<h2>epiphany: From a disciplined analytical, rhetorical, debating viewpoint, he is not “winning.” The erroneous manipulation of quotes and the shifts in logical parameters reduce the objective value of any perceived subjective “victories”</h2>
<p>He may be working off different axioms, but his logic has been sound. For instance, Drosselmeier has elucidated (quite eloquently I think) that self-defeatist attitudes by URMs were caused by previous oppression and that URMs may be held back by it even if they don’t experience racism themselves. It’s pretty clear that fabrizio feels that affirmative action should only guard against active racism against individuals, not the cultural ripples from oppression generations ago. </p>
<p>Also, you can keep harping on the fact he quoting MLK color-blind dream speech, but fab has repeatedly explained that he diverges from MLK in terms of the implementation of that dream.</p>
<p>Repetition and logrolling are not the same as quality. If the standard is which postings are saying things worth reading, I have Drosselmeier ahead by miles.</p>
<p>"He may be working off different axioms, but his logic has been sound. "</p>
<p>Um, no. Wrongly applied axioms. Sigh. Wish applied logic of the verbal variety were taught & tested consistently in high school + college. Definitely not true, as evident on CC.</p>
<p>MLK’s not my thing, collegealum. Not even close. That’s fabrizio’s tired song. (Known as “harping.”)</p>
<p>Thanks, Bay, but I’m not in a contest for a prize, just for clarity, accuracy, rather than repeated misrepresentation of just how supposedly overarching AA is. (Not.)</p>
<p>Refering back to posts 376, 377, 379 etc. I am reminded of Drosselmeier’s point at the beginning of this thread “Denial is not just a river in Africa.”</p>
<p>In terms of responding to arguments with logic, reason and evidence both Fabrizio and Drosselmeier outclass a number of other prominent participants on this thread. I named names at first and decided I was being mean so I backed off.</p>
His comments do not matter unless they are approved law. In this case, they are not, and that means they are nothing to which anyone might hold confidently.</p>
<p>
Merely having a single jurist speculate about a potential program, with no structure or description of how that program would work, whether it would help blacks, and whether it could withstand a legal assault, is obviously nothing in which to have faith.</p>
<p>
It should be quite clear to you. I simply do not trust people like Connerly, and I certainly do not trust those who back him. As you’ve demonstrated here, the terms “Affirmative Action” as held by Affirmative Action opponents can literally be twisted into meaning programs that are NOT designed to help blacks, women, and other minorities. My idea of “preferential treatment”, where admissions officers are able to have complete information about what makes their candidates who they are, including race, but where no particular race is preferred above others, is “preferential treatment” to you. I do not trust the integrity of AA opponents. I do not trust the integrity of those who claim a wish to help blacks, but who wish to destroy programs that help blacks.</p>
<p>
Complete nonsense. If the term is defined as you define it, then banning preferential treatment is a thing that is ridiculous. If it is defined as I define it, then I am very eager to ban it. You only see a paradox because you wish to see one.</p>
<p>
And that is precisely what would happen across the entire nation were AA opponents to get their way. Blacks already lack traction in America, and as they are pushed into the educational ghetto by policies hostile to them, the same thing would happen to colleges that now has happened to public schools. The best and most resources would flow generally to whites, and blacks would starve.</p>
<p>
Thomas is just one jurist who himself likely benefited from Affirmative Action, especially since the man was not exactly a stellar scholar at any time. There is just nothing significant here, and Thomas is quite wrong about racial imbalance when the best resources flow away from one school so swiftly that only those who lack cultural traction attend them. </p>
<p>
So are Italians, and Greeks, and Croats, and Serbs. They are all minorities, and here again is yet another demonstration of how AA opponents twist meaning to avoid the truth. Blacks are among the few groups who originally established the country. They scarcely exist at Berkeley where previously they were significantly represented.</p>
<p>
It is no more rude than your implication that the blacks who were formerly at Berkeley were not talented.</p>
<p>
I have visited each of these schools myself, talked to the black students myself. There is more development of black thought happening at these schools than at Berkeley, more transmission and development of the meaning of being American and black at these places than there. We need places like them because it is here that the rest of us learn how to move beyond the past. It just ain’t happening at Berkeley and yet it is a critical aspect of American culture.</p>
<p>
Great, then take these and enjoy. Affirmative Action doesn’t remove these from you. They were never denied you or your ancestors so that you are now attached to a lack of these rights. All of them were denied my ancestors. I wish to have this fixed, and think AA can help.</p>
<p>
Which is one reason why a strict quantitative concept of merit ought not be used. It overlooks other forms of merit that are just as important in revealing potential. Should we move to a strict system, where the truth about people will be lost, blacks are going to be pushed around and out just as they are now being pushed out in California.</p>
<p>
If it purposefully excludes something so important as an applicant’s race, it is not holistic. It is just intentionally false – deliberately hiding what affects everything about the applicant. California does not have a holistic system. It has a false system, and Berkeley demonstrates that.</p>
<p>Problem #2[of the Chinese higher education system] Distorted concept of result from scientific researching and distorted concept of talent person. In China, most higher education institutions must undertake some scientific researching programs. However, for the scientific researching in Chinese higher education system, it is difficulty to combine scientific researching results with social practice especially in economics and accounting. Under this scientific researching system, the most scientific researching result that can be easily recognized by various officials is only the published paper. A person who has the ability to do something practically can not be regarded as a talented person. While a person who has published papers can be easily regarded as talented, while the published paper is only the symbol of talent capacity. As a result, so many papers are in a bid for publication, some people pay money for publication, but few ideas can be introduce into practice, especially in economics and accounting. In Chinese higher education, so many teachers scramble for engages in a so-called scientific researching project, by which they can acquire more money from the government to be profuse in their living affairs and then present a non-pragmatic paper perfunctorily to the superiors after accomplishing such scientific researching. Under this system, there are many so-called scientific researchers undertaking such so-called scientific research which are divorced from reality and are plagiarized blindly, As Chinese saying goes “all scholars are in one family, you plagiarize from me , and I plagiarize from him her.” In most case, there are many person who can gain an award in scientific researching but few people can solve the practice problem, I believe that the published papers. in most cases, only indicate putting forward the author’s opinions or ideas, which means the beginning of the so-called scientific research, not the result of it.
<a href=“http://www.mcli.dist.maricopa.edu/LF/Fall98/forum4.html[/url]”>http://www.mcli.dist.maricopa.edu/LF/Fall98/forum4.html</a></p>
<p>You ought not be offended. I am telling you what I know of the Chinese system from Chinese people close to me who live in mainland China right now. They are groaning under this wretched system, under the total distortions of what comprises merit. It is clear to me you are a victim of this sort of thinking, just as they are. We ought not yield to this.</p>
<p>I am not here claiming your father’s papers are worthless. I am saying that coming out of this system, they are useless here as proof of the creativity of the system. Of course publishing academic papers in a journal is not necessarily a real measure of creativity anyway, and certainly no measure of how effectively a person can change the world. But still…</p>
<p>If you wish to see creativity and power, take a look at the thugs down in the hood-- those guys who, though having not a single degree from “The People’s Republic” and though having published nothing at all, have released a force in music that flowed across the earth like a raging fire, flooding all continents, including Asia, and has now come back again. Now that is serious creativity and power. It is genuine stuff, and it does not exist in the Chinese system because the system completely overlooks it – the whole society overlooks it. Surely, out of a billion students, a few in any numbers-driven system will publish papers, and even do good things. But the system does not generally produce as much creative power as the American system. It is a cultural defect that affects everything, especially education.</p>
<p>Hey, I am not being racist here. It has occurred to me that in saying these things, people are thinking I attack the Chinese race. Well, come on now. It just never even crossed my mind to think there is something wrong with the people themselves. Everyone knows the Chinese are brilliant. But their system is crushing the people, turning them into hacks who cannot call on their own powers. There is no racism here. Shoot. I have said here many times that black culture, my own culture, suffers a vaguely similar defect.</p>
<p>China is overlooking vast amounts of human potential in its people due to its stultifying system. The same would happen here in America, gradually, and generally, should we employ anything like the false systems you advocate. We need to be free to see people exactly as they are, avoiding the distortions of talent that AA opponents have obviously fallen into, and make judgments based on the total, holistic view of what we see in people. We should hide little or nothing.</p>
<p>
You said “Instead of focusing on increasing the number of black graduates from Harvard, we should focus on increasing the overall number of black graduates.” This is a variation of the either/or fallacy, a claim that we ought to forsake one option for another without proving why we should not do both. There is no strawman here.</p>
<p>
So much for my alleged strawman. As you demonstrate here, that guy is as solid as a rock.</p>
<p>
Because I do not trust Connerly or anyone who supports him. They have demonstrated no desire to help blacks. They have demonstrated every desire to destroy programs that help blacks while failing to work equally hard to fashion programs that help. Such people, as you have shown, will change meaning on a dime, simply to get their way.</p>
<h2>Um, no. Wrongly applied axioms. Sigh. Wish applied logic of the verbal variety were taught & tested consistently in high school + college. Definitely not true, as evident on CC.</h2>
<p>I would argue that the required english recommendation is an indication of verbal logic.</p>
<p>A commercial distribution system has something to do with this. The music does not spread worldwide only through bootleg tapes or public-domain internet. Hollywood action movies have also conquered the globe, despite being as formulaic as any Chinese propaganda epic, though admittedly with higher production values.</p>
Two things: 1. Those distribution channels are open to anything the market will bear. My fascination in this case is with the fact that this music should, of all things, significantly command those channels. 2. Uh… <strong><em>ahem</em></strong> I need to be clear that my fascination is limited ONLY to #1 above. I am on record as generally rejecting this music, so-called.</p>
<p>Amazing how self-deception, spurious argumentation and intellectual dishonesty among some posters passes for “logic.” I’ve enjoyed Drosselmeier’s further illumination, also AdOfficer’s FACTUAL contributions which are rarely acknowledged as authentic. Always appreciate sybbie’s references as well. It was I who requested of AdOfficer that he/she come onto the thread & provide some factual background on a matter that had been troubling lkf, and which at least related to & provided parameters for <em>contextual</em> discussion. </p>
<p>But I see people would rather engage in partisan wrangling not about the OP’s article, although several times he has tried to return the tone to that. </p>
<p>I guess what’s important to some people – as to some military generals & nation states – is merely to declare victory. Works in geopolitics (sort of), less so in conversation: which is the crux of it. Over the last few years on CC, most people claiming to want to engage in dialogue about AA, do not genuinely want to do so. They assume they’ll win on “the facts,” but when the revealed facts don’t support their position, they merely declare victory.</p>
Also don’t confuse verbosity with “winning” My eyes kind of glaze over at 2000+ word posts. I get the feeling that some folks here attempt to “win” by exhausting the opponents!</p>
<p>I thank collegealum314 for his fair assessment.</p>
<p>I indeed believe that affirmative action should only guard against active racism against individuals, not the cultural ripples from oppression generations ago.</p>
<p>What constitutes active racism? I was too young when the Texaco discrimination case happened, but the racial slurs on the audiotape count as active racism to me. It is very difficult to change the behavior of those who use slurs to deride certain Americans, but its not as difficult to prevent them from using those words to describe the candidates when evaluating their applications.</p>
<p>How can a person mock an applicants race if he doesnt know it? He cant.</p>
<p>Some argue that even if the race isnt explicitly seen, in the case of undergraduate admissions, it can be deduced from the extracurricular activity list. For example, if a student participates in the Chinese American Student Association, its pretty likely that hes Chinese. Yet, these people forget the most fundamental principle of economics everyone responds to incentives. If students know that their race wont be seen but that it could be guessed from their activities, they just might choose to broaden them. Is the student in the CASA and the Latino Club Chinese, Latino, both, or neither? I think itd be pretty difficult to determine. Moreover, broadening activities is a great way for students to meet other students from different ethnicities. You get real diversity simply from abolishing racial preferences, which a lot of these people seem to believe dont exist anyway. I really dont get why theyre so opposed to banning something thats nonexistent in the first place. Its not real, so banning it wouldnt harm anyone. Unless, of course, it actually exists.</p>
<p>Some also argue that names give the race away, so ending the race box has a limited effect. I propose assigning a random and unique ID to each student. Thats how AP tests are graded, and it works fine.</p>
<p>We might never be able to completely eradicate latent racism. But, we can certainly go a long way in preventing these racial and ethnic slurs by simply making the race and ethnicity not part of the application.</p>
<p>Its not possible to call Henry Park a textureless math grind if his name and race are hidden. Its not possible to use the n-word to describe Ms. Bari-Ellen Roberts if her name and race are not shown.</p>
<p>Im not interested in winning. Affirmative action is a values issue. Either you believe some Americans are entitled to preferential treatment based on their race, or you dont. Whats right for me can be wrong for Drosselmeier and vice versa.</p>
<p>I am interested in showing what I perceive as inconsistencies in the racial preferences argument and defense.</p>
<p>Examples as follows:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Ending racial preferences ends holistic admissions. This assumes that the complement of race-based admissions is a numbers driven Chinese system. It is not. The complement of race-based admissions is race-blind admissions. Everything else can be held constant. By assuming that the complement is a numbers driven Chinese system, these racial preference defenders contradict their frequent claim that race doesnt play a big role in the evaluation. If removing race also removes extracurricular activities, essays, recommendations, and work experience, then it must play a very big role!</p></li>
<li><p>Preferential treatment doesnt exist. It may not, thats certainly possible. I find it odd, though, that the persons who claim this are ardently against Mr. Ward Connerlys civil rights initiatives, which seek to ban this allegedly nonexistent preferential treatment. Imagine a person who says illegal drugs arent imported into the United States but wont support measures to prevent illicit drug trafficking. If it doesnt happen, then a measure to ban it will just make sure it stays that way and give peace of mind to the public. Yet, these racial preference defenders are strongly opposed to any such measure.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>Really, though, theres only so much I can do. I can write to newspapers who editorialize the latest Supreme Court case regarding affirmative action, my representatives in the House and Senate, and media relations managers at elite universities. Thats it.</p>
<p>I think Mr. Connerly is doing much more than I can to bring the choice to the people. And, thats what matters. Let the people decide whether they want their states to engage in positive discrimination.</p>
<p>It can be argued that Proposition 209 was a fluke. Initiative 200 was probably just bad luck. But, Proposal 2 was indicative of what will continue to happen next year.</p>
My eyes kind of glaze over at 2000+ word posts. I get the feeling that some folks here attempt to “win” by exhausting the opponents!</p>