OT: Mizzou black football players taking a stand

[SubbaBub]

I've read science journalism / newspaper pieces reporting on the field. Not an expert (neither is anyone else here probably).

You'd would be wrong. The BY actually has quite a roster of experts in a number of areas. It's easy to see if you know what to look at.

The desire for anonymity is what keeps their CV's private.

 

[TasteofUConn]

The world is the world as it is and it is a vast and complex place.

I believe the world is very small, and very simple.
Not sure I understood the rest of your post.

 

[TasteofUConn]

For the record, your views are racist by any fair measure.

Which "view" makes me a racist, by your definition?

 

[tzznandrew]

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...er-social-media-threats-of-violence/75559034/

Again. These students clearly had nothing to be afraid of.

Also, I have read and linked to the article in question. If we are going to dismiss the work of actual sociologists--sociologists publishing in a prestigious journal--merely because we don't like their results, I don't know what to say.

 

[Jimmy Serrano]

I don't think I'm going out on a limb, based on your comments about "garbage studies" and "anyone can produce whatever result" that whether the science is well designed or not, your mind is already made up and you aren't willing to consider the data.

I took the time to actually read the study. You didn't. The study confirmed my beliefs, but in no way shape or form do I think it PROVES it.

Isn't it just as telling that you are endorsing a study that you haven't even taken the time to read? Do you believe that all published studies are flawless and beyond reproach?

 

[TasteofUConn]

What a convenient defense mechanism to insulate your worldview from self-examination.

You conveniently rely on a garbage pseudo-science "study."
If somebody took the time to produce an equivalent "study" that showed no bias in hiring, would you not be the first person claiming bias?

 

[Carl Spackler]

I proudly own that, by your definition, I'm a racist.
I said that many black people make poor choices, and those choices have substantially caused their poor economic results. You have responded, if I understand you, that my argument is an "inherent inferiority" argument.

I view your response as a means to prevent discussion of the point raised by the other side. I made no comment or argument at all about inherent characteristics. In fact, quite oppositely, my argument depends entirely on culture and choices.

Your position is now this - citing black culture and choices as a cause for black economic hardship is equivalent to citing black inherent inferiority, and thus racist.

Certainly that is bizarre, but I'll give you this - you'll never have to be bothered considering the impact of culture and choices on result!

I cannot tell you how many times and in different places in cultures I have run into this among adults embedded in their own lives. I used an analogy of battlefield medicine in this discussion. I'm no battalion surgeon, but I've had to go through training and trained others. You need to make hard choices sometimes, and I think - if you pay close attention to this entire 12 page mess - that an objective observer, if knowledgeable and experienced enough, can probably read through, and find the minds - expressed through words - that still have a very good opportunity to break through molds and open up.

 

[tzznandrew]

Which "view" makes me a racist, by your definition?

I'm not going to say you're racist, especially not in the older, 1960s sense. And hell, if we could chat about this over beer we'd probably have a great time. I've generally enjoyed your posts and our discussions on the basketball board, too.

But those ideas fundamentally racist. Your point is that black people are poor because there is something inferior about them or your culture. They are somehow deficient. You've also, I think, mischaracterized both dominant "white culture" and dominant "black culture," and I think that plays a role.

 

[SubbaBub]

She was out of line but I can almost forgive her for being very protective of those students against the inevitability of dreck like this: http://www.foxsports.com/college-fo...he-entire-mizzou-protest-based-on-lies-111115

That whole group screwed up because they were pushing around an actual Missouri student. Less condemnation from me if they were pushing around Clay Travis.

The whole episode is more interesting to me as an example of ragged execution of a campaign than the underlying issues.

The protest leader had a legitimate grievance, but was a tad over eager, IMO, in his desire to make a big splash vs addressing the matters at hand. The list of demands appeared to be that of an amateur group effort. It almost seemed like there should be a demand for extra desserts in the dining hall. It appeared that slapped together.

The president, who was clearly lacking support from anyone on campus, isn't the reason for the atmosphere in campus and replacing him does not necessarily help the cause. He made the correct decision to resign, for this reason. It will be interesting to see what does actually happen in terms of campus code of conduct and enforcement thereof.

It was a brilliant move to enlist the FB team, but we will see this won't work elsewhere. Ithaca College is about to find this out.

 

[Carl Spackler]

Then you have experience, as do I and many of my peers, in how brutally critical peer reviewers are.

absolutely.

What you'll find as you get older and more experienced, is that the motivations behind the brutality have a wide spectrum.

 

[TasteofUConn]

So, either we all understand that Affirmative Action no longer exists in admission standards as per the law of the USA (Supreme Court) or we understand that it is now an informal process.

You're scary here, and your assessment of the law is incorrect.

 

[SubbaBub]

I believe the world is very small, and very simple.
Not sure I understood the rest of your post.

Which "view" makes me a racist, by your definition?

"That is why you fail."

-Yoda

 

[Carl Spackler]

I'm not going to say you're racist, especially not in the older, 1960s sense. And hell, if we could chat about this over beer we'd probably have a great time. I've generally enjoyed your posts and our discussions on the basketball board, too.

But those ideas fundamentally racist. Your point is that black people are poor because there is something inferior about them or your culture. They are somehow deficient. You've also, I think, mischaracterized both dominant "white culture" and dominant "black culture," and I think that plays a role.

Once again, this is an extremist position based on the words that have been typed - and it's incorrect.

 

[Pudge]

That is an extremist position you are taking, and it's not correct.

I don't agree. We see a world we don't know everything about ... but we collectively don't believe a skin color means that the person is inferior. We listen to the studies and have a thoughtful concern of what we hear. Stating categorically that Blacks are where they are due to their own choices ... or ANOTHER extreme example - Native Americans (raised on reservations) are in distressed situations due to their own choices ... just doesn't square with the last 25 years of history nor particularly the history since 1865.

 

[TasteofUConn]

You need to make hard choices sometimes, and I think - if you pay close attention to this entire 12 page mess - that an objective observer, if knowledgeable and experienced enough, can probably read through, and find the minds - expressed through words - that still have a very good opportunity to break through molds and open up.

I desperately appreciate your thoughts here. Frankly, however, the recent trends in college intolerance of diverse expression, and the generally shrill, irrational, bludgeoning approach taken by the loyal opposition in this thread, are frightening.
Those who wish to suppress open discussion of race in this country are bordering on religious zealotry in their efforts to stifle discussion.
The great irony here is that they are hurting the people they are trying to help, notwithstanding any short term gains they may attain.

 

[junglehusky]

I took the time to actually read the study. You didn't. The study confirmed my beliefs, but in no way shape or form do I think it PROVES it.

Isn't it just as telling that you are endorsing a study that you haven't even taken the time to read? Do you believe that all published studies are flawless and beyond reproach?

Maybe I'll have time this weekend to look at some papers (bye week). But really, why should I even bother when you're going to dismiss whatever points I have a priori?

 

[TasteofUConn]

Maybe I'll have time this weekend to look at some papers (bye week). But really, why should I even bother when you're going to dismiss whatever points I have a priori?

Maybe it will make you a more informed person.

 

[junglehusky]

I desperately appreciate your thoughts here. Frankly, however, the recent trends in college intolerance of diverse expression, and the generally shrill, irrational, bludgeoning approach taken by the loyal opposition in this thread, are frightening.
Those who wish to suppress open discussion of race in this country are bordering on religious zealotry in their efforts to stifle discussion.
The great irony here is that they are hurting the people they are trying to help, notwithstanding any short term gains they may attain.

There is some validity to the point about zealotry and stifling discussion. I'll concede that. Interesting that it comes from both ends of the spectrum. But at the same time there are also people on campuses and elsewhere who are diligently trying to facilitate an open discussion and protect free speech. I think the president of Yale has been doing okay on this.

 

[Carl Spackler]

I don't agree. We see a world we don't know everything about ... but we collectively don't believe a skin color means that the person is inferior. We listen to the studies and have a thoughtful concern of what we hear. Stating categorically that Blacks are where they are due to their own choices ... or ANOTHER extreme example - Native Americans (raised on reservations) are in distressed situations due to their own choices ... just doesn't square with the last 25 years of history nor particularly the history since 1865.

That's a fair response, and TasteofUConn, IMSHO, took a very strong position for sure, but you're inflated his words with your own now.

In no way, will I ever suggest that fighting racism and racial bigotry of all shapes and forms is something that can be minimized or marginalized. The problem is that it can be incredibly abused and overblown, and it become a tool that is misused greatly by all kinds of people. I think that is the point that many seem not to get about Missouri. What the black students did there, is an incredibly powerful and important thing. I believe based ont eh words that were published prior - as well as the words that came out after - that it was misguided and has potentially accomplished nothing except a greater divide.

FWIW: I went ballistic on another board around here around Benghazi. It's personal to me - there was a guy killed there, that believe it or not, remotely - but still - connected. That guy was instrumental in fighting something that I've fought for years - and that is bigotry and racism among a highly specialized branch of this country's armed services - and the way things have gone with contracting - it's spread to places, where the accountability factors are even more difficult to get to. I have seen things done to other human beings because of nothing more than intolerance that keep me up at night, believe me.

As for the matter at hand. UMissour and now incorporating the elites at Yale - nothing I've read here ahs been written to suggest hat any of it is wrong or unwarranted, just misguided.

I find it difficult to understand why this point can be lost so easily. It's almost as if because of the importance of the events, that the fact that it could be so misguided and have negative effect as a consequence - doesn't matter?

 

[SubbaBub]

You're scary here, and your assessment of the law is incorrect.

It's actually dead on. Race can no longer be used as a qualifier for admission. Schools are still allowed to promote a diverse campus as an educational benefit.

You can say we need representatives from multiple ethnicities, income levels, states of residency, gender and other demographics.

What you can't say is we only have so many spots for white people and those are all filled up.

 

[upstater]

You're scary here, and your assessment of the law is incorrect.

Since your post lacked anything of substance, affirmative action admission policies were eroded through Baacke initially (quotas), but then also Gratz (points systems, non-quotas), and finally Schuette.

Most people are aware of this. In fact, at both private and public institutions, we know that both scholarships and admissions processes in schools now include a host of other criteria in order to pass the new legal tests. This is why schools award for instance McNair Fellowships to poor white students.

http://mcnairscholars.com/about/

The program used to be there for underrepresented minority groups, but this is no longer the case run because of the Supreme Court decisions.

This is a picture of the recent recipients at a Cal. State school of (former) affirmative action scholarships:

 

[junglehusky]

absolutely.

What you'll find as you get older and more experienced, is that the motivations behind the brutality have a wide spectrum.

The motivations may come out of competitiveness, but the editors can sort through this stuff. Are we still talking about reviewer anonymity?

 

[TasteofUConn]

. . . stifling discussion. I'll concede that. Interesting that it comes from both ends of the spectrum.

I fear both the left and the right when it comes to suppression of speech/discussion. Not sure which I fear more. The right I fear because their suppression tends toward homogeneity of culture (a culture that I do not share). The left I fear because their suppression tends toward oppressive statism and the blacklisting of intellectual dissent.

 

[TasteofUConn]

. . .

If you believe that colleges aren't permitted to use minority race status as a factor in admissions, then you don't understand the law.

 

[tzznandrew]

I fear both the left and the right when it comes to suppression of speech/discussion. Not sure which I fear more. The right I fear because their suppression tends toward homogeneity of culture (a culture that I do not share). The left I fear because their suppression tends toward oppressive statism and the blacklisting of intellectual dissent.

We may disagree on a number of things--hell, vociferously in the previous pages--but this we can agree on.