Doesn't affirmative action enhance stereotypes in admissions?

[WingedOx]

Errr, I believe President Obama disagrees with you. He said he hoped his daughters, who have grown up in a family of privilege, would not be admitted to college because of AA. ( rough paraphrase)

No, they'll be admitted because he comes from a Chicago family with clout.

c'mon now.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Womb Raider]

1. When there's no appreciable difference in opportunity based on race and when poor and minority communities have sufficient health care providers.
2. lol. Banco did a fine job with this.

1. And how do we measure these things? By minority communities having sufficient health care providers, do you mean health care providers with the same skin color?
2. Na, Banco never really answered the question. Perhaps you could give it a shot.

I read the first few pages of that thread. I find it amusing how you told us to read it in order to learn while you ignored a decent amount of opposing viewpoints.
Your argument against AA is ridiculous. You claim that AA gives reason for whites to hold racist attitudes while admitting that racism has decreased over the time period of AA. It's quite clear that people do not need a reason to hold racist views. You believing otherwise is reminiscent of the classic power dynamic which caused and causes so much trouble. By removing AA policies you will limit opportunities that are already scarce for MANY minorities. This will cause an increase in poverty and crime which will be used as a reason for racism.

What you are proposing will create a further racial divide in opportunity in this country. By removing the only bulwark of discrimination, you will effectively increase systemic racism faced by minorities. I wonder if you'll own up to this or reveal yourself as a coward.

a) Which opposing viewpoints did I ignore?
b) I claim that AA gives reasons for racist attitudes? It's a reality bud.
c) The decrease in racism in this country has absolutely nothing to do with AA policies. Again, if anything, AA has made it worse and hindered the progress of racial equality. You want people to respect minorities? Start allowing them to make a name for themselves and earn their respect. As long as we're implementing policies like AA to put minorities into jobs, there will never be respect. This is doing more harm than good - it undermines every single minority that makes it into a position in which AA is involved. This is a huge problem, because - as we've established - most minorities don't need AA to succeed.

AA is trying to mitigate problems with racial inequality by putting minorities into positions of power without treating the underlying cause of racism and discrimination. (You're trying to solve discrimination with discrimination - do you know how stupid that sounds?) Power =/= equality. Even if we somehow managed to match the # of physicians with the American demographics, if it was done using some sort of unethical AA system there will still be racism, discrimination and all the problems that come with it.

It's just sad to me so many of you seem to think URMs are somehow incapable of making it in the world without help as if they are somehow less capable than everyone else. Give them some credit. (And yes, I support SES based need, just not racial advantages).

d) Yes racism will never totally go away. It's human nature to prefer someone that is more similar to oneself and with which one shares cultural similarities. If you don't understand this, I don't know what to say. Unless we make everyone clones there will always be this kind of inequality. Furthermore, being a minority means that you're not part of the majority. So, expecting to receive the benefits of the majority as a minority is a futile desire.

This presents a problem for minorities, because rather than opting to live in a "color blind" society, they want to hold on to their culture and wear it with pride. By holding on to their culture and racial identity they preserve many beneficial qualities that are vital to their identity, the problem is they aren't comfortable accepting the negative consequences that are inevitable when you distinguish yourself from another group. We see this everywhere: Blacks expecting to be treated like Whites, while proudly proclaiming that they aren't White. Gays/bi expecting to be treated like straights in society, but get offended when a physician assumes they are straight in an exam. Trans/crossdressers expecting to be treated like a real person, but get upset when the physician assumes they are their biological gender (who would've known?!). Minorities expecting to be treated as equals while supporting systems that benefit only themselves. The hypocrisy is jaw-dropping.

These double standards are everywhere. People proclaim to be unique and in some niche group of people, but then expect to be treated just like everyone else when it suits them. You can't have both, and this wild, ridiculous expectation is rampant in our society.

 

[WingedOx]

If a URM got into school over you, it was because that URM was smart enough to use the search function to read every other one of these identical threads before starting a new one.

Those are the "intangible life skills" that ADCOMS speak of...

 

[Womb Raider]

Yet... where is the outrage about that?

Gender discrimination is also wrong, but I don't recall the difference between genders being nearly as large as the huge gap between races. I spoke with an adcom member at UTSW in Texas and he told me women *generally*, on average, score ~1pt worse on the science sections and ~1pt better on the verbal section than men. Do you have data to support the contrary?

White women are the primary beneficiaries of affirmative action but every discussion about AA focuses minorities getting an unfair advantage.

Do you have evidence for this statement?

 

[LizzyM]

Gender discrimination is also wrong, but I don't recall the difference between genders being nearly as large as the huge gap between races. I spoke with an adcom member at UTSW in Texas and he told me women *generally*, on average, score ~1pt worse on the science sections and ~1pt better on the verbal section than men. Do you have data to support the contrary?

applicants' MCAT and GPA by sex
https://www.aamc.org/download/321504/data/factstable22.pdf

matriculants' MCAT and GPA by sex
https://www.aamc.org/download/321506/data/factstable23.pdf

 

[Womb Raider]

Fantastic, thank you.

 

[cloudmurder1]

1. And how do we measure these things? By minority communities having sufficient health care providers, do you mean health care providers with the same skin color?
2. Na, Banco never really answered the question. Perhaps you could give it a shot.

a) Which opposing viewpoints did I ignore?
b) I claim that AA gives reasons for racist attitudes? It's a reality bud.
c) The decrease in racism in this country has absolutely nothing to do with AA policies. Again, if anything, AA has made it worse and hindered the progress of racial equality. You want people to respect minorities? Start allowing them to make a name for themselves and earn their respect. As long as we're implementing policies like AA to put minorities into jobs, there will never be respect. This is doing more harm than good - it undermines every single minority that makes it into a position in which AA is involved. This is a huge problem, because - as we've established - most minorities don't need AA to succeed.

AA is trying to mitigate problems with racial inequality by putting minorities into positions of power without treating the underlying cause of racism and discrimination. (You're trying to solve discrimination with discrimination - do you know how stupid that sounds?) Power =/= equality. Even if we somehow managed to match the # of physicians with the American demographics, if it was done using some sort of unethical AA system there will still be racism, discrimination and all the problems that come with it.

It's just sad to me so many of you seem to think URMs are somehow incapable of making it in the world without help as if they are somehow less capable than everyone else. Give them some credit. (And yes, I support SES based need, just not racial advantages).

d) Yes racism will never totally go away. It's human nature to prefer someone that is more similar to oneself and with which one shares cultural similarities. If you don't understand this, I don't know what to say. Unless we make everyone clones there will always be this kind of inequality. Furthermore, being a minority means that you're not part of the majority. So, expecting to receive the benefits of the majority as a minority is a futile desire.

This presents a problem for minorities, because rather than opting to live in a "color blind" society, they want to hold on to their culture and wear it with pride. By holding on to their culture and racial identity they preserve many beneficial qualities that are vital to their identity, the problem is they aren't comfortable accepting the negative consequences that are inevitable when you distinguish yourself from another group. We see this everywhere: Blacks expecting to be treated like Whites, while proudly proclaiming that they aren't White. Gays/bi expecting to be treated like straights in society, but get offended when a physician assumes they are straight in an exam. Trans/crossdressers expecting to be treated like a real person, but get upset when the physician assumes they are their biological gender (who would've known?!). Minorities expecting to be treated as equals while supporting systems that benefit only themselves. The hypocrisy is jaw-dropping.

These double standards are everywhere. People proclaim to be unique and in some niche group of people, but then expect to be treated just like everyone else when it suits them. You can't have both, and this wild, ridiculous expectation is rampant in our society.

I wish I could like this more than once. You are truly a voice of reason.

Factual correctness >>>>>>>>> political correctness

 

[ZezKaiEll]

There's no confirmation of the theory that physicians and patients of the same race improve health outcomes of minorities.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3209820/

"Patient-provider-race-concordance: does it matter in improving minority patients' health outcomes"

I find it amusing that you quickly dismissed conclusions from a previous study in this thread due to its limitations, yet make no mention of the paragraph filled with them in your own article. Could it be that your bias on the issue prevents you from being as critical when you agree with the idea? Or perhaps you have so little experience with academic literature that you were unaware that inclusion of such limitations is standard for discussion sections of this nature.

 

[Cytokine2014]

I read a piece today from one of my friend's school newsletter and saw this about admissions (to undergraduate/graduate schools) and thought that it applies to medical school admissions as well. What are your reactions?

(note: "I" does not refer to me; it refers to the author of the article in the newsletter; abbreviations were used)

[common abbreviations/jargon used by me, however]

text:

With this whole, "I'm a URM" therefore "I am judged more leniently than you" view that exists in some graduate school admissions, it looks as if the URM's have an unfair advantage over those who have the same but are ORM. I agree, the whole stereotypes in the past and unfair judgement from earlier in history on was wrong, but giving them their own category and grading them differently in the admissions process is unfair.

Instead of further enhancing their URM status, why don't adcoms just combine the entire pool of applicants and select the best ones, regardless of majority or minority. Quite honestly, I would want the best [doctors] to enter the field and couldn't care less about whether they are URM or ORM.

Making up for past discrimination isn't fair in the present time, and the best thing to do now is to be blind to those statuses now and not discriminate going forward. I don't get why admissions still uses affirmative action, says they want to end discrimination, but still blatantly uses it.

Yeah... This is some racist **** right here.

It also shows complete ignorance towards institutionalized racism, classism, and sexism.

Distance traveled is important. We can't measure ability or potential without looking at how far someone has come.

 

[Cytokine2014]

I read a piece today from one of my friend's school newsletter and saw this about admissions (to undergraduate/graduate schools) and thought that it applies to medical school admissions as well. What are your reactions?

(note: "I" does not refer to me; it refers to the author of the article in the newsletter; abbreviations were used)

[common abbreviations/jargon used by me, however]

text:

With this whole, "I'm a URM" therefore "I am judged more leniently than you" view that exists in some graduate school admissions, it looks as if the URM's have an unfair advantage over those who have the same but are ORM. I agree, the whole stereotypes in the past and unfair judgement from earlier in history on was wrong, but giving them their own category and grading them differently in the admissions process is unfair.

Instead of further enhancing their URM status, why don't adcoms just combine the entire pool of applicants and select the best ones, regardless of majority or minority. Quite honestly, I would want the best [doctors] to enter the field and couldn't care less about whether they are URM or ORM.

Making up for past discrimination isn't fair in the present time, and the best thing to do now is to be blind to those statuses now and not discriminate going forward. I don't get why admissions still uses affirmative action, says they want to end discrimination, but still blatantly uses it.

The more I think about this the more remarkable it is. Do you think discrimination is a thing of the past?

What a nice world you must live in. This argument is a specter of white privilege and a false (read: totally 100% inaccurate) claim of "reverse discrimination."

It also demonstrates how little understanding you have of the realities your potential patients face. If you're interested in actually learning about some of these problems, I'm happy to offer some reading material, but in my experience most people who make this argument just don't want to give up the advantages of being white and male.

 

[cloudmurder1]

I knew this would happen someday as evidenced by this thread: you are branded a racist not just for being ethnocentric or thinking one particular group of people is inferior, but also if you disagree with ANYTHING put forth by the leftist crowd that doesn't agree with their narrative of providing special benefits to particular groups of people, such as affirmative action.

Pretty soon, we'll be expelling people for saying that they disagree with affirmative action.

Time to join in the PC circlejerk, because I can't beat 'em.

 

[Banco]

I knew this would happen someday as evidenced by this thread: you are branded a racist not just for being ethnocentric or thinking one particular group of people is inferior, but also if you disagree with ANYTHING put forth by the leftist crowd that doesn't agree with their narrative of providing special benefits to particular groups of people, such as affirmative action.

Pretty soon, we'll be expelling people for saying that they disagree with affirmative action.

Time to join in the PC circlejerk, because I can't beat 'em.

Embarrassing.

Try not to blame URMs for the inadequacy of your own application when the time comes, its not a good look at all.

 

[Aerus]

I'm way too tired to get involved in another URM status thread, but I'll just say that until you've lived the life of a marginalized minority in this country, you won't understand how important diversity is in this country. This goes to all my friends with privileged identities (race, sex, SES, sexuality).

 

[Cytokine2014]

I knew this would happen someday as evidenced by this thread: you are branded a racist not just for being ethnocentric or thinking one particular group of people is inferior, but also if you disagree with ANYTHING put forth by the leftist crowd that doesn't agree with their narrative of providing special benefits to particular groups of people, such as affirmative action.

Pretty soon, we'll be expelling people for saying that they disagree with affirmative action.

Time to join in the PC circlejerk, because I can't beat 'em.

The phrase "special benefits" tells me everything I need to know. Your definition and understanding of racism is no better than a children's dictionary. What a way to address a complex problem.

 

[Cytokine2014]

.

 

[Hyde]

I find it amusing that you quickly dismissed conclusions from a previous study in this thread due to its limitations, yet make no mention of the paragraph filled with them in your own article. Could it be that your bias on the issue prevents you from being as critical when you agree with the idea? Or perhaps you have so little experience with academic literature that you were unaware that inclusion of such limitations is standard for discussion sections of this nature.

I criticized the conclusions of the Saha and Shipman for a number of reasons - the quote I included in my post alluded to the inadequacies and if you had read the entire 42 pages of the article (as I did), you would understand that the authors' double talk about their study's limitations were far removed from standard disclaimers.

1. their study was a selective ( as opposed to comprehensive) review of studies - eg. they arbitrarily refused to include studies before 1985 for subjective reasons that demonstrated their personal biases "we limited our review to studies published in or after 1985, since the social significance and meaning of race in particular has changed, and continues to change, over time. Studies published before 1985 often included data from a period when minority representation in the health professions was substantially lower and when racial attitudes were closer to those of the pre- Civil Rights era than they are today. "

2. Saha and Shipman even acknowledged ( as a footnote "of sorts" at the bottom of page 6) that there was inbuilt institutional bias that influenced their focus:
"* Our review was commissioned by BHPr, whose diversity programs target individuals from URM groups and socioeconomically disadvantaged backgrounds. As such, we conceptualize diversity from this perspective. It should be noted that other underserved populations are also underrepresented in the health care workforce (e.g. rural populations), and investigation into the role of enhanced diversity in these areas is also warranted. "

Just so you know, commissioned means paid for lock stock and barrel. One of BHPr's goals is to increase the numbers of URM's in health professions and to convince Congress of the need to increase funding of these programs. Coincidently in 2004 - 2 years before Saha and Shipman published their study - BHPr came under significant criticism for not doing enough in that regard.

http://www.nationalahec.org/MembersOnly/documents/Advocacy/ResponseToOMBAssessment.pdf

3. Saha and Shipman not only excluded studies done prior to 1985, but they also used questionable home-baked strategies so they could get answers they wanted. When they claim they may have missed some studies, that was a laughable understatement. They didn't test their hypotheses objectively. They looked at ways to prove their theories by excluding things and including others. Last paragraph of page 7 is revealing:

"Evidence Search. We developed strategies to search the existing literature addressing each of the four lines of evidence discussed above: service patterns, concordance, trust in health care, and professional advocacy. We searched the MEDLINE, HealthSTAR, and CINAHL databases using search terms available in each database. For the concordance hypothesis, we also searched the PsycINFO database, because we knew that many of the studies related to patient-practitioner concordance were conducted in the context of mental health counseling and published in journals not included in the other three databases. We supplemented these database searches in four ways. First, we conducted a “gray” literature search, for studies that may not have been published as journal articles but rather as monographs or book chapters. Second, we manually searched the reference lists of included studies and relevant review articles. Third, we searched selected Web sites for relevant references. Finally, we presented our initial results to several audiences including experts in health professions diversity and solicited their input on relevant evidence not yet included in our review.

4. The Appendix was a compilation of studies many of which used telephone surveys, patient self reporting, 1 study included didn't even have a description of the design or methods. It was embarressing to see what was included as "evidence."

What Meghani and Brooks et al did in contrast was an objective comprehensive survey of published research in 3 traditional databases over a lengthy time (1980-2008). They didn't exclude materials on whim. They didn't taint their focus by "consulting with experts in health professions diversity and soliciting their input on relevant evidence not yet included in their review." They didn't include potentially biased unscientific info from reading lists or websites ( "gray" material).

The studies Meghani and Brooks used were based on data from 56,276 patients and 1756 providers. Their data analysis followed established protocol (unlike Saha and Shipman):"The quality of the articles was evaluated using a structured data extraction form generated based on the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality guidelines to rate the strength of scientific evidence (AHRQ 2002). Studies were evaluated in five domains: (1) appropriateness of study question and design; (2) study sample; (3) comparability of subjects; (4) measurement of outcomes; and (5) appropriateness of study conclusions."

Meghani's and Brooks' disclaimers and suggestions for future studies were standard fare.

I hope this helps you evaluate studies more critically in the future.

 

[Hyde]

Pretty soon, we'll be expelling people for saying that they disagree with affirmative action. Time to join in the PC circlejerk, because I can't beat 'em.

Classes in "white privilege" and training in what constitutes "micro aggression" are already underway.

 

[Hyde]

The phrase "special benefits" tells me everything I need to know. Your definition and understanding of racism is no better than a children's dictionary.

Wait. Did Cloud micro aggress you or did you micro aggress Cloud? I just went to my first micro-aggression class so I'm new to this very important subject.

 

[Womb Raider]

A nice read that eloquently sums up my views.
http://yellowhammernews.com/politic...ended-that-everyone-is-offended-by-something/

 

[cloudmurder1]

They

The phrase "special benefits" tells me everything I need to know. Your definition and understanding of racism is no better than a children's dictionary. What a way to address a complex problem.

For whatever reason, such as past discrimination, that may or may not fully justify affirmative action (because no system is perfect), special benefits are present in the admission process for minorities, and you can't deny that. I don't really feel the need to loudly voice my opinion on AA anymore, because I know it will never be completely absent. What I'm concerned about is you people villifying someone for disagreeing with you about it, which is something I've seen a lot from the liberal crowd.

 

[Cytokine2014]

They


For whatever reason, such as past discrimination, that may or may not fully justify affirmative action (because no system is perfect), special benefits are present in the admission process for minorities, and you can't deny that. I don't really feel the need to loudly voice my opinion on AA anymore, because I know it will never be completely absent. What I'm concerned about is you people villifying someone for disagreeing with you about it, which is something I've seen a lot from the liberal crowd.

Actually, I can totally and completely deny that, but arguing with you is a waste of my time. Some people are just determined to be wrong and I'd rather spend my time elsewhere.

I'm not vilifying you - I'm just saying your argument is racist. Which it is. Point blank.

 

[Womb Raider]

I'm not vilifying you - I'm just saying your argument is racist. Which it is. Point blank.

What?

AA is inherently racist. Therefore, it can be inferred that those who support a racist system and racist themselves. We're not the ones who support AA, you are.

 

[Cytokine2014]

What?

AA is inherently racist. Therefore, it can be inferred that those who support a racist system and racist themselves. We're not the ones who support AA, you are.

I refer you now to what I said previously.

"Your definition and understanding of racism is no better than a children's dictionary."

And to the following article. http://www.timwise.org/2010/10/affi...ifference-between-oppression-and-opportunity/

"Affirmative action, on the other hand, does not presume in the reverse that whites are inferior to people of color, or less desirable as workers, students or contractors. In fact, it presumes nothing at all about white abilities, relative to people of color. It merely presumes that whites have been afforded more-than-equal, extra opportunity relative to people of color, and that this arrangement has skewed the opportunity structure for jobs, college slots and contracts. Affirmative action is not predicated on any assumptions about whites, as whites, in terms of our humanity, decency, intelligence or abilities. It is based solely on assumptions about what being white has meant in the larger social structure. It casts judgment upon the social order and its results, not people per se."

 

[NickNaylor]

It casts judgment upon the social order and its results, not people per se."

Makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside.

 

[Cytokine2014]

Makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside.

I mean, it was never meant to feel comfortable for white people. If you want to dismantle a racist system, in which minorities consistently face disparities in opportunity, education quality, etc, you have to inconvenience the people who are unfairly receiving the benefits of the disparity. So in this case, white people. Especially men.

Affirmative action addresses this problem: http://m.imgur.com/gallery/3Bsf7

Complaining that it gives minorities "special benefits" is literally just complaining that you no longer have the benefit of always getting to be in the front row with the easiest toss.

 

[deleted480308]

I mean, it was never meant to feel comfortable for white people. If you want to dismantle a racist system, in which minorities consistently face disparities in opportunity, education quality, etc, you have to inconvenience the people who are unfairly receiving the benefits of the disparity. So in this case, white people. Especially men.

Affirmative action addresses this problem: http://m.imgur.com/gallery/3Bsf7

Complaining that it gives minorities "special benefits" is literally just complaining that you no longer have the benefit of always getting to be in the front row with the easiest toss.

it's also like the olympics offering a head start in the marathon to nations with less training budget..but that sounds less complimentary doesn't it?

 

[Cytokine2014]

it's also like the olympics offering a head start in the marathon to nations with less training budget..but that sounds less complimentary doesn't it?

Actually, that's a pretty terrible oversimplification. And a mischaracterization.

Come back when you know more about institutionalized oppression, and then we will talk.

 

[Womb Raider]

Lol. Another person saying AA isn't racist. Epic fail.

 

[deleted480308]

Actually, that's a pretty terrible oversimplification. And a mischaracterization.

Come back when you know more about institutionalized oppression, and then we will talk.

It's a pretty accurate analogy. One demographic has statistically drastic deficiencies in opportunity/privilege leading up to a certain point in life (admissions in this discussion and the race in my analogy) so you think the most effective method of addressing that disparity is to institute a discriminatory policy at an arbitrary point in an attempt to mitigate the disparity. Feel free to do the "you disagree so you aren't educated" thing, but it's not an effective discussion method.

I'm with you that disparity exists and that racism was/is the origin of that, we just disagree on how best to address that disparity.

 

[Cytokine2014]

It's a pretty accurate analogy. One demographic has statistically drastic deficiencies in opportunity/privilege leading up to a certain point in life (admissions in this discussion and the race in my analogy) so you think the most effective method of addressing that disparity is to institute a discriminatory policy at an arbitrary point in an attempt to mitigate the disparity. Feel free to do the "you disagree so you aren't educated" thing, but it's not an effective discussion method.

I'm with you that disparity exists and that racism was/is the origin of that, we just disagree on how best to address that disparity.

Uh huh. And how would you address it?

It's just as simple as this... Affirmative action does not put white people at a disadvantage. It just doesn't. We are still overwhelmingly represented in institutions of higher education, government, media and yes, medical schools.

 

[Cytokine2014]

Shoutout to @Goro - Thanks! Glad I'm not 100% alone in the human decency department right now.

 

[Cytokine2014]

It's a pretty accurate analogy. One demographic has statistically drastic deficiencies in opportunity/privilege leading up to a certain point in life (admissions in this discussion and the race in my analogy) so you think the most effective method of addressing that disparity is to institute a discriminatory policy at an arbitrary point in an attempt to mitigate the disparity. Feel free to do the "you disagree so you aren't educated" thing, but it's not an effective discussion method.

I'm with you that disparity exists and that racism was/is the origin of that, we just disagree on how best to address that disparity.

While you're at it... Explain to me who this is hurting.

 

[Womb Raider]

Cyto this has been explained for the last 4 pages, as well as the 7 pages in the previous thread that I linked. If you seriously can't wrap your head around the reasoning behind the opposing viewpoint, you need to reconsider applying to medical school. It's not a hard concept to grasp, even if you disagree with it.

Acknowledging the other's position =/= agreeing with it. Remember that young padawan.

 

[deleted480308]

Uh huh. And how would you address it?

It's just as simple as this... Affirmative action does not put white people at a disadvantage. It just doesn't. We are still overwhelmingly represented in institutions of higher education, government, media and yes, medical schools.

Some of the bigger things that could be done would be expansion of school voucher programs to allow students (disproportionately URM) that are stuck in bad public schools. Decriminalize drugs to stop the disproportionate removal of URM fathers from their children's lives...while we do that, address the disproportionate sentencing/conviction of URM defendants. I also think that the methodology of housing subsidies (I'm philosophically opposed to them existing, but their methodology is currently flawed as long as they are going to stay) tends to concentrate the poor (disproportionately URM) into areas of poverty geographically. If they are going to be subsidized, the check should go to them directly so the landlord is not required to know their status which can lead to economic discrimination.

There are certainly more things that can be done, but that's a few of the biggest.

 

[Cytokine2014]

Cyto this has been explained for the last 4 pages, as well as the 7 pages in the previous thread that I linked. If you seriously can't wrap your head around the reasoning behind the opposing viewpoint, you need to reconsider applying to medical school. It's not a hard concept to grasp, even if you disagree with it.

Acknowledging the other's position =/= agreeing with it. Remember that young padawan.

I can wrap my head around it. But you don't have a valid point. I will literally never abandon my values - or my education on this or my support of the marginalized - to acknowledge your opinion or validate your feelings about it. The research backs me up. Fox News viewers do not.

I can acknowledge that you have your opinion, but it just isn't in the best interest of progress or even the patients, ultimately.

What I'm waiting for is for you to give up and say "I just like getting things more easily than the underprivileged and fairness hurts my feelings" Because that is what your opinion comes down to.

 

[Hyde]

I refer you now to what I said previously.

"Your definition and understanding of racism is no better than a children's dictionary."

And to the following article. http://www.timwise.org/2010/10/affi...ifference-between-oppression-and-opportunity/

Tim Wise has some credibility issues with minorities, which casts a dim light on his writings and opinions. I suggest you do more research on The Google re: this pseudo guru on racism and social justice. Here are a few examples - be sure to read the comments, too:

http://www.gradientlair.com/post/61521224722/i-dont-need-tim-wise-as-an-ally

http://www.furiousandbrave.com/2013/08/9timwise.html

 

[Banco]

It's a pretty accurate analogy. One demographic has statistically drastic deficiencies in opportunity/privilege leading up to a certain point in life (admissions in this discussion and the race in my analogy) so you think the most effective method of addressing that disparity is to institute a discriminatory policy at an arbitrary point in an attempt to mitigate the disparity. Feel free to do the "you disagree so you aren't educated" thing, but it's not an effective discussion method.

I'm with you that disparity exists and that racism was/is the origin of that, we just disagree on how best to address that disparity.

Competing in the olympics vs. addressing racial inequality in daily life is not an apt analogy at all. This is one issue when making comparisons of AA to other careers and paths, there is no universal rule or comparison to be made - there is much more nuance and rationale behind AA in the medical world and simply devolving it into "advantage given to a certain group" without any context is not a sound way to go about it.

I agree with you on the things that you've said on how we can tackle the underlying problem of racism and unequal opportunity in this country, but that doesn't mean that AA needs to be out of those sets of solutions. Ultimately the goal should be to eliminate racism from society, but we are far, far away from that.

 

[deleted480308]

Ultimately the goal should be to eliminate racism from society, but we are far, far away from that.

See we found something to agree on...the internet can get along!

 

[Cytokine2014]

Tim Wise has some credibility issues with minorities, which casts a dim light on his writings and opinions. I suggest you do more research on The Google re: this pseudo guru on racism and social justice. Here are a few examples - be sure to read the comments, too:

http://www.gradientlair.com/post/61521224722/i-dont-need-tim-wise-as-an-ally

http://www.furiousandbrave.com/2013/08/9timwise.html

Yeah, I know that Tim Wise is far from perfect. But I figured I was probably talking to white men, and sometimes they just need a very basic education first.

He's hardly the best source, but he does a decent job explaining the lowest level of inequality to other white people.

We can get more complex once people aren't saying "affirmative action is reverse racism."

 

[LizzyM]

Picking up the Olympics analogy, we do want a broad representation of teams so we limit the number of athletes on a given team rather than saying the 24 fastest runners, skiers, cyclists, skaters are eligible to compete regardless of nationality. Instead, we say that no nation can send more than a specified number of members on the team so that more nations have an opportunity to compete. The third string bobsled team from Germany or Switzerland could out race the Jamaican Bobsled team but they stay home and there is room for greater diversity within the sport.

 

[Womb Raider]

I can wrap my head around it. But you don't have a valid point. I will literally never abandon my values - or my education on this or my support of the marginalized - to acknowledge your opinion or validate your feelings about it. The research backs me up. Fox News viewers do not.

I can acknowledge that you have your opinion, but it just isn't in the best interest of progress or even the patients, ultimately.

What I'm waiting for is for you to give up and say "I just like getting things more easily than the underprivileged and fairness hurts my feelings" Because that is what your opinion comes down to.

A) You don't know if I'm male/female Black/White/Asian/Hispanic, etc... My race should have nothing to do with the validity of either of our arguments, so let's leave it out of the discussion.

B) "I will literally never abandon my values." This is probably the most telling statement that shows your naïveté.

You should ALWAYS be open to better ways of doing things. ALWAYS. Being narrow-minded and going through life with that sort of hubris is dangerous and sad. I won't even discuss the medical implications of not being open to different ways of doing something, but they should be obvious.

If you think your way is perfect, that's fine, but don't ignore or turn your head away from competing opinions. If your way really is as great as you think, you will have no problem fending off and withstanding any attack against it. Indeed, combating competing opinions / viewpoints -if they don't destroy your idea - strengthen and broaden your understanding of the issue. You should want these things. My guess is you're incapable of introducing compelling arguments because a) you're too emotionally involved and literally shaking with rage and/or b) you just don't know enough to talk.

C) You don't know the right answer to this problem because it hasn't been solved yet. This is a huge debate and both sides have compelling arguments. Pretending this is as simple, straightforward and as lopsided as you're making it out to be is just flat out wrong.

D) One more time - you aren't "abandoning your values" by acknowledging the opposing side's argument. If anything you're showing your maturity by being able to argue/discuss an issue without taking it personally.

Aristotle once said, "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." Heed his advice.

E) Please, share with us the evidence and research that proves your method is the right way of solving this problem. Don't worry, I'll wait.

 

[Womb Raider]

Why do we never talk about nursing school admissions? Why aren't we making nursing classes 50/50 male female?

 

[Mr Interesting]

Some of the bigger things that could be done would be expansion of school voucher programs to allow students (disproportionately URM) that are stuck in bad public schools. Decriminalize drugs to stop the disproportionate removal of URM fathers from their children's lives...while we do that, address the disproportionate sentencing/conviction of URM defendants.

I'm with you on the bad public schools thing but I'm not so convinced "drugs" are to blame for the removal of URM fathers. I would argue racial profiling may play a bigger role in that but that is a discussion for another day.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...eople-are-more-likely-to-get-arrested-for-it/

 

[Cytokine2014]

A) You don't know if I'm male/female Black/White/Asian/Hispanic, etc... My race should have nothing to do with the validity of either of our arguments, so let's leave it out of the discussion.

B) "I will literally never abandon my values." This is probably the most telling statement that shows your naïveté.

You should ALWAYS be open to better ways of doing things. ALWAYS. Being narrow-minded and going through life with that sort of hubris is dangerous and sad. I won't even discuss the medical implications of not being open to different ways of doing something, but they should be obvious.

If you think your way is perfect, that's fine, but don't ignore or turn your head away from competing opinions. If your way really is as great as you think, you will have no problem fending off and withstanding any attack against it. Indeed, combating competing opinions / viewpoints -if they don't destroy your idea - strengthen and broaden your understanding of the issue. You should want these things. My guess is you're incapable of introducing compelling arguments because a) you're too emotionally involved and literally shaking with rage and/or b) you just don't know enough to talk.

C) You don't know the right answer to this problem because it hasn't been solved yet. This is a huge debate and both sides have compelling arguments. Pretending this is as simple, straightforward and as lopsided as you're making it out to be is just flat out wrong.

D) One more time - you aren't "abandoning your values" by acknowledging the opposing side's argument. If anything you're showing your maturity by being able to argue/discuss an issue without taking it personally.

Aristotle once said, "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." Heed his advice.

E) Please, share with us the evidence and research that proves your method is the right way of solving this problem. Don't worry, I'll wait.

There's so much wrong with this I can't even begin. Sorry buddy. I've already put more into this anonymous internet argument than it's worth.

I've run out of time for you.

 

[deleted480308]

Picking up the Olympics analogy, we do want a broad representation of teams so we limit the number of athletes on a given team rather than saying the 24 fastest runners, skiers, cyclists, skaters are eligible to compete regardless of nationality. Instead, we say that no nation can send more than a specified number of members on the team so that more nations have an opportunity to compete. The third string bobsled team from Germany or Switzerland could out race the Jamaican Bobsled team but they stay home and there is room for greater diversity within the sport.

I think that's a pretty fair synopsis of how it works...the highest achievers in each of the arbitrary sub groups (nation for the analogy or racial/gender/orientation demographic for med admissions) still do fine. But it does discriminate against that third string German team as they sit at home and watch that slower jamaican team run in the olympics. Despite my disagreement with the URM admissions preference, I can understand those who feel it's a necessary discrimination as long they have the intellectual honesty to admit that for each advantage awarded someone is getting disadvantaged.

 

[Womb Raider]

There's so much wrong with this I can't even begin. Sorry buddy. I've already put more into this anonymous internet argument than it's worth.

I've run out of time for you.

Np. That was precisely the response I expected.

I love these "nope your opinion is sooooo wrong but like I won't even tell u y" responses.

 

[Mr Interesting]

Do you have evidence for this statement?

Google "white women are the primary beneficiaries of Affirmative Action." Read any article. Let me know if you disagree.

 

[Cytokine2014]

Np. That was precisely the response I expected.

I love these "nope your opinion is sooooo wrong but like I won't even tell u y" responses.

You know, I started out feeling like you do about AA. I just came around after I did some learning. If you're that keen, do your own reading. It takes years but it's worth it.

 

[deleted480308]

Google "white women are the primary beneficiaries of Affirmative Action." Read any article. Let me know if you disagree.

They are absolutely massive beneficiaries of the "minority owned business" preferences in government contracts. Basically the male white owners put 51% of the company in their wife's name and they are a minority owned business.

 

[Mr Interesting]

They are absolutely massive beneficiaries of the "minority owned business" preferences in government contracts. Basically the male white owners put 51% of the company in their wife's name and they are a minority owned business.

Come on now....