What should universities do about systemic racism?

[Atticus Finch]

2 minutes ago, Belly Bob said:

My guess is that any standard which was "blind" to race and gender would favor some over others and therefore promote or even constitute (depending on who you ask) systemic racism or sexism or classism. 

Whatever standard was used would be better then what we currently have and would also be mitigated by the use of a blind draw which would rid us of legacies and other systemic perpetuations of inequality.

[badrouter]

40 minutes ago, Atticus Finch said:

I agree.

But, of course, that's not what's being said.

It would be easier to take you seriously if you ever understood what you were talking about.

The *entire* basis for the claim of systemic racism is that the systems haven't produced equitable results. If black people are incarcerated at a higher rate than other races, THAT is proof that the criminal justice system is racist to its core and must be abolished. If black people, statistically, have lower average incomes and lower levels of wealth, THAT is proof that capitalism is racist to its core and must be abolished. If women have less average income or fewer upper management roles, THAT is evidence of a patriarchy and is why the push to abolish gender is a real idea.

How to Be an Antiracist, by Ibram X. Kendi (One World, 2019). “My Racist Introduction.”

-"But there is no neutrality in the racism struggle...One either allows racial inequities to persevere, as a racist, or confronts racial inequities, as an antiracist. There is not in between safe space of ‘not racist.’ The claim of ‘not racist’ neutrality is a mask for racism."

[badrouter]

46 minutes ago, Atticus Finch said:

Don't expect any of those clowns to give your post a fair reading.

Belly Bob will continue to push his Asian narrative despite the fact that Asians don't disproportionately make hiring decisions which is what I think you were referring to.

Any "advantage" Asians have in employment is overwhelmingly through merit and not preferential treatment or systematic racism.

Therefore, this issue doesn't apply to them.

Absolutely. This also means the inverse can be true. Statistical disadvantages/inequities may reflect lack of merit. Not lack of merit because of some inherent, biological shortcoming. Lack of merit because rotten ideas (like studying a lot means "Acting white"; waiting until later in life, with better financial circumstances, to have children is wrong; etc)  have gained traction in certain communities. 

[Belly Bob]

50 minutes ago, Atticus Finch said:

Don't expect any of those clowns to give your post a fair reading.

Belly Bob will continue to push his Asian narrative despite the fact that Asians don't disproportionately make hiring decisions which is what I think you were referring to.

Any "advantage" Asians have in employment is overwhelmingly through merit and not preferential treatment or systematic racism.

Therefore, this issue doesn't apply to them.

You must've missed my point, which is that antiracist have argued that unless we modify our admissions policies so that fewer Asians are admitted to elite universities, then Asians will accumulate advantages not shared by other races, which creates systemic problems.

👇

17 minutes ago, Atticus Finch said:

The entire history of the United States that came before them and shaped everything that exists today.

Cumulative advantage is a real thing and that explains the difference between, say, being rich and being wealthy.

If you don't understand these things then you're hopeless like I said.

 

[Atticus Finch]

5 minutes ago, badrouter said:

The *entire* basis for the claim of systemic racism is that the systems haven't produced equitable results.

But this is *not* what you said in your earlier post.

On 6/18/2021 at 12:13 PM, badrouter said:

The idea that any disparity in outcomes based on race is automatically a product of discrimination is ludicrous.

You said it must be a product of discrimination which is not the same as systemic racism.

You display the same kind of ignorance on this topic as Nolebull813 does. 

[Atticus Finch]

6 minutes ago, badrouter said:

If black people are incarcerated at a higher rate than other races, THAT is proof that the criminal justice system is racist to its core and must be abolished.

Embarrassing and inaccurate strawmen arguments.

All day, every day.

[Belly Bob]

8 minutes ago, Atticus Finch said:

Whatever standard was used would be better then what we currently have and would also be mitigated by the use of a blind draw which would rid us of legacies and other systemic perpetuations of inequality.

Don't be coy.

Articulate the standard for us so that we might see how it would solve the problem of systemic racism.

[badrouter]

42 minutes ago, Atticus Finch said:

Malcolm Gladwell talked about this and I agree. Define a standard of admission to these elite schools and then take every qualified individual and place them into a lottery.

I agree 100%. Also, this has no chance of being supported by the radicals driving the conversation, because it does not ensure equity in outcomes. If you uphold certain standards, and then have a random draw lottery, you can be certain you won't have equitable, proportional admission rates by race. Again, equity of outcomes is THE standard used to measure if racism is present. We won't progress as a society past this as long as that is the dominant idea.

[badrouter]

2 minutes ago, Atticus Finch said:

But this is *not* what you said in your earlier post.

You said it must be a product of discrimination which is not the same as systemic racism.

You display the same kind of ignorance on this topic as Nolebull813 does. 

This is quite the statement. If systemic racism is not a product of discrimination, than what could we ever do to address it? How could we measure our degree of progress? We're left with only one metric: assessing/engineering equity, or equality of outcomes.

[Atticus Finch]

3 minutes ago, badrouter said:

Statistical disadvantages/inequities may reflect lack of merit.

It also reflects the difference in historical experience between the two groups.

Asians did not suffer the same experience as blacks in this country. In fact, every immigrant group that came after emancipation had it infinitely better than the descendants of slaves.

Having to overcome mere racism and bigotry can be hard but those groups were immigrants and therefore could assimilate into the melting pot while still employing their traditions and "know-how" from the old country.

Blacks didn't have an old country. They were here for hundreds of years *not* accumulating wealth, *not* accumulating experience and *not* employing their know-how to their benefit.

[badrouter]

5 minutes ago, Atticus Finch said:

Embarrassing and inaccurate strawmen arguments.

All day, every day.

How else does one support the assertion that the criminal justice system is systemically racist? We have anecdotes (often where race is never actually proven to be a motive/factor), but those don't prove anything. So, we're back dealing strictly with stats on outcomes.

[Atticus Finch]

23 minutes ago, Belly Bob said:

You must've missed my point, which is that antiracist have argued that unless we modify our admissions policies so that fewer Asians are admitted to elite universities, then Asians will accumulate advantages, which creates systemic problems.

No, you argued that we must then discriminate against Asians because it would be racist not to.

I shouldn't have to tell you that because an "antiracist" says something doesn't make it true.

The experience of Asians is totally unrelated to African-Americans.

[Atticus Finch]

8 minutes ago, badrouter said:

I agree 100%. Also, this has no chance of being supported by the radicals driving the conversation, because it does not ensure equity in outcomes.

You make the common mistake of highlighting the claims of radicals so you can easily knock them down.

A version of strawmanning.

[Atticus Finch]

10 minutes ago, Belly Bob said:

Don't be coy.

Articulate the standard for us so that we might see how it would solve the problem of systemic racism.

I guess being coy is more honest than whatever you're doing.

I'm sure if the lottery was the chosen method (It will never happen) then a serious conversation could be had about the standard to be employed.

[Atticus Finch]

11 minutes ago, badrouter said:

Again, equity of outcomes is THE standard used to measure if racism is present. 

Again, strawmanning extremist claims and making it seem like it's the middle.

[Atticus Finch]

19 minutes ago, badrouter said:

This is quite the statement. If systemic racism is not a product of discrimination, than what could we ever do to address it?

Of course it is if you don't understand what words mean.

Discrimination is actively prejudicial behavior on the basis of race, or sex, etc.

Systemic racism in this context are the results of decades or centuries of policies and systems that, consciously or unconsciously, benefited or harmed one group or another.

I think its important to know that before participating in multiple threads of multiple pages on this topic.

[Atticus Finch]

13 minutes ago, badrouter said:

We're left with only one metric: assessing/engineering equity, or equality of outcomes.

badrouter is here so that can only mean one thing.

(insert strawman)

[Atticus Finch]

12 minutes ago, badrouter said:

How else does one support the assertion that the criminal justice system is systemically racist?

Because it, like everything else, was developed by white Europeans for white Europeans and those same people just so happened to have a 200+ year head start accumulating wealth, prestige and influence in that very system that their ancestors created.

If you're poor you're disproportionately likely to commit a crime. If you're black you're disproportionately likely to be poor.

And so on.

[Belly Bob]

57 minutes ago, Atticus Finch said:

No, you're argued that we must then discriminate against Asians because be racist not to.

One race's having cumulative advantages over another is partly constitutive of systemic racism.

👇

1 hour ago, Atticus Finch said:

The entire history of the United States that came before them and shaped everything that exists today.

Cumulative advantage is a real thing and that explains the difference between, say, being rich and being wealthy.

If you don't understand these things then you're hopeless like I said.

 

[Atticus Finch]

5 minutes ago, Belly Bob said:

One race's having cumulative advantages over another is partly constitutive of systemic racism.

Asians don't have a cumulative advantage in this country. They just out-perform other groups.

That is not the results of cumulative advantage.

If that's what "antiracists" are saying then it's dumb.

But I still don't even fully understand that point that you're trying to make. That's how stupid it seems.

[badrouter]

27 minutes ago, Atticus Finch said:

You make the common mistake of highlighting the claims of radicals so you can easily knock them down.

A version of strawmanning.

Well, I agree that the Black Lives Matter global network is a radical organization. But, it is also totally mainstream. Heck, I tried to open a Bumble (dating app) account and was told I could only join if I support the Black Lives Matter Global Network-those exact words. (Had they asked me if I agree with the sentiments that the lives of black people matter, of course it would have been a no-brainer that only a racist would struggle with.)

[Belly Bob]

13 minutes ago, Atticus Finch said:

Asians don't have a cumulative advantage in this country. They just out-perform other groups.

That is not the results of cumulative advantage.

If that's what "antiracists" are saying then it's dumb.

But I still don't even fully understand that point that you're trying to make. That's how stupid it seems.

It's a widely accepted assumption among social critics that differences in cumulative advantage among groups (races, sexes, etc.) is not due to any intrinsic properties of those groups (like Asians' capacity to "just" outperform other racial groups) but to properties external to them (properties of the system, of the institution, of the industry, of the exam, etc.).

If you say that Asians can "just" outperform non-Asians or that men can "just" outperform women, then you're open to the charge of being a racist or a sexist, since those are non-starters for many advocates of diversity and inclusion. 

[badrouter]

If extremist views are also the dominant views, then it is totally appropriate to reference those views in an argument on the topic. Wanting to abolish our entire economic system, abolish all police and all prisons, and abolish gender are indeed crazy, extremist views. They also happen to be the exact stated aims of highly mainstream figures and organizations that regularly appear on national broadcast media.

[badrouter]

2 minutes ago, Belly Bob said:

It's a widely accepted assumption among social critics that differences in cumulative advantage among groups (races, sexes, etc.) is not due to any intrinsic properties of those groups (like Asians' capacity to "just" outperform other racial groups) but to properties external to them (properties of the system).

If you say that Asians can "just" outperform non-Asians or that men can "just" outperform women, then you're open to the charge of being a racist or a sexist, since those are non-starters for many advocates of diversity and inclusion. 

Exactly. I think Atticus is lagging in awareness of the (admittedly extremist) views permeating society.

[Atticus Finch]

2 minutes ago, Belly Bob said:

It's a widely accepted assumption among social critics that differences in cumulative advantage among groups (races, sexes, etc.) is not due to any intrinsic properties of those groups (like Asians' capacity to "just" outperform other racial groups) but to properties external to them (properties of the system, of the institution, etc.).

Again, the Asian experience in this country is totally unrelated to the ancestors of slaves.

You keep trying to pound this square peg into the round hole.