Slashdot Mirror

Hint: it ain't the skin-color. If "whitey" really were racist, Asians would've suffered from it too. But they are doing rather well. So well, in fact, that schools and colleges alike deduct points from applicants, who identify themselves as "Asians".

For the life of me I can't figure why you'd use that to support your claim that Asians don't suffer from racism...

Imaginary reality to "prove" imaginary racism. How fitting...

Hint: it ain't the skin-color. If "whitey" really were racist, Asians would've suffered from it too. But they are doing rather well. So well, in fact, that schools and colleges alike deduct points from applicants, who identify themselves as "Asians".

The most likely explanation is single-parenthood rate: children growing up with only a mother (which is still the overwhelming majority of single-"parent" households) are much likelier to grow up with problems live sucky lives — all human civilizations knew this and frowned upon unwed mothers. Not because "sex is a sin", as is the common Illiberal's strawman, but because bringing a child into this world without a loving father is a sin... Heck, we know it too!

For some reason, currently 67% of Black kids grow up in such families — compared with merely 17% of Asians and 25% of Whites... But only the KKKonservative Libertarians connect the dots.

Not for some reason. The dads are all criminals and in prison.

Imaginary reality to "prove" imaginary racism. How fitting...

Hint: it ain't the skin-color. If "whitey" really were racist, Asians would've suffered from it too. But they are doing rather well. So well, in fact, that schools and colleges alike deduct points from applicants, who identify themselves as "Asians".

The most likely explanation is single-parenthood rate: children growing up with only a mother (which is still the overwhelming majority of single-"parent" households) are much likelier to grow up with problems live sucky lives — all human civilizations knew this and frowned upon unwed mothers. Not because "sex is a sin", as is the common Illiberal's strawman, but because bringing a child into this world without a loving father is a sin... Heck, we know it too!

For some reason, currently 67% of Black kids grow up in such families — compared with merely 17% of Asians and 25% of Whites... But only the KKKonservative Libertarians connect the dots.

[wiley.com]

I can not open the actual document without paying for it — only the summary is available.

"(1) young black males are sentenced more harshly than any other group, (2) race is most influential in the sentencing of younger rather than older males, (3) the influence of offender's age on sentencing is greater among males than females, and (4) the main effects of race, gender, and age are more modest compared to the very large differences in sentencing outcomes across certain age-race-gender combinations."

It may very well be, the harsher-sentenced folks really do commit "harsher" crimes — or under more judge-infuriating circumstances (such as with particular brutality or against a particularly sympathetic victim, under influence of drugs, or by being repeat offenders). Also, being poorer on average, they might be unable to secure as good a lawyer.

The giant elephant in the room, which various race-baiters refuse to acknowledge, is that Asians should be just as much (if not more) a target of the "Whitey" racism as Blacks. And yet, there aren't even any allegations of them being targeted by neither cops nor judges. They also study so well, some universities even choose to impose harsher requirements on them to get a more "balanced" student body (a truly racist practice too)...

So, no — until I see actual statistics showing certain races punished harsher for the same crimes, I'm not going to accept that assertion on face-value. My comment demanding proof was downmodded and OP's is currently at "5 Insightful" — which means, lots of people saw the exchange, but not one was able to offer the evidence I asked for... Not one person.

Not only have diversity sinecures been protected from budget cuts, their numbers are actually growing. The University of California at San Diego, for example, is creating a new full-time âoevice chancellor for equity, diversity, and inclusion.â This position would augment UC San Diegoâ(TM)s already massive diversity apparatus, which includes the Chancellorâ(TM)s Diversity Office, the associate vice chancellor for faculty equity, the assistant vice chancellor for diversity, the faculty equity advisors, the graduate diversity coordinators, the staff diversity liaison, the undergraduate student diversity liaison, the graduate student diversity liaison, the chief diversity officer, the director of development for diversity initiatives, the Office of Academic Diversity and Equal Opportunity, the Committee on Gender Identity and Sexual Orientation Issues, the Committee on the Status of Women, the Campus Council on Climate, Culture and Inclusion, the Diversity Council, and the directors of the Cross-Cultural Center, the Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Resource Center, and the Womenâ(TM)s Center.

Which will not change the fact that 90% of UCSD's students are Asian, and will go on to make six-figure salaries while continuing to speak and write broken English.

For the sake of argument, why should a company be forced to allow you to communicate as you please?

On principle, I agree with the idea of letting companies impose whatever rules on their customers that they want. The problem here is that I don't have the option to "vote with my feet" by moving to another provider.

I've lived in two different states in the last year. In both of those, Comcast was my only available service provider. When they throttled my netflix downloads, I screamed at them on the phone for a few minutes, but other than that, the only choice I had was either to continue getting internet service through them, or get dial-up service from some other company (precious few choices these days)

My fear on the FCC imposing net neutrality is that there is a historical precedent for forcing companies to then provide "more neutrality" for some than others. A quick look at college admissions and a Princeton study on racial bias in the process http://www.mindingthecampus.com/originals/2010/07/how_diversity_punishes_asians.html is an appropriate example of how "fairness" can become a skewed goal.

Perhaps a better solution to this problem would be for the gov't to mandate that last-mile infrastructure must be leased competitively to all comers by the holders of that infrastructure. In other words, Qwest owns a lot of fiber - they should be statutorily required to allow others to use those lines at a published rate determined by Qwest. If Qwest charges high enough rates, then it would become feasible for another company to invest the capital to lay their own fiber and undercut Qwest, so there is some self-regulation on price point.

Additionaly, ISPs should be separated from the data carriers themselves. That eliminates problems of those holding infrastructure from charging others exorbitant fees to lease it while offering services to users on their own infrastructure for significantly less.

Admittedly, this is a quick idea that I haven't tried to flesh out, so I welcome anyone who wants to set me straight, but the best role for government is one in which it ensure a fair playing field, not one in which it puts its own team on the field along with its own refs.

Actually, the SAT is a very good predicter of how well a student will do in college (not sure about the ACT). http://www.mindingthecampus.com/originals/2008/10/by_peter_salins_one_of.html http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/WhosCounting/story?id=98373&page=2 http://collegeapps.about.com/b/2009/09/19/the-sats-ability-to-predict-college-success-revisited.htm I actually wasn't sure if it still held true, but every study I have ever heard of that compares either first year grades within the same school or college graduation rates has shown that a higher SAT score correlates with higher grades and a higher graduation rate.

Frak. Helps if I bother inserting the relevant link.

I guess my Yale education is showing.

You really think that authors are raking it in on textbooks? You're right only in part.

There are perhaps four big publishers for textbooks in the US (I've seen Thomson, McGraw-Hill, Prentice Hall, and Houghton-Mifflin mentioned). School boards have to choose from a limited selection, from a limited number of publishers. They don't have an option to commission books; the prices the established houses charge are geared to be somewhat less than THAT, at least.

So... commission your own book to be written. Fairly expensive. Now who you going to get to print it, in the quantities you need? Only a handful of publishing houses that big, and they offer books at a cost somewhat less expensive than that of commissioning your own. Oh, and because they print the same books to OTHER districts as well, they get economies of scale in offering you a book that's being published for some other school.

Colleges, well, reduce the print runs, first. Add in that the college book store is a money maker for the college (and so adds their own markup).

Here is an essay on the topic...

For example, scientists that challenge secular orthodoxy also find themselves persecuted. And I'm sure you'd find similar examples in other oppressive regimes. That science can thrive under oppressive regimes owes more to the usefulness of said science than the intellectual tolerance of those regimes.

As for considering opposition to genetic research as some sort of medieval clash between science and religion I would disagree. Science should not have the final word on morality -- scientists should be still subject to the general mores of society. Although progress is generally portrayed as the victory of science over religion, we would do well to remember Eugenics. Pre-WWII, eugenics was quite popular among scientists and quite unpopular among the religious. In this case (rightly, I believe) religion carried the day.