poorer families than whites, they will still get an edge. The difference is: poor whites will get an edge as well.

Finally, since you ask me questions, let me ask you: Why do you think LaShana from the middle-class suburbs should get admitted over Johnny from a run-down apartment in Brooklyn when Jonny’s grades and entrance scores are so much better than hers?

I agree on the personality test being unfair and subjective, but not that it is designed to exclude Asians, but rather that ended being the outcome.

If the Supreme strikes this down, it will effect ALL non-academic admissions because they are all “unfair”.

 

[Lisa558]

Solid point Coyote. The drastically poor white person gets screwed by the so called racial fairness people.because they won't have access to the resources needed. But this opposition is about one thing and one thing only and we both know what it is.

Did you read what I just wrote?? I said I support advantage given to kids from poorer homes, race irrelevant.

And that also proves that your claim that this is just about race is a lie.

 

[Friends]

They have been denounced and debunked. Since race is a construct there are not racial genetic differences.

The New Yorker, January 27, 2022

The Supreme Court Appears Ready, Finally, to Defeat Affirmative Action​

Opponents of affirmative action in university admissions couldn’t possibly have had better news than the Supreme Court’s announcement, on Monday, that it will hear two cases organized by Edward Blum, the anti-affirmative-action crusader. The first, a lawsuit against Harvard alleging that it discriminates against Asian American applicants, was unsuccessful in federal district court in Boston, and unsuccessful again in the First Circuit Court of Appeals. It’s hard to imagine that the Supreme Court took the case because it wanted to affirm the lower courts’ rulings. The second case, a suit against the University of North Carolina, was similarly unsuccessful in federal district court. The Supreme Court took the highly unusual measure of short-circuiting the next step, an appeal to the Fourth Circuit—instead bringing it directly to Washington and pairing it with the Harvard case.

The message is clear: the Supreme Court wants to consider decisively departing from a long string of decisions that have permitted the use of race as a plus factor in admissions. These have been close decisions, made on narrow grounds, usually with a moderate conservative Justice holding the balance of power. Now there are no moderate conservatives on the Supreme Court. Assuming that President Biden will have succeeded in getting a successor to Justice Stephen Breyer seated before the Court hears the case, we can expect a strongly worded 6–3 decision insisting on “color blindness” in admissions, full stop. That would surely invite further legal challenges to diversity programs in every other area of American life: hiring, contracting, grant-making, and on and on. And if the Biden Administration can’t get a new Justice in place before the November midterm elections, it could be an even more lopsided decision.

The Supreme Court Appears Ready, Finally, to Defeat Affirmative Action

Moderate conservative Justices voted with liberals to protect the program in the past, but there are no such Justices now.

www.newyorker.com

-----------------

 

[Lisa558]

I agree on the personality test being unfair and subjective, but not that it is designed to exclude Asians, but rather that ended being the outcome.

No, it wasn’t - and that is at the crux of the case. They designed the personality test as a way to give more points to blacks and fewer points to whites and Asians. The SCOTUS will rule on whether one can develop admissions tests and criteria designed to meet a pre-determined racial outcome.

You do know, I hope, that the SCOTUS will rule against Harvard. There are only three leftists in the Court, and one of them will recuse herself due to her conflict-of-interest. That means six justices who follow the Constitution, and two who don’t.

If the Supreme strikes this down, it will effect ALL non-academic admissions because they are all “unfair”.

No. The case is about discrimination by race.