Trump DOJ to prosecute universities for anti-white affirmative action policies

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Love the PP who mentioned "generational wealth". My dad stood in a bread line during the Great Depression. Look at all the immigrants who have come with nothing.

Came from nothing but had nothing taken away from them. Don't compare a select group who immigrated away from their poverty to people climbing out of it. I don't know what being in a Great Depression which is an economic issue for a decade has to do with centuries of Slavery and Jim Crow. Horrible analogy. Especially since blacks had to deal with a Great Depression as well as Jim Crow Laws.

DP, but I think the point the first PP was making was in response to another poster who said blacks hadn't had the opportunity whites had to build "generational wealth" - as if all whites have been here for multiple generations building and passing on wealth. My grandparents arrived here penniless, as teenagers, and in ONE generation, my parents were middle class as young adults, and upper-middle class by their 40s.

Surely you understand the difference between your grandparents (who likely arrived here in the '40s or '50s) and the opportunities they had compared to the average black person's grandparents and the opportunities they were shut out from until the late '60s and '70s? I grew up in the Midwest (Michigan, so not a former slave state), and there was a country club near me that didn't integrate until the '90s. Until then black members were openly excluded. Now ask yourself why your grandparents and parents might have had a somewhat easier time amassing resources than a black American might have had.

Interesting you bring up the country club example. We lived near a country club that openly excluded Jews, although we were "permitted" on the premises as guests for specific events (like if there was a wedding).

As far as my grandparents, you've guessed me for too young, My grandparents were teens in the late 20s, having escaped horrors that befell their European families just a few years later, and faced a lot of antisemitism here at home. People didn't want to hire Jews, and by the time my father was ready for college in the 1950s, he faced terrible discrimination. Even so, they moved from poverty to UMC in the span of a single generation.

I brought this up to negate the poster (maybe it's you) who seemed to be under the impression that whites have been in this country, amassing "generational wealth" since the 1700s. Most people can trace their ancestry to someone who came in at Ellis Island, which opened around 1900.

I'm not the poster who thinks white Americans have been here for centuries. I am a poster who has defended the Jewish community as being deserving of over-representation in elite universities based on some obvious community and cultural advantages (full disclosure: my childhood BFF is Jewish, and my view of the broader Jewish-American community may be colored by her specific Jewish community). My observation is that Jews continue to face anti-Semitism in America today, but their experience is different for two reasons: 1) they were able to successfully push back sooner on institutionalized racism than black Americans have been, so their exclusion from things like education has been less absolute (though there were certainly country clubs near me that also did not allow Jews), and 2) the sense of community is much stronger among Jewish-Americans, which I've seen be incredibly helpful to their success. I'm Indian-American, and I believe that a sense of community among Indian-Americans also helps propel our success. I've seen the argument that it's black-American's fault that they don't have the same sense of community, but I disagree. The US has centuries of history that includes actively destroying black families, and the way policing has changed in the last few decades is the most recent incarnation of this.

PP here. Thank you for defending Jews against the charge that we are over-represented in elite universities. I do appreciate that.

Explandimg on your two points, it's true that Jews have been better able to push back against bigotry than blacks, but you might be surprised by how rampant antisemitism was. As a child in the 70s, I recall the housing developer proudly telling my father that "thus far, we've been able to hold the Jewish families down to five."

You mentioned the strong sense of community among Jews, but I would like to emphasis the strong sense of family, as well. There is a great commitment to intact families, and this not only provides security by which to "push back" against antisemitism, but it also provides a strong(er) financial foundation. I have mentioned before that IMO the high out-of-wedlock birthrate among blacks compounds systemic racism, as it leads to more poverty, which leads to more crime. (I have been accused of racism when I touch upon this, but statistics bear out a strong correlation between single mothers and poverty.) While the history involving blacks, and ripping apart of families, is reprehensible, there still is much within their control to establish intact families.

Another reason for Jewish success (speaking generally) is a very strong value on education, which of course can turn one's fortunes (or lack thereof) around in a single generation. This particular value predates the time of Jesus, and in fact, once writing was developed, it was actually forbidden to keep children illiterate. The religion required that children be taught to read. Girls, too.

So, strong family connections and a very high value on education has gone far to help Jews overcome a long history of persecution, and antisemtism that continues to this day.

DP. I think everything you're saying about Jews is great, but the idea that black people don't value family or education is offensive. You can be forgiven for not knowing all the factors that have always made this a challenge for black people, but not for holding up stereotypes and assumptions as fact.

This is the kind of thing that always stops a good argument in its tracks. Because it proves how easy it is for believe the black candidate in front of you came from a broken home, doesn't have parents that value education, that their presence will bring values and standards down, etc.

I'm not accusing you of racism, but if your argument keeps running into that little racism speed bump, maybe shorten your learning loop and figure out why.

NP. Problems associated with the serious lack of fatherless households have been well documented since the 1960s.

Thank you. PP here who brought up the high OOW birthrate among blacks, and its correlation to poverty and crime, and was told that I injected a racist "speed bump" into the discussion.

That right there is the problem. It seems that any discussion about why blacks are not doing as well as whites (or as Jews, which seemed to be the discussion a few posts up), one is only permitted to discuss slavery and how reprehensibly blacks were treated, or other ways blacks have been horribly mistreated. (I agree that they were, of course....what decent person would think otherwise?) But as soon one brings up behavior that blacks have some control over, and which is exacerbating the problem, one is accused of racism, or putting up a racist speed bump.

As far as my remarks about blacks not valuing intact families as much as whites, I'm basing that on the fact that only one black child in four is born into an intact family. That is setting in motion an entire litany of problems, as that will lead to poverty, which leads to lack of educational opportunity, which leads to crime. It's factual.

Finally, the kick-off for that post was why Jews have been better able to push back against antisemitism, and my response was that it had a lot to do with intact families (where the parents are married before their children are born). This one factor enables a better financial cushion, which leads to better education, which leads to success.

I guess you missed where I posted upthread that 40 percent of all US births are to unwed mothers. So it looks like that's a cultural value that's somewhat shared.

Dig a little deeper and the data suggest that college graduates are more likely to get married, accumulate wealth, and pass the benefit on to their children. So you're right about that.

Where you're wrong is assuming that higher rate of out of wedlock births assumes lesser values and lesser intelligence. It simply means fewer resources, fewer paths to success, fewer examples in daily life of how success is achieved.

I'm arguing that more people - regardless of race - need more access to the education that leads to better outcomes. You're arguing that black people are simply lesser than, which supports the the idea that they need extra consideration to gain that access.

If a black kid does everything right and sits in front of you for an interview, what are you thinking about him? That he worked hard and did everything right, or that he comes from a fatherless household, was given a pass on his grades, etc?

That there are too many kids of any background with those factors in their life story is a disgrace. That we still have intelligent people arguing it's the standard for black people supports continuing race-based consideration for admissions.

You are skewing statistics and projecting racism.

First of all, it's true that 40% of all births are out-of-wedlock, but the average is brought up by the very high rate among blacks - at close to 75%. Looking at just whites, it's 29%.

Second, where did I ever say that higher out-of-birthrate assumes lesser values and intelligence?? I said that a higher out-of-birthrate is correlated strongly with poverty, higher crime, and poorer educational attainment (both for the single mother and the children.) I never even mentioned intelligence as a factor. I did say that a high out-of-birthrate is indicative of lesser value being placed on mothers and fathers being married, which is just common sense.

And as far as what an employer thinks - that an applicant came from a fatherless household and/or was given a pass on grades - that is why blacks should work to reign in the shameful out-of-wedlock rate (it is a shame!) and support removing race from affirmative action (which based on the survey, more do).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Love the PP who mentioned "generational wealth". My dad stood in a bread line during the Great Depression. Look at all the immigrants who have come with nothing.

Came from nothing but had nothing taken away from them. Don't compare a select group who immigrated away from their poverty to people climbing out of it. I don't know what being in a Great Depression which is an economic issue for a decade has to do with centuries of Slavery and Jim Crow. Horrible analogy. Especially since blacks had to deal with a Great Depression as well as Jim Crow Laws.

DP, but I think the point the first PP was making was in response to another poster who said blacks hadn't had the opportunity whites had to build "generational wealth" - as if all whites have been here for multiple generations building and passing on wealth. My grandparents arrived here penniless, as teenagers, and in ONE generation, my parents were middle class as young adults, and upper-middle class by their 40s.

Surely you understand the difference between your grandparents (who likely arrived here in the '40s or '50s) and the opportunities they had compared to the average black person's grandparents and the opportunities they were shut out from until the late '60s and '70s? I grew up in the Midwest (Michigan, so not a former slave state), and there was a country club near me that didn't integrate until the '90s. Until then black members were openly excluded. Now ask yourself why your grandparents and parents might have had a somewhat easier time amassing resources than a black American might have had.

Interesting you bring up the country club example. We lived near a country club that openly excluded Jews, although we were "permitted" on the premises as guests for specific events (like if there was a wedding).

As far as my grandparents, you've guessed me for too young, My grandparents were teens in the late 20s, having escaped horrors that befell their European families just a few years later, and faced a lot of antisemitism here at home. People didn't want to hire Jews, and by the time my father was ready for college in the 1950s, he faced terrible discrimination. Even so, they moved from poverty to UMC in the span of a single generation.

I brought this up to negate the poster (maybe it's you) who seemed to be under the impression that whites have been in this country, amassing "generational wealth" since the 1700s. Most people can trace their ancestry to someone who came in at Ellis Island, which opened around 1900.

I'm not the poster who thinks white Americans have been here for centuries. I am a poster who has defended the Jewish community as being deserving of over-representation in elite universities based on some obvious community and cultural advantages (full disclosure: my childhood BFF is Jewish, and my view of the broader Jewish-American community may be colored by her specific Jewish community). My observation is that Jews continue to face anti-Semitism in America today, but their experience is different for two reasons: 1) they were able to successfully push back sooner on institutionalized racism than black Americans have been, so their exclusion from things like education has been less absolute (though there were certainly country clubs near me that also did not allow Jews), and 2) the sense of community is much stronger among Jewish-Americans, which I've seen be incredibly helpful to their success. I'm Indian-American, and I believe that a sense of community among Indian-Americans also helps propel our success. I've seen the argument that it's black-American's fault that they don't have the same sense of community, but I disagree. The US has centuries of history that includes actively destroying black families, and the way policing has changed in the last few decades is the most recent incarnation of this.

PP here. Thank you for defending Jews against the charge that we are over-represented in elite universities. I do appreciate that.

Explandimg on your two points, it's true that Jews have been better able to push back against bigotry than blacks, but you might be surprised by how rampant antisemitism was. As a child in the 70s, I recall the housing developer proudly telling my father that "thus far, we've been able to hold the Jewish families down to five."

You mentioned the strong sense of community among Jews, but I would like to emphasis the strong sense of family, as well. There is a great commitment to intact families, and this not only provides security by which to "push back" against antisemitism, but it also provides a strong(er) financial foundation. I have mentioned before that IMO the high out-of-wedlock birthrate among blacks compounds systemic racism, as it leads to more poverty, which leads to more crime. (I have been accused of racism when I touch upon this, but statistics bear out a strong correlation between single mothers and poverty.) While the history involving blacks, and ripping apart of families, is reprehensible, there still is much within their control to establish intact families.

Another reason for Jewish success (speaking generally) is a very strong value on education, which of course can turn one's fortunes (or lack thereof) around in a single generation. This particular value predates the time of Jesus, and in fact, once writing was developed, it was actually forbidden to keep children illiterate. The religion required that children be taught to read. Girls, too.

So, strong family connections and a very high value on education has gone far to help Jews overcome a long history of persecution, and antisemtism that continues to this day.

DP. I think everything you're saying about Jews is great, but the idea that black people don't value family or education is offensive. You can be forgiven for not knowing all the factors that have always made this a challenge for black people, but not for holding up stereotypes and assumptions as fact.

This is the kind of thing that always stops a good argument in its tracks. Because it proves how easy it is for believe the black candidate in front of you came from a broken home, doesn't have parents that value education, that their presence will bring values and standards down, etc.

I'm not accusing you of racism, but if your argument keeps running into that little racism speed bump, maybe shorten your learning loop and figure out why.

NP. Problems associated with the serious lack of fatherless households have been well documented since the 1960s.

Thank you. PP here who brought up the high OOW birthrate among blacks, and its correlation to poverty and crime, and was told that I injected a racist "speed bump" into the discussion.

That right there is the problem. It seems that any discussion about why blacks are not doing as well as whites (or as Jews, which seemed to be the discussion a few posts up), one is only permitted to discuss slavery and how reprehensibly blacks were treated, or other ways blacks have been horribly mistreated. (I agree that they were, of course....what decent person would think otherwise?) But as soon one brings up behavior that blacks have some control over, and which is exacerbating the problem, one is accused of racism, or putting up a racist speed bump.

As far as my remarks about blacks not valuing intact families as much as whites, I'm basing that on the fact that only one black child in four is born into an intact family. That is setting in motion an entire litany of problems, as that will lead to poverty, which leads to lack of educational opportunity, which leads to crime. It's factual.

Finally, the kick-off for that post was why Jews have been better able to push back against antisemitism, and my response was that it had a lot to do with intact families (where the parents are married before their children are born). This one factor enables a better financial cushion, which leads to better education, which leads to success.

I guess you missed where I posted upthread that 40 percent of all US births are to unwed mothers. So it looks like that's a cultural value that's somewhat shared.

Dig a little deeper and the data suggest that college graduates are more likely to get married, accumulate wealth, and pass the benefit on to their children. So you're right about that.

Where you're wrong is assuming that higher rate of out of wedlock births assumes lesser values and lesser intelligence. It simply means fewer resources, fewer paths to success, fewer examples in daily life of how success is achieved.

I'm arguing that more people - regardless of race - need more access to the education that leads to better outcomes. You're arguing that black people are simply lesser than, which supports the the idea that they need extra consideration to gain that access.

If a black kid does everything right and sits in front of you for an interview, what are you thinking about him? That he worked hard and did everything right, or that he comes from a fatherless household, was given a pass on his grades, etc?

That there are too many kids of any background with those factors in their life story is a disgrace. That we still have intelligent people arguing it's the standard for black people supports continuing race-based consideration for admissions.

You are skewing statistics and projecting racism.

First of all, it's true that 40% of all births are out-of-wedlock, but the average is brought up by the very high rate among blacks - at close to 75%. Looking at just whites, it's 29%.

Second, where did I ever say that higher out-of-birthrate assumes lesser values and intelligence?? I said that a higher out-of-birthrate is correlated strongly with poverty, higher crime, and poorer educational attainment (both for the single mother and the children.) I never even mentioned intelligence as a factor. I did say that a high out-of-birthrate is indicative of lesser value being placed on mothers and fathers being married, which is just common sense.

And as far as what an employer thinks - that an applicant came from a fatherless household and/or was given a pass on grades - that is why blacks should work to reign in the shameful out-of-wedlock rate (it is a shame!) and support removing race from affirmative action (which based on the survey, more do).

Out of wedlock births could be due to a variety of factors. The teen birth rate is down to record lows in this country. There are some older mothers who have children without a father because they couldn't find a compatible mate. I fail to see why their decision is "shameful"?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:"When people are used to preferential treatment, equal treatment seems like discrimination."

Thomas Sowell

Yes, I've seen this phenomena on discussion threads right here on DCUM.

The objection to removing "black points" would be that it would hurt blacks. Well, duh. But who exactly? It won't hurt the poor, inner-city black child (assuming affirmative action switches from race-based to SES-based.) The only blacks it will hurt are those who are upper-middle class and will no longer get the advantage of being black - and they shouldn't. Why should Denise. whose mother is a lawyer and father is a doctor, and who lives in that fancy $2 million brownstone in Brooklyn, get any points for being black? She was probably sent to private school, and had the pre-college advantage her parents' money could buy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Love the PP who mentioned "generational wealth". My dad stood in a bread line during the Great Depression. Look at all the immigrants who have come with nothing.

Came from nothing but had nothing taken away from them. Don't compare a select group who immigrated away from their poverty to people climbing out of it. I don't know what being in a Great Depression which is an economic issue for a decade has to do with centuries of Slavery and Jim Crow. Horrible analogy. Especially since blacks had to deal with a Great Depression as well as Jim Crow Laws.

DP, but I think the point the first PP was making was in response to another poster who said blacks hadn't had the opportunity whites had to build "generational wealth" - as if all whites have been here for multiple generations building and passing on wealth. My grandparents arrived here penniless, as teenagers, and in ONE generation, my parents were middle class as young adults, and upper-middle class by their 40s.

Surely you understand the difference between your grandparents (who likely arrived here in the '40s or '50s) and the opportunities they had compared to the average black person's grandparents and the opportunities they were shut out from until the late '60s and '70s? I grew up in the Midwest (Michigan, so not a former slave state), and there was a country club near me that didn't integrate until the '90s. Until then black members were openly excluded. Now ask yourself why your grandparents and parents might have had a somewhat easier time amassing resources than a black American might have had.

Interesting you bring up the country club example. We lived near a country club that openly excluded Jews, although we were "permitted" on the premises as guests for specific events (like if there was a wedding).

As far as my grandparents, you've guessed me for too young, My grandparents were teens in the late 20s, having escaped horrors that befell their European families just a few years later, and faced a lot of antisemitism here at home. People didn't want to hire Jews, and by the time my father was ready for college in the 1950s, he faced terrible discrimination. Even so, they moved from poverty to UMC in the span of a single generation.

I brought this up to negate the poster (maybe it's you) who seemed to be under the impression that whites have been in this country, amassing "generational wealth" since the 1700s. Most people can trace their ancestry to someone who came in at Ellis Island, which opened around 1900.

I'm not the poster who thinks white Americans have been here for centuries. I am a poster who has defended the Jewish community as being deserving of over-representation in elite universities based on some obvious community and cultural advantages (full disclosure: my childhood BFF is Jewish, and my view of the broader Jewish-American community may be colored by her specific Jewish community). My observation is that Jews continue to face anti-Semitism in America today, but their experience is different for two reasons: 1) they were able to successfully push back sooner on institutionalized racism than black Americans have been, so their exclusion from things like education has been less absolute (though there were certainly country clubs near me that also did not allow Jews), and 2) the sense of community is much stronger among Jewish-Americans, which I've seen be incredibly helpful to their success. I'm Indian-American, and I believe that a sense of community among Indian-Americans also helps propel our success. I've seen the argument that it's black-American's fault that they don't have the same sense of community, but I disagree. The US has centuries of history that includes actively destroying black families, and the way policing has changed in the last few decades is the most recent incarnation of this.

PP here. Thank you for defending Jews against the charge that we are over-represented in elite universities. I do appreciate that.

Explandimg on your two points, it's true that Jews have been better able to push back against bigotry than blacks, but you might be surprised by how rampant antisemitism was. As a child in the 70s, I recall the housing developer proudly telling my father that "thus far, we've been able to hold the Jewish families down to five."

You mentioned the strong sense of community among Jews, but I would like to emphasis the strong sense of family, as well. There is a great commitment to intact families, and this not only provides security by which to "push back" against antisemitism, but it also provides a strong(er) financial foundation. I have mentioned before that IMO the high out-of-wedlock birthrate among blacks compounds systemic racism, as it leads to more poverty, which leads to more crime. (I have been accused of racism when I touch upon this, but statistics bear out a strong correlation between single mothers and poverty.) While the history involving blacks, and ripping apart of families, is reprehensible, there still is much within their control to establish intact families.

Another reason for Jewish success (speaking generally) is a very strong value on education, which of course can turn one's fortunes (or lack thereof) around in a single generation. This particular value predates the time of Jesus, and in fact, once writing was developed, it was actually forbidden to keep children illiterate. The religion required that children be taught to read. Girls, too.

So, strong family connections and a very high value on education has gone far to help Jews overcome a long history of persecution, and antisemtism that continues to this day.

DP. I think everything you're saying about Jews is great, but the idea that black people don't value family or education is offensive. You can be forgiven for not knowing all the factors that have always made this a challenge for black people, but not for holding up stereotypes and assumptions as fact.

This is the kind of thing that always stops a good argument in its tracks. Because it proves how easy it is for believe the black candidate in front of you came from a broken home, doesn't have parents that value education, that their presence will bring values and standards down, etc.

I'm not accusing you of racism, but if your argument keeps running into that little racism speed bump, maybe shorten your learning loop and figure out why.

NP. Problems associated with the serious lack of fatherless households have been well documented since the 1960s.

Thank you. PP here who brought up the high OOW birthrate among blacks, and its correlation to poverty and crime, and was told that I injected a racist "speed bump" into the discussion.

That right there is the problem. It seems that any discussion about why blacks are not doing as well as whites (or as Jews, which seemed to be the discussion a few posts up), one is only permitted to discuss slavery and how reprehensibly blacks were treated, or other ways blacks have been horribly mistreated. (I agree that they were, of course....what decent person would think otherwise?) But as soon one brings up behavior that blacks have some control over, and which is exacerbating the problem, one is accused of racism, or putting up a racist speed bump.

As far as my remarks about blacks not valuing intact families as much as whites, I'm basing that on the fact that only one black child in four is born into an intact family. That is setting in motion an entire litany of problems, as that will lead to poverty, which leads to lack of educational opportunity, which leads to crime. It's factual.

Finally, the kick-off for that post was why Jews have been better able to push back against antisemitism, and my response was that it had a lot to do with intact families (where the parents are married before their children are born). This one factor enables a better financial cushion, which leads to better education, which leads to success.

I guess you missed where I posted upthread that 40 percent of all US births are to unwed mothers. So it looks like that's a cultural value that's somewhat shared.

Dig a little deeper and the data suggest that college graduates are more likely to get married, accumulate wealth, and pass the benefit on to their children. So you're right about that.

Where you're wrong is assuming that higher rate of out of wedlock births assumes lesser values and lesser intelligence. It simply means fewer resources, fewer paths to success, fewer examples in daily life of how success is achieved.

I'm arguing that more people - regardless of race - need more access to the education that leads to better outcomes. You're arguing that black people are simply lesser than, which supports the the idea that they need extra consideration to gain that access.

If a black kid does everything right and sits in front of you for an interview, what are you thinking about him? That he worked hard and did everything right, or that he comes from a fatherless household, was given a pass on his grades, etc?

That there are too many kids of any background with those factors in their life story is a disgrace. That we still have intelligent people arguing it's the standard for black people supports continuing race-based consideration for admissions.

You are skewing statistics and projecting racism.

First of all, it's true that 40% of all births are out-of-wedlock, but the average is brought up by the very high rate among blacks - at close to 75%. Looking at just whites, it's 29%.

Second, where did I ever say that higher out-of-birthrate assumes lesser values and intelligence?? I said that a higher out-of-birthrate is correlated strongly with poverty, higher crime, and poorer educational attainment (both for the single mother and the children.) I never even mentioned intelligence as a factor. I did say that a high out-of-birthrate is indicative of lesser value being placed on mothers and fathers being married, which is just common sense.

And as far as what an employer thinks - that an applicant came from a fatherless household and/or was given a pass on grades - that is why blacks should work to reign in the shameful out-of-wedlock rate (it is a shame!) and support removing race from affirmative action (which based on the survey, more do).

Out of wedlock births could be due to a variety of factors. The teen birth rate is down to record lows in this country. There are some older mothers who have children without a father because they couldn't find a compatible mate. I fail to see why their decision is "shameful"?

I'm not talking about mature women who decided to have children without a husband - and you know it. I'm talking about the teenage girl who drops out of high school, or does not go on to college, because she got pregnant.

Look, I am no fan of Ric Santorum by any stretch of the imagination, but something he said on the campaign trail stuck with me. He said if young people would do TWO fairly basic things, only 3% would end up in poverty. First is to graduate from high school, and the second is to be married before having a baby. (These two are correlated, obviously.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Love the PP who mentioned "generational wealth". My dad stood in a bread line during the Great Depression. Look at all the immigrants who have come with nothing.

Came from nothing but had nothing taken away from them. Don't compare a select group who immigrated away from their poverty to people climbing out of it. I don't know what being in a Great Depression which is an economic issue for a decade has to do with centuries of Slavery and Jim Crow. Horrible analogy. Especially since blacks had to deal with a Great Depression as well as Jim Crow Laws.

DP, but I think the point the first PP was making was in response to another poster who said blacks hadn't had the opportunity whites had to build "generational wealth" - as if all whites have been here for multiple generations building and passing on wealth. My grandparents arrived here penniless, as teenagers, and in ONE generation, my parents were middle class as young adults, and upper-middle class by their 40s.

Surely you understand the difference between your grandparents (who likely arrived here in the '40s or '50s) and the opportunities they had compared to the average black person's grandparents and the opportunities they were shut out from until the late '60s and '70s? I grew up in the Midwest (Michigan, so not a former slave state), and there was a country club near me that didn't integrate until the '90s. Until then black members were openly excluded. Now ask yourself why your grandparents and parents might have had a somewhat easier time amassing resources than a black American might have had.

Interesting you bring up the country club example. We lived near a country club that openly excluded Jews, although we were "permitted" on the premises as guests for specific events (like if there was a wedding).

As far as my grandparents, you've guessed me for too young, My grandparents were teens in the late 20s, having escaped horrors that befell their European families just a few years later, and faced a lot of antisemitism here at home. People didn't want to hire Jews, and by the time my father was ready for college in the 1950s, he faced terrible discrimination. Even so, they moved from poverty to UMC in the span of a single generation.

I brought this up to negate the poster (maybe it's you) who seemed to be under the impression that whites have been in this country, amassing "generational wealth" since the 1700s. Most people can trace their ancestry to someone who came in at Ellis Island, which opened around 1900.

I'm not the poster who thinks white Americans have been here for centuries. I am a poster who has defended the Jewish community as being deserving of over-representation in elite universities based on some obvious community and cultural advantages (full disclosure: my childhood BFF is Jewish, and my view of the broader Jewish-American community may be colored by her specific Jewish community). My observation is that Jews continue to face anti-Semitism in America today, but their experience is different for two reasons: 1) they were able to successfully push back sooner on institutionalized racism than black Americans have been, so their exclusion from things like education has been less absolute (though there were certainly country clubs near me that also did not allow Jews), and 2) the sense of community is much stronger among Jewish-Americans, which I've seen be incredibly helpful to their success. I'm Indian-American, and I believe that a sense of community among Indian-Americans also helps propel our success. I've seen the argument that it's black-American's fault that they don't have the same sense of community, but I disagree. The US has centuries of history that includes actively destroying black families, and the way policing has changed in the last few decades is the most recent incarnation of this.

PP here. Thank you for defending Jews against the charge that we are over-represented in elite universities. I do appreciate that.

Explandimg on your two points, it's true that Jews have been better able to push back against bigotry than blacks, but you might be surprised by how rampant antisemitism was. As a child in the 70s, I recall the housing developer proudly telling my father that "thus far, we've been able to hold the Jewish families down to five."

You mentioned the strong sense of community among Jews, but I would like to emphasis the strong sense of family, as well. There is a great commitment to intact families, and this not only provides security by which to "push back" against antisemitism, but it also provides a strong(er) financial foundation. I have mentioned before that IMO the high out-of-wedlock birthrate among blacks compounds systemic racism, as it leads to more poverty, which leads to more crime. (I have been accused of racism when I touch upon this, but statistics bear out a strong correlation between single mothers and poverty.) While the history involving blacks, and ripping apart of families, is reprehensible, there still is much within their control to establish intact families.

Another reason for Jewish success (speaking generally) is a very strong value on education, which of course can turn one's fortunes (or lack thereof) around in a single generation. This particular value predates the time of Jesus, and in fact, once writing was developed, it was actually forbidden to keep children illiterate. The religion required that children be taught to read. Girls, too.

So, strong family connections and a very high value on education has gone far to help Jews overcome a long history of persecution, and antisemtism that continues to this day.

DP. I think everything you're saying about Jews is great, but the idea that black people don't value family or education is offensive. You can be forgiven for not knowing all the factors that have always made this a challenge for black people, but not for holding up stereotypes and assumptions as fact.

This is the kind of thing that always stops a good argument in its tracks. Because it proves how easy it is for believe the black candidate in front of you came from a broken home, doesn't have parents that value education, that their presence will bring values and standards down, etc.

I'm not accusing you of racism, but if your argument keeps running into that little racism speed bump, maybe shorten your learning loop and figure out why.

NP. Problems associated with the serious lack of fatherless households have been well documented since the 1960s.

Thank you. PP here who brought up the high OOW birthrate among blacks, and its correlation to poverty and crime, and was told that I injected a racist "speed bump" into the discussion.

That right there is the problem. It seems that any discussion about why blacks are not doing as well as whites (or as Jews, which seemed to be the discussion a few posts up), one is only permitted to discuss slavery and how reprehensibly blacks were treated, or other ways blacks have been horribly mistreated. (I agree that they were, of course....what decent person would think otherwise?) But as soon one brings up behavior that blacks have some control over, and which is exacerbating the problem, one is accused of racism, or putting up a racist speed bump.

As far as my remarks about blacks not valuing intact families as much as whites, I'm basing that on the fact that only one black child in four is born into an intact family. That is setting in motion an entire litany of problems, as that will lead to poverty, which leads to lack of educational opportunity, which leads to crime. It's factual.

Finally, the kick-off for that post was why Jews have been better able to push back against antisemitism, and my response was that it had a lot to do with intact families (where the parents are married before their children are born). This one factor enables a better financial cushion, which leads to better education, which leads to success.

I guess you missed where I posted upthread that 40 percent of all US births are to unwed mothers. So it looks like that's a cultural value that's somewhat shared.

Dig a little deeper and the data suggest that college graduates are more likely to get married, accumulate wealth, and pass the benefit on to their children. So you're right about that.

Where you're wrong is assuming that higher rate of out of wedlock births assumes lesser values and lesser intelligence. It simply means fewer resources, fewer paths to success, fewer examples in daily life of how success is achieved.

I'm arguing that more people - regardless of race - need more access to the education that leads to better outcomes. You're arguing that black people are simply lesser than, which supports the the idea that they need extra consideration to gain that access.

If a black kid does everything right and sits in front of you for an interview, what are you thinking about him? That he worked hard and did everything right, or that he comes from a fatherless household, was given a pass on his grades, etc?

That there are too many kids of any background with those factors in their life story is a disgrace. That we still have intelligent people arguing it's the standard for black people supports continuing race-based consideration for admissions.

You are skewing statistics and projecting racism.

First of all, it's true that 40% of all births are out-of-wedlock, but the average is brought up by the very high rate among blacks - at close to 75%. Looking at just whites, it's 29%.

Second, where did I ever say that higher out-of-birthrate assumes lesser values and intelligence?? I said that a higher out-of-birthrate is correlated strongly with poverty, higher crime, and poorer educational attainment (both for the single mother and the children.) I never even mentioned intelligence as a factor. I did say that a high out-of-birthrate is indicative of lesser value being placed on mothers and fathers being married, which is just common sense.

And as far as what an employer thinks - that an applicant came from a fatherless household and/or was given a pass on grades - that is why blacks should work to reign in the shameful out-of-wedlock rate (it is a shame!) and support removing race from affirmative action (which based on the survey, more do).

Out of wedlock births could be due to a variety of factors. The teen birth rate is down to record lows in this country. There are some older mothers who have children without a father because they couldn't find a compatible mate. I fail to see why their decision is "shameful"?

I'm not talking about mature women who decided to have children without a husband - and you know it. I'm talking about the teenage girl who drops out of high school, or does not go on to college, because she got pregnant.

Look, I am no fan of Ric Santorum by any stretch of the imagination, but something he said on the campaign trail stuck with me. He said if young people would do TWO fairly basic things, only 3% would end up in poverty. First is to graduate from high school, and the second is to be married before having a baby. (These two are correlated, obviously.)

Again, please re-read my second sentence. I even made it bold for you. Your stuck in the past. Teens today aren't having babies like they used to. The world has changed, you need to update too. The teen welfare mom is not as prevalent today. Santorum is dealing in nostalgia.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I assume everyone who is against affirmative action is also in favor of sex-blind admission too, right?

Because I hate to break it to you, white boys, but you're getting an "unfair" advantage in admissions as well, and lots of qualified young ladies aren't accepted to make room for your mediocre selves:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/07/30/achieving-perfect-gender-balance-on-campus-isnt-that-important-ending-private-colleges-affirmative-action-for-men-is/?utm_term=.26ad36b387f4

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/editorials/la-ed-affirmative-action-investigation-trump-20170802-story.html

https://www.vox.com/2015/2/17/8050259/discrimination-against-women-is-a-real-problem-in-college-admissions

It depends on the school. I have a friend at penn admissions - girls have a way easier time for Wharton UG admissions than boys (controlling for race)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"When people are used to preferential treatment, equal treatment seems like discrimination."

Thomas Sowell

Yes, I've seen this phenomena on discussion threads right here on DCUM.

The objection to removing "black points" would be that it would hurt blacks. Well, duh. But who exactly? It won't hurt the poor, inner-city black child (assuming affirmative action switches from race-based to SES-based.) The only blacks it will hurt are those who are upper-middle class and will no longer get the advantage of being black - and they shouldn't. Why should Denise. whose mother is a lawyer and father is a doctor, and who lives in that fancy $2 million brownstone in Brooklyn, get any points for being black? She was probably sent to private school, and had the pre-college advantage her parents' money could buy.

+1,000,000

and quote spammer

preferential treatment based on race is not equal treatment

[Anonymous]

"Usually when people are sad, they don't do anything. They just cry over their condition. But when they get angry, they bring about a change." ~ Malcolm X

Get rid of Affirmative Action.
Get rid of it and any other condescending counterfeit attempts to "legislate" equality.
With any luck the result will be that instead of perpetual sadness over the inadequacy and incompetence of the bullshit breadcrumbs that the government and society keeps feeding them
Hopefully the masses of marginalized and disenfranchised minorities in this country (including women) will get angry and take action to finally seize power from the white male establishment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:"Usually when people are sad, they don't do anything. They just cry over their condition. But when they get angry, they bring about a change." ~ Malcolm X

Get rid of Affirmative Action.
Get rid of it and any other condescending counterfeit attempts to "legislate" equality.
With any luck the result will be that instead of perpetual sadness over the inadequacy and incompetence of the bullshit breadcrumbs that the government and society keeps feeding them
Hopefully the masses of marginalized and disenfranchised minorities in this country (including women) will get angry and take action to finally seize power from the white male establishment.

Are you advocating violence as a way to bring about equality?

And when did women qualify as a minority?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I assume everyone who is against affirmative action is also in favor of sex-blind admission too, right?

Because I hate to break it to you, white boys, but you're getting an "unfair" advantage in admissions as well, and lots of qualified young ladies aren't accepted to make room for your mediocre selves:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/07/30/achieving-perfect-gender-balance-on-campus-isnt-that-important-ending-private-colleges-affirmative-action-for-men-is/?utm_term=.26ad36b387f4

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/editorials/la-ed-affirmative-action-investigation-trump-20170802-story.html

https://www.vox.com/2015/2/17/8050259/discrimination-against-women-is-a-real-problem-in-college-admissions

It depends on the school. I have a friend at penn admissions - girls have a way easier time for Wharton UG admissions than boys (controlling for race)

And I assume you think that's unfair, right? That more men should get into Wharton and that more women should get into the majority of other colleges across the country.
I mean, we need to make sure we're only admitting purely on statistics, right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I assume everyone who is against affirmative action is also in favor of sex-blind admission too, right?

Because I hate to break it to you, white boys, but you're getting an "unfair" advantage in admissions as well, and lots of qualified young ladies aren't accepted to make room for your mediocre selves:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/07/30/achieving-perfect-gender-balance-on-campus-isnt-that-important-ending-private-colleges-affirmative-action-for-men-is/?utm_term=.26ad36b387f4

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/editorials/la-ed-affirmative-action-investigation-trump-20170802-story.html

https://www.vox.com/2015/2/17/8050259/discrimination-against-women-is-a-real-problem-in-college-admissions

It depends on the school. I have a friend at penn admissions - girls have a way easier time for Wharton UG admissions than boys (controlling for race)

And I assume you think that's unfair, right? That more men should get into Wharton and that more women should get into the majority of other colleges across the country.
I mean, we need to make sure we're only admitting purely on statistics, right?

DP. No we should be admitting purely on merits. Let the chips fall where they may. No one should be treated differently based on their race, ethnicity, sex, age, or disability.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I assume everyone who is against affirmative action is also in favor of sex-blind admission too, right?

Because I hate to break it to you, white boys, but you're getting an "unfair" advantage in admissions as well, and lots of qualified young ladies aren't accepted to make room for your mediocre selves:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/07/30/achieving-perfect-gender-balance-on-campus-isnt-that-important-ending-private-colleges-affirmative-action-for-men-is/?utm_term=.26ad36b387f4

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/editorials/la-ed-affirmative-action-investigation-trump-20170802-story.html

https://www.vox.com/2015/2/17/8050259/discrimination-against-women-is-a-real-problem-in-college-admissions

It depends on the school. I have a friend at penn admissions - girls have a way easier time for Wharton UG admissions than boys (controlling for race)

And I assume you think that's unfair, right? That more men should get into Wharton and that more women should get into the majority of other colleges across the country.
I mean, we need to make sure we're only admitting purely on statistics, right?

Yes - it is wrong for women to be held to a higher standard at brown and men to be held to a higher standard at MIT

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Usually when people are sad, they don't do anything. They just cry over their condition. But when they get angry, they bring about a change." ~ Malcolm X

Get rid of Affirmative Action.
Get rid of it and any other condescending counterfeit attempts to "legislate" equality.
With any luck the result will be that instead of perpetual sadness over the inadequacy and incompetence of the bullshit breadcrumbs that the government and society keeps feeding them
Hopefully the masses of marginalized and disenfranchised minorities in this country (including women) will get angry and take action to finally seize power from the white male establishment.

Are you advocating violence as a way to bring about equality?

And when did women qualify as a minority?

All I'm saying is get rid of Affirmative Action.
Whatever happens afterward is neither my call nor in my control.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"When people are used to preferential treatment, equal treatment seems like discrimination."

Thomas Sowell

Yes, I've seen this phenomena on discussion threads right here on DCUM.

The objection to removing "black points" would be that it would hurt blacks. Well, duh. But who exactly? It won't hurt the poor, inner-city black child (assuming affirmative action switches from race-based to SES-based.) The only blacks it will hurt are those who are upper-middle class and will no longer get the advantage of being black - and they shouldn't. Why should Denise. whose mother is a lawyer and father is a doctor, and who lives in that fancy $2 million brownstone in Brooklyn, get any points for being black? She was probably sent to private school, and had the pre-college advantage her parents' money could buy.

EVEN WORSE, these alleged "affirmative action" slots are going to rich INTERNATIONAL students whose lineage has NEVER been subjected to American slavery or Jim Crow. It's been a f*cking joke.

But I want them to get rid of legacy and athletic admissions to. Harvard and Stanford should field their athletic teams with nerds.

[Anonymous]

I'll be waiting for when Asian students become dominant in the elite univ, and then white people scream for holistic approaches such that white students don't have to score as high as Asian students... oh, wait a minute....