KillingtonZone.com

daytripper wrote: ↑Jun 30th, '23, 14:42

Coydog wrote: ↑Jun 30th, '23, 14:09

daytripper wrote: ↑Jun 29th, '23, 12:03 I don't think the color of your skin should be a determining factor in anything.

Spoken by someone who apparently has never experienced a disadvantage due to race, gender or sexual orientation.

You don't know me or what I've been thru.

It's a virtual certainty you're not a member of a racial minority group and thus our society at large has never held your skin color against you.

I also know that ironically, if Yale did not affirmatively seek to diversify its law school student body in the 1970s, the chances are there would be no Justice Thomas today.

You can think whatever you like, you still don't know me or what I've been thru.

daytripper wrote: ↑Jun 30th, '23, 15:24 You can think whatever you like, you still don't know me or what I've been thru.

As far as I know the toughest thing you've been through is being in disfunctional ski houses with the likes of me. As far as the color thing I agree with you. Coydog - Clarence Thomas is a disgraceful human being and a living argument against affirmative action.

G-smashed wrote: ↑Jul 1st, '23, 11:15

daytripper wrote: ↑Jun 30th, '23, 15:24 You can think whatever you like, you still don't know me or what I've been thru.

As far as I know the toughest thing you've been through is being in disfunctional ski houses with the likes of me. As far as the color thing I agree with you. Coydog - Clarence Thomas is a disgraceful human being and a living argument against affirmative action.

I was almost 30 when you met me.

Coydog wrote: ↑Jun 30th, '23, 15:08 I also know that ironically, if Yale did not affirmatively seek to diversify its law school student body in the 1970s, the chances are there would be no Justice Thomas today.

That assumes Justice Thomas would not have still gone to some other law school, and done equally well without the Yale pedigree.

With no affirmative action quotas in place, do you think top colleges today would turn down a top tier black applicant whose credentials would otherwise be accepted to the college? One, a few, or all top colleges?

Mister Moose wrote: ↑Jul 1st, '23, 13:04

Coydog wrote: ↑Jun 30th, '23, 15:08 I also know that ironically, if Yale did not affirmatively seek to diversify its law school student body in the 1970s, the chances are there would be no Justice Thomas today.

That assumes Justice Thomas would not have still gone to some other law school, and done equally well without the Yale pedigree.

With no affirmative action quotas in place, do you think top colleges today would turn down a top tier black applicant whose credentials would otherwise be accepted to the college? One, a few, or all top colleges?

There are no quotas.

Bubba wrote: ↑Jul 1st, '23, 19:41

Mister Moose wrote: ↑Jul 1st, '23, 13:04

Coydog wrote: ↑Jun 30th, '23, 15:08 I also know that ironically, if Yale did not affirmatively seek to diversify its law school student body in the 1970s, the chances are there would be no Justice Thomas today.

That assumes Justice Thomas would not have still gone to some other law school, and done equally well without the Yale pedigree.

With no affirmative action quotas in place, do you think top colleges today would turn down a top tier black applicant whose credentials would otherwise be accepted to the college? One, a few, or all top colleges?

There are no quotas.

What would you call it?

In 1986, the Reagan administration was opposed to the affirmative action requirements of the executive order and contemplated modifying it to prohibit employers from using "quotas, goals, or other numerical objectives, or any scheme[,] device, or technique that discriminates against, or grants any preference to, any person on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin." The contemplated change was never issued because it faced bipartisan opposition in Congress that threatened to counteract it by enacting Executive Order 11246 into law by a veto-proof majority.

I don't think the issue right now is that universities might not accept highly qualified minority candidates like Thomas. I think the issue now is that it is difficult for minority students to achieve those high qualifications to even be considered.

Mister Moose wrote: ↑Jul 1st, '23, 20:46

Bubba wrote: ↑Jul 1st, '23, 19:41

Mister Moose wrote: ↑Jul 1st, '23, 13:04

Coydog wrote: ↑Jun 30th, '23, 15:08 I also know that ironically, if Yale did not affirmatively seek to diversify its law school student body in the 1970s, the chances are there would be no Justice Thomas today.

That assumes Justice Thomas would not have still gone to some other law school, and done equally well without the Yale pedigree.

With no affirmative action quotas in place, do you think top colleges today would turn down a top tier black applicant whose credentials would otherwise be accepted to the college? One, a few, or all top colleges?

There are no quotas.

What would you call it?

In 1986, the Reagan administration was opposed to the affirmative action requirements of the executive order and contemplated modifying it to prohibit employers from using "quotas, goals, or other numerical objectives, or any scheme[,] device, or technique that discriminates against, or grants any preference to, any person on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin." The contemplated change was never issued because it faced bipartisan opposition in Congress that threatened to counteract it by enacting Executive Order 11246 into law by a veto-proof majority.

A non-numerical goal, and therein lies part of the problem. With an amorphous goal, you never know when you’ve achieved it, thus any preference, tilt or whatever else you call it could last forever.

easyrider16 wrote: ↑Jul 2nd, '23, 07:55 I don't think the issue right now is that universities might not accept highly qualified minority candidates like Thomas. I think the issue now is that it is difficult for minority students to achieve those high qualifications to even be considered.

You're on to something there....might be called school choice???

Fancypants wrote: ↑Jul 2nd, '23, 21:45

easyrider16 wrote: ↑Jul 2nd, '23, 07:55 I don't think the issue right now is that universities might not accept highly qualified minority candidates like Thomas. I think the issue now is that it is difficult for minority students to achieve those high qualifications to even be considered.

You're on to something there....might be called school choice???

How does school choice address the problem of racial inequality in the real world? If any parent can choose to put their kids in the best schools, who do you think is going to be in the best schools? Seems to me it will be the kids whose parents have the most money and influence, which is not likely to include a proportionate share of minorities.

easyrider16 wrote: ↑Jul 3rd, '23, 06:46

Fancypants wrote: ↑Jul 2nd, '23, 21:45

easyrider16 wrote: ↑Jul 2nd, '23, 07:55 I don't think the issue right now is that universities might not accept highly qualified minority candidates like Thomas. I think the issue now is that it is difficult for minority students to achieve those high qualifications to even be considered.

You're on to something there....might be called school choice???

How does school choice address the problem of racial inequality in the real world? If any parent can choose to put their kids in the best schools, who do you think is going to be in the best schools? Seems to me it will be the kids whose parents have the most money and influence, which is not likely to include a proportionate share of minorities.

I think there’s only so much the govt can do to help in this area. The single biggest points of influence seem to be where you’re born and your parents.

Born in the US, you won the lottery. Parents still play a huge role. I live in an upscale area and still see kids failing to launch because their parents are not present (emotionally and/or physically).

easyrider16 wrote: ↑Jul 3rd, '23, 06:46

Fancypants wrote: ↑Jul 2nd, '23, 21:45

easyrider16 wrote: ↑Jul 2nd, '23, 07:55 I don't think the issue right now is that universities might not accept highly qualified minority candidates like Thomas. I think the issue now is that it is difficult for minority students to achieve those high qualifications to even be considered.

You're on to something there....might be called school choice???

How does school choice address the problem of racial inequality in the real world? If any parent can choose to put their kids in the best schools, who do you think is going to be in the best schools? Seems to me it will be the kids whose parents have the most money and influence, which is not likely to include a proportionate share of minorities.

Stop thinking wealthy privilege, and start thinking choice for everyone. There are many successful, highly desired charter schools in urban areas that have extremely high minority populations. These charter schools in many cases do what public schools have taken out - dress codes, discipline, core academics, work. There are waiting lists.

The cry from teacher unions is "You're just taking the good students and leaving us with the difficult ones, and taking the funding with them" "Slow learners, behavior challenged students, and others need to be intermingled and made to feel normal"

To which I have listened to for 30 years and now wonder if there is any sense in that. The corollary is "Screw the education of the motivated, want to learn students". There are students that are nearly unteachable. Should they have a right to infect the classroom learning environment? I don't think so. Let there be a school for hooligans who do not value their education, and a school for earnest young minds. There is likely an efficiency in teaching like abilities/behaviors, rather than thinking you can make progress in a disruptive classroom.

If parents want a child in a good school, they need to teach their children good social behavior and a curiosity to learn before they even get to the first day of school.

Sure there's some bad teachers out there. Talk to a good teacher, and what you find is the real problem is the parents. Good parents should be able to choose where to send their child, regardless of that parent's race, income or zip code. That's a real lack of discrimination.

I never said I was against school choice or that it was a bad thing. I asked how it addresses the problem of racial inequality. Again, it seems to me the best schools are going to be populated by children of the most successful parents, those with relative wealth and privilege, and that is not likely to include a proportionate share of minorities.

As for school choice itself, I'm sort of on the fence. I can see logically how it makes sense, but there's also a logical problem - what do you do about the bad schools, the ones nobody wants to attend? Do the kids who are left in those schools just get abandoned? It seems to me that something more measured would be better, perhaps targeting specific locals with problems and establishing charter schools in those areas, or something similar. Or maybe some sort of program or attention needs to be paid to these schools that aren't doing the job.

easyrider16 wrote: ↑Jul 3rd, '23, 13:08 I never said I was against school choice or that it was a bad thing. I asked how it addresses the problem of racial inequality. Again, it seems to me the best schools are going to be populated by children of the most successful parents, those with relative wealth and privilege, and that is not likely to include a proportionate share of minorities.

As for school choice itself, I'm sort of on the fence. I can see logically how it makes sense, but there's also a logical problem - what do you do about the bad schools, the ones nobody wants to attend? Do the kids who are left in those schools just get abandoned? It seems to me that something more measured would be better, perhaps targeting specific locals with problems and establishing charter schools in those areas, or something similar. Or maybe some sort of program or attention needs to be paid to these schools that aren't doing the job.

You either didn't read or didn't comprehend my post. What racial inequality are you [still] talking about? The upper stratosphere of uber private boarding schools? Forget about those, they do not educate the masses. Read through this website, and tell me how much racial inequality there is. Tell me what the minority percentage is. Look at their criteria and success rates.

https://www.achievementfirst.org/how-we ... /students/

I like their name, by the way. Achievement First.
"Our mission is to deliver on the promise of equal educational opportunity for all of America’s children."