<p>
</p>
<p>I never said they could be. I was asking why those outcomes have become worse as we move further away from slavery and Jim Crow.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Sure. Thomas Sowell, in his book Affirmative Action Around The World, states on pages 119 and 120 that in 1940, 87% of black families lived in poverty. By 1960, it was down to 47%, and by 1970, it was 30%. Ten years later in 1980, it decreased by a whopping one percentage point to 29%.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>First off, not arbitrary.</p>
<p>Al segundo, see that study I recounted earlier. Despite fears of mismatch, URMs and disadvantaged individuals, unlike other groups, actually benefit from admission to elite colleges. Probably due to the sort of socialization and developed social capital they recieve by being there.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Crappy economy? Fragmentized social ties due to loss of an urgent common cause? Entirely unrelated forces? Increased mass apathy to issues of race?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Wow, talk about a generational gap. Look, I don’t know which year corresponded to your first year as an international student in the United States, but this is 2012. This isn’t 1963. This isn’t 1957. With the possible exception of Bob Jones University, I can think of no school where “the white majority is not willing to integrate with blacks.”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>A social environment. You and irony seem to be old friends. How humorous it is that your solution to self-segregation is to…make it easier for people to self-segregate.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, they’re arbitrary. Middle Easterners and North Africans are considered “white.” In the past, the Supreme Court ruled that an Indian man from Punjab was “Caucasian but not white.” Even further in the past, whites from Southern and Eastern Europe were not considered whites by those with ancestry from the British Isles, and whites from majority-Catholic countries were viewed with suspicion by white Protestants. And let’s not forget that Jews, who are mostly white, were often treated as subhumans in the past by, you guessed it, other whites.</p>
<p>As for your answer, it seems to me that a much better and productive use of resources is to focus on the students when they’re in kindergarten or elementary school rather than when they’re eighteen.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Crappy economy? I’m not talking about since 2008; I’m talking about since 1980.</p>
<p>Loss of an urgent common cause? You do realize that taken to a logical extreme, you’re basically saying that blacks were better off when they had to struggle against institutionalized racism and discrimination, yes?</p>
<p>I don’t understand how that is supposed to relate to my argument that the distinction is not arbitrary. </p>
<p>I don’t see why resources aren’t useful throughout the URM’s entire development.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Because the economy was only crappy in 2008 and being employed means better off in general—Whatever. Let’s focus.</p>
<p>What does the reason for these changes have to do with affirmative action?</p>
<p>Putting my money where my mouth is</p>
<p>KQED and Motown…</p>
<p>[Motown:</a> Big Hits and More (My Music) | KQED Public Media for Northern CA](<a href=“Television | KQED Public Media”>Television | KQED Public Media)9</p>
<p>Yeah, Fab. It’s about you and me.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So you’re telling me that you think it makes sense to call someone “Caucasian, but not white”?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Entire development. When does that stop?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So you’re admitting that some of your reasons are bunk. Fine by me. Do you have any other answers as to why the outcomes are worse today than they were 100 years ago? The quality of life today is certainly better than it was in 1912, but back then, blacks had higher labor force participation rates than whites as well as higher rates of marriage, even though in 1912, some (many?) ex-slaves were still alive.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>For the last time, I didn’t say that racial preferences caused the outcomes to be worse. They are meant to counter perazziman’s assertion that racial preferences are needed because the legacies of slavery and Jim Crow continue to harm blacks’ lives.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>We’re not talking about the distinction between punjabs and whites so this is a total red herring.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Who cares. We can stop with education.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I am avoiding an irrelevant topic of discussion. But sure, they are all just suggestions and were made very casually.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You do not think this is true?</p>
<p>Yea that sound about right</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I see, so in your opinion Black segregation was the result of Black self segregation. lol talk about irony. lol</p>
<p>fabrizio’s wisdom: A black who comes to a white school and is unable to integrate is infact, self segregating from the whites, who are actually trying to socialize with him, invite him to white frat and sorority parties, take him home for christmas dinner. lol. </p>
<p>A black academic star who comes to a white school should have no expectations of meeting other blacks with whom he can network and establish a place for himself in society because there is a marginal Asian or white applicant, named fabrizio, who wants to attend that college. lol.</p>
<p>So, let me understand, you would like to pass legislation to make it illegal for individuals who run private institutions to create such environments. lol.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, a social environment for the benefit of the star students. </p>
<p>Many really smart men do not want to attend an engineering school where 90% of the students are men, when they can attend a school where the student body is more balanced- A social environment. </p>
<p>Many really smart women do not want to attend an all girls college in some isolated rural area, when they can attend a college where they can meet some smart men and the student body is more balanced- A social environment.</p>
<p>A private institution has to be free to create the environment it wants to create for its stars, in terms of gender, race and ethnicity. </p>
<p>If you do not like the concept apply to a different school, where one majority socially dominates. I am sure there are religious, gender and race exclusive schools you could apply because that is what ends up being created if there are no soft targets. The few, really smart Blacks do not want to attend a college where they will be one of handful of Blacks. So, they will go back to HBCs.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, it’s not. It’s a perfect illustration of my point: racial classifications are arbitrary.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Why stop there? Why not “take care” of blacks for the rest of their lives?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, I do not. You called it an “irrelevant topic of discussion,” but you cannot explain why on several outcomes, blacks fare worse today than they did 100 years ago, when there were still people who lived through slavery.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Did I say that? No. Did you say that the solution to whites (allegedly) refusing to “integrate” with blacks was to provide a “social environment” (read: more blacks) for blacks? Yes. And what is the implication of such a “social environment”? Is it not…easier self-segregation? Obviously you disagree. Please tell me why such a “social environment” does not make it easier for the two racial classifications to self-segregate.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What’s a “white school”? Please give me an example of a “white school” in 2012.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I would like to abolish the use of racial classification. That gets us one step closer (but just one step) to a colorblind society.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Excuse me for noting that you have changed the definition of “social environment” here. It’s pretty obvious that you’re talking about gender balance, not racial classification balance here. (I’m not aware of any engineering school that’s 90% men, by the way.)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You know, there are only a few private institutions that make it a point not to accept any federal funding (Grove City College and Hillsdale College come to mind). With those exceptions, all other private institutions must abide by federal guidelines against discrimination.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You are sure there are such schools. OK. Name one “religious exclusive” school that is actually not religious exclusive but came to be that way because it didn’t have “soft targets,” whatever that means.</p>
<p>Name one “gender exclusive” school that is actually not gender exclusive but came to be that way because it didn’t have “soft targets.”</p>
<p>And name one “race exclusive” school that is actually not race exclusive but came to be that way because it didn’t have “soft targets.”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Baylor University accepts federal funding and is open to people of all faiths. Here are the religious requirements for all students:</p>
<p>[Baylor</a> University || Spiritual Life || Requirements](<a href=“Spiritual Life | Baylor University”>Spiritual Life | Baylor University)</p>
<p>Are you telling me that non Christian academic stars are flocking to this university? I doubt it very much. I am sure you will fit right in.(tongue in cheek)</p>
<p>My point is that steps have to be taken and social environments are crafted by adcoms.</p>