Affirmative Action - students affected

My dear hyper-defensive Neuhaus, your repeated attempts to increase and enhance the credibility of your fallacious position regarding the uncontestable benefits of affirmative action, by appeal to authority, noting that you were HR director, ONE OF NUMEROUS Fortune 500 companies, and that your wife is a counselor, does not elevate the credibility of your argument whatsoever.

The fact that you were an HR Director, actually detracts from the credibility of your adamant stand on affirmative action programs because you were responsible for implementing and monitoring federal legal and organizational policies and directives relating to affirmative action! In short, you are being financially remunerated for doing so. Therefore, you are engaging in confirmatory bias.

Now, my dear, dear Neuhaus, regarding my professional qualifications, and the context of my work with affirmative action clients, contrary to your role of implementer and monitor of legal and organizational affirmative action directives, and your wife placing refuges somewhere upstate, I received major grants for creating and implementing academic and work skill development programs for diverse populations of seriously disadvantaged clients who met affirmative action criteria, as well as managing, directing, overseeing and monitoring the effectiveness and outcome of these and other such programs. I have clinically and administratively supervised hundreds of professionals from diverse disciplines who worked with disadvantaged clients. Furthermore, I have tested, counseled significant numbers of clients, including providing pro Bono work for other groups of individuals who met affirmative action standards.

You want more? I possess Board certification and licensure in a psychology discipline ( my dear Neuhaus, I will not be more specific on this forum due to my witnessing in the past several instances of vindictive members contacting others' places of employment and maligning them).

I agree that affirmative action holds an important role in prioritizing certain groups of individuals who were seriously deprived of their equal rights to jobs and educational opportunities. However, it has also deprived inordinate numbers of other individuals' rights to gain entrance into certain schools of their preference, or to obtain jobs or promotions based on merit, not ethnicity, gender or gender identification, regardless of your assertion that it does not do so.

 

Two things are being conflated. Colleges and universities with very high acceptance rates, because they either have low entry requirements or they're open-entry, are not implementing Affirmative Action policies. They don't have to. They accept almost everyone. The schools that are implementing AA are competitive. Looking at the average SAT scores for Hispanic and Black admits to Harvard, while these students had lower average scores than White and Asian admits, they still had scores that were in the 90th percentile or higher. If you truly believe that SAT and ACT scores will predict college success, then why would you question the likelihood of success for students who are scoring in the 90th percentile? It's amazing that people who couldn't get anywhere near those scores and weren't valedictorians or salutatorians are questioning the intelligence of these students. If it weren't for AA, they might not have gotten into Harvard, but they would have gotten into another Top 20 school. Even though SAT and ACT are not IQ tests, my educated guess is that the non-legacy/donor/athlete students are smarter than just about everyone on this forum.

 

Again, I would really like you to point out what "positions" I am taking, be they fallacious or otherwise or what I have stated is a benefit of affirmative action.

Second, an appeal to authority would be if I said things about affirmative action and relied on no supporting facts but only asked you to trust my position that they are accurate and correct. I have not done this. In fact, if you re-read (I am optimistically assuming you read them the first time) I stated that I was making my statements based on my experience with AA in terms of corporate hiring.

Again, the only "policies" being implemented are on reporting and monitoring. That's about it. No one is being hired or promoted on the basis of race. So there is really nothing to "implement" aside from ensuring jobs are posted in different areas. I'm not sure what you could possibly feel that has to do with anything.

The fact that you are using phrases like "who met affirmative action standards" tells me that you are, in fact, full of it.

 

Jan: Sanaantone, please provide a credible source for your statement above that "Looking at the average SAT scores for Hispanic and black admits to Harvard, while these students had lower average scores than While and Asian admits, they still had scores that were in the 90th percentile?. If what you assert is fact there is obviously no question of their right to compete on par with other groups you mentionned for entry into highly competitive schools. No one said otherwise. However, I have not seen these stats, and in the case of Harvard, they have initiated a so-called an ambiguous "personality score", which is used for admission, but is a questionable measure of its actual intent; giving preference to certain individuals who meet AA criteria.

We also need to keep in mind that when Obama was President, governmental funding for universities and colleges were predicated on their implementing AA standards, which in fact gave priority to certain groups who met that criteria.

Looking forward to reviewing your source to substantiate your assertion above. Thanks.

 

Neuhaus: Again, I would really like you to point out what "positions" I am taking, be they fallacious or otherwise or what I have stated is a benefit of affirmative action.

Jan: In fact, you presented a number of personal experiences and generalized them to adamantly support your supposition that AA, as it is applied in many organizations and schools, is not only fair to amend and address past grievances against certain groups, but results in successful outcomes!

Neuhaus: Second, an appeal to authority would be if I said things about affirmative action and relied on no supporting facts but only asked you to trust my position that they are accurate and correct. I have not done this. In fact, if you re-read (I am optimistically assuming you read them the first time) I stated that I was making my statements based on my experience with AA in terms of corporate hiring.

Jan: Dear Neuhaus, in fact you are appealing to authority by consistenly emphazing that you are an HR Director, ONE OF NUMEROUS FORTUNE 500 COMPANIES! This is a glaring attempt to demonstrate that your assertions are uncontestable due to the status of your alleged high level positions!

Neuhaus: Again, the only "policies" being implemented are on reporting and monitoring. That's about it. No one is being hired or promoted on the basis of race. So there is really nothing to "implement" aside from ensuring jobs are posted in different areas. I'm not sure what you could possibly feel that has to do with anything.

Jan: Really? That was the same organizational line used years ago when women and Jews were not hired on the basis of their gender or race years ago.


Neuhaus: The fact that you are using phrases like "who met affirmative action standards" tells me that you are, in fact, full of it.

Jan: My dear Neuhaus, when you start to engage in ad hominem attacks (ie. I'm limited; you are full of it), you are not negating anything I stated but are revealing and reinforcing your defensive posturing that I pointed out from the beginning.

 

As an aside, using a celebrity as an example, has anyone on this board reviewed Michelle Obama's bachelor's degree thesis at Princeton? I read excerpts of it a few years ago and it was unintelligible. It raises questions as to the basis for her admission into Princeton, and subsequent acceptance into Harvard. Obviously, if her SAT Scores were on par with anyone else who met Harvard's admission score on this test, she deserved to be admitted, regardless of her undergraduate thesis.

Btw, regardless of anyone's race, religion, gender or gender identification, I would hold them to the same standard. For me, it's solely a matter of merit, a concept that has been lost in our new world order.

 

One way to avoid this is to not get into a pissing match with someone on a forum and to maintain compute and professionalism. I mean, seriously, I’m not really sure what is in the water lately but this is the 2nd post I’ve seen of someone trying to be “greater than the other” person they are arguing with.

 

JoshD: One way to avoid this is to not get into a pissing match with someone on a forum and to maintain compute and professionalism. I mean, seriously, I’m not really sure what is in the water lately but this is the 2nd post I’ve seen of someone trying to be “greater than the other” person they are arguing with.

Jan: Well, one thing is for certain. Your objectivity and neutrality (LOL).

 

Hey, I’m just saying. I do not understand why folks cannot just get along on forums. Sure there can be disagreements. Heck, I disagree with folks but tend to keep it to myself.

 

JoshDHey: I’m just saying. I do not understand why folks cannot just get along on forums. Sure there can be disagreements. Heck, I disagree with folks but tend to keep it to myself.

Jan: I agree with you.

Please keep in mind that when a member is addressed as "Dear.....,; that their knowledge is limited; and that they are full of it, does flame the interaction.

Regardless, you are correct.

 

I just read your post.

You're going to ban me for reacting to this?:
who should receive the affirmative action boost?

Do you know how insulting that is? Why are you letting that slide? Do you know how extremely racist that remark is? Why did you not threaten to ban him when he made a direct insult to my skin color, but you threaten me when I emotionally reacted to his racist remark?

As much as you may believe, his speech is not protected by the First Amendment. In fact, his post is in full violation of Title VII. I have the right to enjoy content at DI without being harassed due to my skin color.

As a moderator, you should be fully aware of what speech is protected and what is not.

 

Another thing. If he calls me a dumbass because I don't know how to ride a bike or whatever, then that's a personal opinion and he has First Amendment freedom to say that. If he calls me a dumbass because my skin color is black, or if I am a member of a protected class, that is not okay. He didn't call me a dumbass outright, yet he did. He said we in the protected class get a "boost". That means we get bumped from "unqualified" to "qualified" when we apply to jobs/schools. It means we didn't earn that admission fairly, but was handed it as charity. That's a violation of Title VII. I didn't do anything to deserve to read that. I just checked your TOS. He violated your TOS, but you overlooked it. I saw his post when he originally wrote it. I waited one full month for you to take action. But you didn't. You threatened to ban me when I displayed the strong emotion that he was trying to invoke. Just like how he joked that he "trolled" (his words not mine, do a search in this forum and you'll find it). He said he "trolled" another forum and was subsequently banned. He found it amusing, but the definition of "troll" is to provoke a strong emotional response. Amusing to him, but not to us.

I understand that you have lost patience with my strong pushback on those who admit that they "troll" the forums. Your email system is broken, so my request is here in this post. You don't have to put up with me anymore. Please cancel my account.