Once again, minorities get the short end of the stick.

[Admiral X]

The ivy league schools are going to start being seen as a joke in the not too distant future, honestly.

[AllanO]

Yes, the country where Indians, East Asians, and Jews outperform Whites by every metric.

We can spin out metrics endlessly so I am skeptical of "all metrics", like jugglers, lion tamers, plate spinners?

Most obviously the metric of becoming president of the United States seems like one that challenges your statement?

Cause I can not think of a Jewish, Indian, or East Asian president, but maybe they all just passed as white?

I am intrigued by the secret racial history of American presidents..

I guess Jews are overepresented in political office at least at some levels and regions, not sure about Indians and East Asians.

Broader metrics, fewer Asians (numbers I found does not distinguish South and East) and Jews serve in the armed forces than there proportion in the population including in elite ranks I imagine ( https://www.pbs.org/weta/washingtonweek/blog-post/jews-america-numbers https://www.cfr.org/article/demographics-us-military ). Asians are underrepresented as cops but whites are overrepresented, have no clue about Jews ( https://www.governing.com/gov-data/safety-justice/police-department-officer-demographics-minority-representation.html ) again not seeing any indication white over representation does not extend to upper ranks

Also you should have specified you meant adjusted for population and not absolutely. To be really meaningful we also need to control for things like parental income (parental educational attainment, parental occupation etc.) that might be the relevant factor over race or whatever. If rich kids outperform poor kids at polo say and one group has more rich kids, then there population adjusted success at polo of that group could be explained by income not group membership. I suspect some of the disparities you note would disappear if we did that and so on. Some of mine would also, for example joining the armed forces in the USA is I am pretty sure is correlated with low income, so the over representation of whites might just be about skewed income distribution.

Also your statement is ambiguous between each of the three all outperform whites in all categories or at least one of the three outperform whites in all categories. For example Jews may outperform whites once we adjust for population at becoming Supreme court justices, but I don't think East Asians or Indians do.

The ivy league schools are going to start being seen as a joke in the not too distant future, honestly.

Ahh for the good old days when many more Harvard students were let in on legacy grounds. Truly standards have slipped.

[clearspira]

The title of this thread amuses me given how many universities are guilty of ''positive discrimination'' whereby white men are second class citizens compared to women and minorities.

Technically the lowest performing white men as part of the dominant group get curbed out. That doesn't exactly entail them being second class citizens, especially considering they're the dominant group that gets favored overall in society given the circumstances that AA addresses.

Where is this country where white men get favoured overall in society out of interest?

Really? You're not aware that it's the United States where this article takes place?

I'm glad you confirmed that. Now I know its full of shit.

[clearspira]

Yes, the country where Indians, East Asians, and Jews outperform Whites by every metric.

We can spin out metrics endlessly so I am skeptical of "all metrics", like jugglers, lion tamers, plate spinners?

Most obviously the metric of becoming president of the United States seems like one that challenges your statement?

Cause I can not think of a Jewish, Indian, or East Asian president, but maybe they all just passed as white?

I'm interested in TODAY, not the past. And TODAY, we have had a black president, and several women who have enough support to one day become pres with enough luck.

Yeah, if you take the whole past into account, men have it great and minorities have it bad. But that is a stupid argument and borders on ''boo hoo, give us our turn you've had yours''. Nope, not happening. I am not sacrificing the single life I have just because other people have treated others badly.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

The title of this thread amuses me given how many universities are guilty of ''positive discrimination'' whereby white men are second class citizens compared to women and minorities.

Technically the lowest performing white men as part of the dominant group get curbed out. That doesn't exactly entail them being second class citizens, especially considering they're the dominant group that gets favored overall in society given the circumstances that AA addresses.

Where is this country where white men get favoured overall in society out of interest?

Really? You're not aware that it's the United States where this article takes place?

I'm glad you confirmed that. Now I know its full of shit.

Then enjoy your scavenger hunt or w/ever.

[AllanO]

I'm interested in TODAY, not the past. And TODAY, we have had a black president, and several women who have enough support to one day become pres with enough luck.

I am pretty sure the USA does not have a black president now, quit living in the past.

Also, Antiboyscout said "all metrics" (correction "every metric") I was pointing out that is clearly false, there are metrics that do not fit his description, this is why only a Sith deals in absolutes when they get contradicted in an on-line debate they just use their sorcerer's ways to settles the argument ad baculum. Even going by current presidents the metric fails to show whites displaced by Indians, East Asians or Jews (heck double the list to current presidents and vice presidents) or make it 5 times bigger by taking into account the past 20 years of presidents (and VPs) and so on, the point stands.

Also Antiboyscout was not talking about blacks or women, he was talking about Jews, Indians and East Asians, quit moving the goal posts.

Also, my numbers on armed services and police are current. Antiboyscout seemed to be countering the suggested dominance of whites by claiming a dominance in society by Indians, East Asians and Jews, I think we can see lots of areas of American society where such a dominance is nonexistent, so I challenged him on that point. You seem to be claiming a lack of dominance by any group so you are disagreeing with Antiboyscout also, not sure you understood my point.

[Darth Wedgius]

It would be more accurate to say that by many important, broad metrics, white people in the U.S. are not as successful as Jews, Indians, or East Asians. Including many areas that much of the left points to when assuming them to be evidence of systematic racism in favor of whites, "white privilege," etc.

So either those are not very solid evidence of systematic racism in favor of whites, or they are solid evidence that the U.S. has systematic racism in favor of Jews, Indians, and East Asians.

Either way, if assumptions of systematic racism is being used as an excuse for much of the left to be racist, then I think it should be applied uniformly. I also think that won't happen, as the historical pattern of racism doesn't lend itself to expecting rational behavior.

[AllanO]

It would be more accurate to say that by many important, broad metrics, white people in the U.S. are not as successful as Jews, Indians, or East Asians. Including many areas that much of the left points to when assuming them to be evidence of systematic racism in favor of whites, "white privilege," etc.

So either those are not very solid evidence of systematic racism in favor of whites, or they are solid evidence that the U.S. has systematic racism in favor of Jews, Indians, and East Asians.

Either way, if assumptions of systematic racism is being used as an excuse for much of the left to be racist, then I think it should be applied uniformly. I also think that won't happen, as the historical pattern of racism doesn't lend itself to expecting rational behavior.

Part of the problem is a disagreement about what constitutes racism versus what explains away racism. So if a university's admissions are actually mostly controlled/predicted by things like parental income and educational attainment then one might say, see no evidence of racial bias, racism is explained away. Except that race may heavily correlate with things like income and education level, so that the wide gap in incomes between races may be one of those institutions that constitute systematic racism. For example the institution of inheritance law means that poor people tend to have poor children so poverty in the past tends to cause poverty in the future. That is the thing about systematic racism it claims there is a system, a set of institutions and practices, whose effect is to maintain racial difference whatever the intent of actors in the system. Whereas some people define racism to merely mean the intent to discriminate on the basis of race through things like explicit rules etc., which there has always been a lot less of and you can explain away lots of it.

Combating the legacy of discrimination has always been explicitly a part of programs like affirmative action as we see in LBJ's famous runner analogy:

''You do not take a person who, for years, has been hobbled by chains and liberate him, bring him up to the starting line of a race and then say, 'You are free to compete with all the others,' and still justly believe that you have been completely fair. Thus it is not enough just to open the gates of opportunity. All our citizens must have the ability to walk through those gates.''

The claim is it is not merely formal rules and explicit biases that disadvantage a group, but the knock on effects of their previous condition that needs to be corrected for in the analogy.

So different groups will have different legacies and institutions bearing down on them and so the presence of absence of a hardship facing one does not necessarily tell us about what another faces. To counter that argument you need to either argue that the institutions imagined don't exist [do not explain the differences observed (maybe deny the differences even exist) etc.], or that a different program would more effectively end these institutions (a lot of revolutionary communists take that line) or that we just should not care for whatever reason.

[Darth Wedgius]

It would be more accurate to say that by many important, broad metrics, white people in the U.S. are not as successful as Jews, Indians, or East Asians. Including many areas that much of the left points to when assuming them to be evidence of systematic racism in favor of whites, "white privilege," etc.

So either those are not very solid evidence of systematic racism in favor of whites, or they are solid evidence that the U.S. has systematic racism in favor of Jews, Indians, and East Asians.

Either way, if assumptions of systematic racism is being used as an excuse for much of the left to be racist, then I think it should be applied uniformly. I also think that won't happen, as the historical pattern of racism doesn't lend itself to expecting rational behavior.

Part of the problem is a disagreement about what constitutes racism versus what explains away racism. So if a university's admissions are actually mostly controlled/predicted by things like parental income and educational attainment then one might say, see no evidence of racial bias, racism is explained away. Except that race may heavily correlate with things like income and education level, so that the wide gap in incomes between races may be one of those institutions that constitute systematic racism. For example the institution of inheritance law means that poor people tend to have poor children so poverty in the past tends to cause poverty in the future. That is the thing about systematic racism it claims there is a system, a set of institutions and practices, whose effect is to maintain racial difference whatever the intent of actors in the system. Whereas some people define racism to merely mean the intent to discriminate on the basis of race through things like explicit rules etc., which there has always been a lot less of and you can explain away lots of it.

Combating the legacy of discrimination has always been explicitly a part of programs like affirmative action as we see in LBJ's famous runner analogy:

''You do not take a person who, for years, has been hobbled by chains and liberate him, bring him up to the starting line of a race and then say, 'You are free to compete with all the others,' and still justly believe that you have been completely fair. Thus it is not enough just to open the gates of opportunity. All our citizens must have the ability to walk through those gates.''

The claim is it is not merely formal rules and explicit biases that disadvantage a group, but the knock on effects of their previous condition that needs to be corrected for in the analogy.

So different groups will have different legacies and institutions bearing down on them and so the presence of absence of a hardship facing one does not necessarily tell us about what another faces. To counter that argument you need to either argue that the institutions imagined don't exist [do not explain the differences observed (maybe deny the differences even exist) etc.], or that a different program would more effectively end these institutions (a lot of revolutionary communists take that line) or that we just should not care for whatever reason.

Again, in case you did not notice it, the same evidence for "systematic racism" used (blacks do not do as well in the U.S. by many economic or educational metrics) would, again, be evidence for systematic racism in favor of Jews (assuming Jews aren't whites for the purposes of these metrics; hardly the first time racial divisions have been rather arbitrary), Indians, and East Asians.

I do not deny that differences in achievements exists, I simply state that those differences are not solid evidence for systematic racism.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

It would be more accurate to say that by many important, broad metrics, white people in the U.S. are not as successful as Jews, Indians, or East Asians. Including many areas that much of the left points to when assuming them to be evidence of systematic racism in favor of whites, "white privilege," etc.

So either those are not very solid evidence of systematic racism in favor of whites, or they are solid evidence that the U.S. has systematic racism in favor of Jews, Indians, and East Asians.

Either way, if assumptions of systematic racism is being used as an excuse for much of the left to be racist, then I think it should be applied uniformly. I also think that won't happen, as the historical pattern of racism doesn't lend itself to expecting rational behavior.

Part of the problem is a disagreement about what constitutes racism versus what explains away racism. So if a university's admissions are actually mostly controlled/predicted by things like parental income and educational attainment then one might say, see no evidence of racial bias, racism is explained away. Except that race may heavily correlate with things like income and education level, so that the wide gap in incomes between races may be one of those institutions that constitute systematic racism. For example the institution of inheritance law means that poor people tend to have poor children so poverty in the past tends to cause poverty in the future. That is the thing about systematic racism it claims there is a system, a set of institutions and practices, whose effect is to maintain racial difference whatever the intent of actors in the system. Whereas some people define racism to merely mean the intent to discriminate on the basis of race through things like explicit rules etc., which there has always been a lot less of and you can explain away lots of it.

Combating the legacy of discrimination has always been explicitly a part of programs like affirmative action as we see in LBJ's famous runner analogy:

''You do not take a person who, for years, has been hobbled by chains and liberate him, bring him up to the starting line of a race and then say, 'You are free to compete with all the others,' and still justly believe that you have been completely fair. Thus it is not enough just to open the gates of opportunity. All our citizens must have the ability to walk through those gates.''

The claim is it is not merely formal rules and explicit biases that disadvantage a group, but the knock on effects of their previous condition that needs to be corrected for in the analogy.

So different groups will have different legacies and institutions bearing down on them and so the presence of absence of a hardship facing one does not necessarily tell us about what another faces. To counter that argument you need to either argue that the institutions imagined don't exist [do not explain the differences observed (maybe deny the differences even exist) etc.], or that a different program would more effectively end these institutions (a lot of revolutionary communists take that line) or that we just should not care for whatever reason.

I don't think the post you were replying to nor another in this thread by ABC is necessarily ignorant to the concept of systemic racism forms. However though they do imply directly that in order for white privilege etc... to exist then that indicates that all parties that satisfy as minority must follow suit. That's a point you made at the end, but it's not a condition that stems necessarily from ambivalence to systemic oppression or marginalization.