patrick.net

Nobody is trying to cure anything. Only accelerate the change. Black and white authoritarian minded thinkers aren't good at solving problems that don't have nice solutions. Speaking of which...

TPB says

you can't fix fucking stupid

Just because you can't comprehend it, doesn't make it stupid. In fact,...well nevermind.

kentm says

women have been underrepresented in American and European

If women have no interest in a given profession, you cannot have govt mandate to require any under represented group (women) to occupy such professions all for the sake of 'equal representation'. Why do Orchestras ? why not do auto mechanics.. Are many women interested in being mechanics ? Not really...

It just gets stupider and stupider..

thomas.wong1986 says

If women have no interest in a given profession, you cannot have govt mandate to require any under represented group (women) to occupy such professions all for the sake of 'equal representation'. Why do Orchestras ? why not do auto mechanics.. Are many women interested in being mechanics ? Not really...

Thomas--you really aren't that dense. Did you read the study? It was proven discrimination.

I'll agree with one thing though--it does just get stupider and stupider. Although I don't think we are talking about the same things....

I hate white men. Or at least the ones posting on this thread.

marcus says

Nobody is trying to cure anything. Only accelerate the change.

Accelerate the change to what Marcus? What exactly is supposed to be the ultimate goal? A color blind and gender blind society?

Kevin says

I hate white men. Or at least the ones posting on this thread.

Are you going to have another "mofo" outburst? Talk about anti-white hate speech!

It's just skin reflectivity...

Will we ever have a "color blind" society? This thread seems to indicate a clear "no."

Scagnetti says

Accelerate the change to what Marcus? What exactly is supposed to be the ultimate goal?

We know that within decades caucasians will be a minority in the US. Even from the most simplistic economic point of view, it should be clear that if strides aren't made in promoting diversity in the academic and corporate world, then we as a country are in trouble.

As it is, I think we have and are making strides, and as a country we do diversity better than most others, which might be a big edge for us by 2200.

As for females, I'm not so worried about equality for women. As a high school teacher, I can tell you, women (girls) are doing great. The old beliefs about girls in Math and science are out the window. Along with this change in perception is the fact that in adolescence girls are often more focused, organized and disciplined than boys.

IT might not be clear why this is so relevant, but,... fact:

Academic success in grades k - 12 is very highly correlated to being middle class (or above). And this isn't just because of bad nutrition, single parent households, distractions of gangs and so on in poor neighborhoods. It's a cultural thing. Poor kids typically don't believe in the system and in the opportunity that school presents (maybe in part a reflection of their parents beliefs and fears about the system).

It's not that simple, but giving someone a good opportunity affects more than just his or her prospects. It's going to affect their children too.

marcus says

Preferential treatment to non whites and women makes more sense to me in some places than others, and it's usually done voluntarily, more than because of fear of consequences. This is especially true within corporations that sometimes go out of their way to promote having a diverse workforce.

Really? Companies would voluntarily do this without the fear of consequences?

In fiscal year 2007, the EEOC received 30,510 formal complaints or racial discrimination, 9,369 complaints of nationality discrimination, and 2,880 reports of religious discrimination, for a total of 42,759 discrimination cases (Jennifer C. Kerr, "Job Discrimination Complaints Jump", Associate Press, March 5, 2008).

Also, keep in mind many more complaints were probably dealt with "in house", through the companies own grievance procedures.

Robert P. Hartwig, Vice president of the insurance information institute says, "Sooner or later, virtually every medium to large size company is likely to find itself the defendant in a discrimination or sexual harassment lawsuit". He estimates that 60% of all companies are named in one of these lawsuits every 5 years. When asked why he responded, "The 21st century's racially and ethnically diverse workforce is a potential powder keg."

With all the potential pitfalls, why would a company care to promote diversity? Companies are interested in making money, not social changes.

Scagnetti says

Companies are interested in making money, not social changes.

Exactly--are you implying that promoting diversity reduces profits?

marcus says

We know that within decades caucasians will be a minority in the US. Even from the most simplistic economic point of view, it should be clear that if strides aren't made in promoting diversity in the academic and corporate world, then we as a country are in trouble.

This has been self inflicted. Changes in our immigration policy have opened the flood gates. If the goal is to have a strong academic and corporate world, maybe we should be more selective in who we let in the country.

tatupu70 says

Scagnetti says

Companies are interested in making money, not social changes.

Exactly--are you implying that promoting diversity reduces profits?

No, I'm saying hiring someone less qualified and effective will reduce profits.

marcus says

it should be clear that if strides aren't made in promoting diversity in the academic and corporate world, then we as a country are in trouble.

You're a teacher right Marcus? Do you really want me to throw up charts of the large racial gap in standardized tests? Show me where improvements have been made here.

Scagnetti says

No, I'm saying hiring someone less qualified and effective will reduce profits.

There's the problem. The orchestra study proved that employers don't always know what to measure to determine who is qualified or effective and inherent biases can play a large role. Many companies have found that adding diversity has proven to add more efffective people.

tatupu70 says

Many companies have found that adding diversity has proven to add more efffective people.

What is a more "diversified" company than the United States Armed Forces. Lets look at them shall we?

In 1997, 40 thousand soldiers were questioned in a government mandated survey about race relations. Two thirds of the soldiers said they suffered from "insensitive language" to racial threats or violence. That would be 63% of Whites, 76% of blacks, 79% of Hispanics, and 76% of American Indians.

When asked if opportunities for their race had improved......16% of whites thought so, 39% of Blacks, 47% of Hispanics, and 41% of Indians.

The pentagon delayed the release of this report for 2 years because it was so embarrassed.

Adding diversity for diversity's sake is not productive. Selecting the best person for the job is.

marcus says

IT might not be clear why this is so relevant, but,... fact:

Academic success in grades k - 12 is very highly correlated to being middle class (or above). And this isn't just because of bad nutrition, single parent households, distractions of gangs and so on in poor neighborhoods. It's a cultural thing. Poor kids typically don't believe in the system and in the opportunity that school presents (maybe in part a reflection of their parents beliefs and fears about the system).

It's not that simple, but giving someone a good opportunity affects more than just his or her prospects. It's going to affect their children too.

Marcus is right in one way. For each race, SAT scores go up the further along a person is on the income ladder. Still, there is a large racial gap. It cannot be overcome by raising a child's living conditions. This experiment has failed.

Scagnetti says

Adding diversity for diversity's sake is not productive. Selecting the best person for the job is.

If you say that again, you obviously missed the entire point of my post.

kentm says

Keep repeating that and being in denial. My answer is NO, your wrong

Thomas, unfortunately you pretty clearly just don't understand the concept, and making an assumption based on your log in name - that your family is heritage is chinese - I find that kind of surprising, unless I suppose you actually are pretty deep denial. Have you looked into the kind of immigration practices that were in place in California not many years ago for people coming in from china? Do a bit of reading on Angel Island. Would you be arguing to keep those policies in place were they still policy?

Assuming thomas.wong.1986 is Asian, the above charts are a good reason for him to be anti-affirmative action. If we were running on a true merit based system, there would be an OVER-representation of Asians. Asians as a whole are HIGHLY competetive. Asians (a minority) are being discriminated against because of this policy!

tatupu70 says

Scagnetti says

Adding diversity for diversity's sake is not productive. Selecting the best person for the job is.

If you say that again, you obviously missed the entire point of my post.

I "got" what you're saying. I think you "get" what I'm saying too. I also think that Orchestra's don't represent the workplace at large. Choosing an artist is personal taste. Choosing the best candidate for the job in many other fields would be much more cut and dry.

Scagnetti says

Choosing the best candidate for the job in many other fields would be much more cut and dry.

Really? It's not possible that a deep down subtle bias exists even in non-racist people that might prompt them to hire a white person over an equally qualified minority? If only because it is more comfortable?

tatupu70 says

Many companies have found that adding diversity has proven to add more efffective people.

I have posted numerous facts on here showing diversity CAUSES problems. If you think companies are better off for it, can make more money, make a better product, with better quality, because of a diversified workforce, prove it.

tatupu70 says

Scagnetti says

Choosing the best candidate for the job in many other fields would be much more cut and dry.

Really? It's not possible that a deep down subtle bias exists even in non-racist people that might prompt them to hire a white person over an equally qualified minority? If only because it is more comfortable?

Inversely, how about all the minorities we have put into managerial positions through affirmative action. Do you think they would be more likely to hire people like themselves? Remember, the sword cuts both ways.

I don't think that orchestra's are the best examples for the overall workforce. I do think that it would be more obvious in a different situation who would be a better candidate. For example, hiring police officers based on test scores.

Scagnetti says

Still, there is a large racial gap. It cannot be overcome by raising a child's living conditions. This experiment has failed.

If you just make shit up, do you really think that makes it true?

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are just an idiot, rather than a racist idiot.

The experiment has barely been done, but it has been successful to the extent it has been done. It's not an experiment though really, we are just talking data and facts. Public schools in middle class areas that are significantly hispanic and or african american do WAY better than similar schools in impoverished neighborhoods. Even when money spent is held constant.

Scagnetti says

I have posted numerous facts on here showing diversity CAUSES problems

No, you haven't. Diversity isn't the problem.

Scagnetti says

Inversely, how about all the minorities we have put into managerial positions through affirmative action. Do you think they would be more likely to hire people like themselves? Remember, the sword cuts both ways.

lol--I think we're a long way from that being a problem.

marcus says

Scagnetti says

Still, there is a large racial gap. It cannot be overcome by raising a child's living conditions. This experiment has failed.

If you just make shit up, do you really think that makes it true?

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are just an idiot, rather than a racist idiot.

The experiment has barely been done, but it has been successful to the extent it has been done. It's not an experiment though really, we are just talking data and facts. Public schools in middle class areas that are significantly hispanic and or african american do WAY better than similar schools in impoverished neighborhoods. Even when money spent is held constant.

WRONG! I did not make this up. Please see the above charts. I DID say that improving a family's income will raise the child's performance. I also said there is a racial gap, which I provided evidence for. You have provided none. You have already acknowledged an achievement gap. Your argument is that the achievement gap is based totally on the family's income level. The data I provided acknowledges this as a factor but also shows the racial gap. Just because the facts are not pleasant to your eyes doesn't make them untrue.

Scagnetti says

If the goal is to have a strong academic and corporate world, maybe we should be more selective in who we let in the country.

We are very fortunate not to have the population challenges that many countries have (because of our southern neighbors).

I changed my mind, you are a racist idiot.

marcus says

Scagnetti says

If the goal is to have a strong academic and corporate world, maybe we should be more selective in who we let in the country.

We are very fortunate not to have the population challenges that many countries have (because of our southern neighbors).

I changed my mind, you are a racist idiot.

Like I said before, you can't invalidate an argument by name calling. If your argument will stand on its own, there's no need for that. Simply prove me wrong.

On another note, you call me a racist because I think we should accept highly effective, educated, and motivated people into the country? Or is it because I posted some data about SAT scores that undermined your argument? Don't be mad at me! That's just what the data shows.

Maybe by racist you think I'm pro asian because of the above chart I posted!

Your accusations toward me are a classic example of trying to silence debate. We should be ENCOURAGING debate on these type of topics, not stifling it. We can never move forward if we don't challenge some of the assumptions we have that may be wrong! Also, I wont be knocked off course for fear of you or anyone else "calling me names".

It is scientifically proven that the Irish perform lower on standardized tests than whites. Study after study has confirmed the circumference of the Irish skull is smaller than English heads.

We must ban any further Irish from entering the country. The sheer number of Irish have pushed this nation into decline, and the Irish make terrible underclass minions for men of stature and merit.

I had a good friend in college that was Asian. He found it comical when he would walk into an advanced math course on the first day: many would glare at him apparently thinking, "aw crap, there goes the curve!"

He told me there's good reason for that stereotype, though. He said it's probably NOT true that Asians (as a whole) are inherently better at math than the rest. It's that ONLY the smart Asians make it into the U.S. to study math. He put it bluntly, "all the dumb Asians are still back in Asia."

So if you only sample the Asians at U.S. universities, you probably WILL find that they are better at math than the average American. It's not just a stereotype!

It's a well known fact that Orientals are good at one thing and one thing only, and it is certainly not mathematics.

This should be evidenced in my nicely cleaned suit.

And whites are still more marginalized than any other group in America.

I'm surprised this thread is this long. Every day is white boy day. You want your own exclusive club? It's called every day life.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/TG4f9zR5yzY

Kevin says

I hate white men.

There we go, so it comes out.

Why didn't you just say so in the first place, that way we wouldn't think you're just being an Asshole.

Sometimes, I use my truck to shoot my gun,
then other times when I'm depressed I call the lawn service so I can watch Minorities work. One time I paid my bills with a skin sample.

Scagnetti says

Like I said before, you can't invalidate an argument by name calling. If your argument will stand on its own, there's no need for that. Simply prove me wrong.

On another note, you call me a racist because I think we should accept highly effective, educated, and motivated people into the country?

You're right about the name calling being unnecessary, and I doubt that you are as racist as you sounded, but I would stand by my pov that these statements sound racist.

Scagnetti says

If the goal is to have a strong academic and corporate world, maybe we should be more selective in who we let in the country.

Scagnetti says

Still, there is a large racial gap. It cannot be overcome by raising a child's living conditions. This experiment has failed.

I don't care to try to prove to you that this latter assertion is bs. I don't know what experiment you are referring to, but I know for a fact that living conditions and middle class culture as a whole have a HUGE and obvious impact on children's beliefs about their future and their academic potential. This is clearly related to whether the parents are engaged in a decent work situation.

I'm not arguing that therefore people don't have to earn good jobs. Just arguing that what you said is wrong, and that equal opportunities and pushing things towards disenfranchised people having better job opportunities has a HUGE impact, much of which is indirect and hard to measure.

Scagnetti says

For each race, SAT scores go up the further along a person is on the income ladder. Still, there is a large racial gap.

What do you think this is more attributable to, culture (which is affected in the longer term by the average relative income of the entire group) or genes ?

I say it's primarily culture, although this is complicated, because if one culture bases mating decisions more on academic success and future job prospects than another culture, then in the short term genes become a factor.

But this type of difference can be overcome in just a few generations, or less and is not some sort of deep genetic difference as many racists seem to feel.

And by the way, I do believe that even though welfare has been necessary to some degree, the extent to which we have a long term welfare dependent poor culture in this country is a bad thing.

The right wing isn't completely off with their point of view on some of these matters, but they are overly dependent on the selfish needs of their overlords.

And the overlords (corporate and plutocrats) are not willing to do the really valuable investment in our long term future. Everything is about maximizing short terms gains and rents.