[331] in Discussion of MIT-community interests
Big Rant: Political correctness, Aff. Action
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Thomas G Cadwell)
Mon Apr 30 01:29:21 2001
Message-Id: <200104300529.BAA13489@all-night-tool.mit.edu>
To: Ray Jones <rjones@pobox.com>
cc: LeeAnn L Henn <langdon@MIT.EDU>, mit-talk@MIT.EDU, spa-discuss@MIT.EDU,
tcadwell@MIT.EDU
In-Reply-To: Your message of "27 Apr 2001 11:29:58 EDT."
<ppwu23ae4y1.fsf@PIXIE.MIT.EDU>
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 01:29:02 -0400
From: Thomas G Cadwell <tcadwell@MIT.EDU>
Disclaimer: This email might be regarded as "offensive" to some.
You've been warned!
Moving back a few points... and moving on to some new ones!
1)Wernet the extropians in trouble just for using the mailing list without
permission? At least wasnt that what got them in trouble in the FIRST place
with MIT? Did that somehow carry over to this year or something?
Or are we talking about that event 4 years ago.
1a) If they got in trouble for a recent pamplet, I'll have you know that
political correctness for frosh mailings is at an all time high.
My frat had a picture of a guy posing with 2 fake guns, and they asked us
to remove that picture because it might offend people because of columbine
(heh.. its their mailing what can you do? We didnt care much though)
2) How can any of you POSSIBLY debate the fact that MIT admissions policy is
going to, statistically speaking, admit a higher number of underqualified
"minorities" than it is underqualified "non-minorities" (asian, white
males). It might be badly worded, but saying that asian & white males at MIT
are smarter, seems a badly worded, if true statement assuming that the
admissions criteria corresponds to smartness, which we all hope it does I'm
sure. However, saying that is NOT implying that women and non-white,
non-asian people are somehow dumber, nor is it a statement ofpersonal nature.
It's a statement of statistical nature based on very reasonable facts. If
you for instance had affirmative action for white people, you could make
the exact same statement and it would be completely true. Duh.
This "stereotyping" faux pas originates from people ignorantly slamming a
group and holding most or all members of the group to the stereotype.
Anyone smart enough to get into MIT knows very well that that quote
by the extropians is a statistical comment, not a universal truth that
applies to all members of the group. Although, with some of the comments
im seeing on this list, its obvious it applies to some people.
Why is stating a fact (i.e. MIT admissions will admit more underqualified
women/non-white/non-asian students than male white or asian students)
suddenly offensive? Whatever happened to the truth? If it conflicts
with your world view in some way, you should either:
a) confront the situation causing the particular truth you do not like
(e.g. mit admissions)
b) change your world view to in fact accept that MIT admissions has the
policy it has.
3) I've long felt affirmative action is unfair to EVERYONE involved. That
includes the "Beneficiaries". For the non-beneficiaries, the bar
is lowered -- classes have to be a little easier for everyone as a result.
For the beneficiaries, they often have severe academic trouble, because
they werent really qualified and if you arent qualified AND are one of
the 1/3 or so of MIT students that tend to slack, your in real trouble. This
ends up wasting years of their life, as they drop out and go to another
school that they couldve gone to in the first place, and excelled at
(and probabaly ended up growing a lot intellectually at to the point
of being "smart enough" to have gotten in to MIT without the advantage
in the first place).
Also.. what about the perfectly qualified asian or white male who is
Denied admission because there were some minority students on the list.
How is that fair to them? How is it equal to choose one student over
another based on race or sex? Isnt't that racist or sexist? To illustrate
a point:
1) Admissions selects underqualified male student over more qualified female
student. This would traditonally be regarded as "sexist" and "Crushing the
dreams of an aspiring female student"
2) Admissions selects underqualified female student over more qualified male
studetn. This is "celebrating diversity" and "Equality" and is "enlightened".
What about the person who just got shafted because he was born with a Y
chromosome?
give me a %%#@@ing break.
And lets not forget the damage to groups as the whole from aff. action...
The groups that get special status can be statistically regarded as
"less smart". Because of the policy, these groups are now "subaverage",
and an otherwise excellent female student is now part of a "subaverage"
group. Thats got to do wonders for your self-confidence -- "gee did I
get admitted because I'm a woman or because I'm really really smart".
If the liberals that got affirmative action going really believed in
equality, they woudlnt press for things that force people to become part
of a subaverage group. The existence of affirmative action creates
division in a system that was previously equal. Without mit admissions
policy being the way it is, there woudlnt be any dividing line between asian
and white males and everyone else at MIT. This is what I feel is a huge
hypocracy of the whole liberal "equality" thing. Its not about actually
respecting people as equals, but rather, constantly reminding people about
their differences so that the "equality" issue is always an issue to use.
Isn't equality about treating people equally? Correct me if I'm wrong
guys. I find it rediculous that affirmative action somehow
promotes "Equality".
4) Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't a university supposed to be a free
market for ideas? Mit is better than most, but political correctness
is really a cancer of universities in that it attacks what has made
the university so great -- the fact that you can express any idea, and
discuss it. God forbid someone be called a racist or a sexist these days --
its not unlike calling someone a communist in the 50s... but apparently we
dont learn lessons from our past.
