Uh, no, that wouldn't be discrimination. It would simply be the result of applying the standards as written. If that means other people don't get in, that's their fault.
If you were being sarcastic, sorry I missed it.
Are Different School Standards Racist?
- Thread starter Deceptive
- Start date
Uh, no, that wouldn't be discrimination. It would simply be the result of applying the standards as written. If that means other people don't get in, that's their fault.
If you were being sarcastic, sorry I missed it.
But but that's not fair, therefore it is racist....ask the "revs"
I don't really think anybody is saying disabled kids don't deserve extra time. I definitely think they do.
Life is not fair, mothertruckers.
You nailed it. The masses would write it off as discriminatory. It's a matter of talent in my opinion. It's similar to the NFL and NBA being mostly black. It's not racist or discriminatory. It's based solely on talent.
Which is exactly why I posted what I did about fair not meaning equal.
Last edited:
I’d frame it as “we are all different individuals with varying skill sets”.
They’ve tried like hell to make everyone the same and erase individuality in China, Venezuela, Soviet Russia, and—well—most regimes throughout the world’s entire history. Never seems to work out.
Sent from my iPhone using the svtperformance.com mobile app
I believe the students will lose. If they do win, the ACLU, NAACP, and other groups like this will find a judge to reverse the decision. This suit can start to unravel Affirmative Action and the powers that be will not risk losing votes and power. They will not risk status quos.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Kill everyone. That is all.
Ask your parents about college standards during the Vietnam era when it came to blacks and whites.
Just self identify as whatever race/gender/minority that the school needs to fill and if you still get turned away claim discrimination against your uniqueness.
Well yeah, if we want to go with the lazy answer.
The biggest problem with lowering standards for a metric as broad as race, is you're going to drown those you supposedly want to help. Which we have seen time and again.
Someone already beat you to the punch, lol
https://nypost.com/2015/04/12/mindy-kalings-brother-explains-why-he-pretended-to-be-black/
Everyone just needs to read the book Outliers: The Story of Success.
It explains that success has way more variables than race. Culture and family (some will argue this is Race) do have a large impact but when people are born (Year, Month) also has an impact because of what is happening in the world at that time. But the big equalizer is and always will be practice, hardwork, ethics, etc..
One example the book mentions in following musicians in a top school. They pull data on the students to look for information like when younger were they considered virtuoso's or were from better families (or races) and attended great schools, then they determined how many hours of practice they put into there skills.
Amazingly they found a vast majority of the best musicians weren't the virtuoso's or the ones from prestigious families instead it was those who had the most practice time that succeeded. And another interesting fact was that those who were considered virtuoso's where less likely to practice as much and as a result ended up falling behind once the others had more practice time. (of course the quality of the practice matters as well, people who can afford the best teachers may require less practice time to match the skills pf those with poor quality teachers but more hours)
Needless to say it is hard to just say race is a reason to change standards, standards should take into account all the variables and the highest weighted skill should be work-ethic. I believe it is easier to make a stupid person smart then it is to make a lazy person productive.
It explains that success has way more variables than race. Culture and family (some will argue this is Race) do have a large impact but when people are born (Year, Month) also has an impact because of what is happening in the world at that time. But the big equalizer is and always will be practice, hardwork, ethics, etc..
One example the book mentions in following musicians in a top school. They pull data on the students to look for information like when younger were they considered virtuoso's or were from better families (or races) and attended great schools, then they determined how many hours of practice they put into there skills.
Amazingly they found a vast majority of the best musicians weren't the virtuoso's or the ones from prestigious families instead it was those who had the most practice time that succeeded. And another interesting fact was that those who were considered virtuoso's where less likely to practice as much and as a result ended up falling behind once the others had more practice time. (of course the quality of the practice matters as well, people who can afford the best teachers may require less practice time to match the skills pf those with poor quality teachers but more hours)
Needless to say it is hard to just say race is a reason to change standards, standards should take into account all the variables and the highest weighted skill should be work-ethic. I believe it is easier to make a stupid person smart then it is to make a lazy person productive.
Users who are viewing this thread
