Flint
Posts: 478
Joined: Jan. 2006
|
Ghost:
OK, fair enough.
| Quote | | I think that A.A. policies have outlived their usefulness, and believe they should have been dropped around 1994. |
Personally, I find this a bit too broad. A.A. policies cover a fairly wide spectrum. But clearly there are bad as well as good aspects to policies that place individuals into positions whose duties they aren't competent either to perform, or to reasonably learn to perform. I followed (way back when) the experiences of a top graduate school which had established a strict quota of allowing 12 minority (black) students per year. However, they provided no dual track or remedial training. All the students were put into the same courses and given the same tests. Each year, all 12 black students flunked out after one semester. And this being a top school, they had their pick of the most qualified black applicants nationwide.
Now, let's consider this as a case study. Should this graduate school have accepted NO minority students? As I'm sure you realize, these 12 students displaced 12 qualified students, and the differences in qualifications were easily noticeable to the admissions committee. Or having accepted known-unqualified college graduates, should they have provided the remedial material necessary to come up to speed? But this is expensive in time and money, for everyone. Or (as other universities did), should they have established a dual-track system producing both real and "Kent Hovind" doctorates?
So we move back down the ladder to the secondary school system. In much of the country, these systems are still de facto segregated. And the minority-dominated school districts have a good deal less tax base to purchase a decent education. But the problem isn't exactly there either (many impoverished school systems produce outstanding college graduates). And maybe here is where we disagree:
| Quote | | I've got news for you: bad schools become that way because of the students. If the students would behave, the problem would be solved. |
I would argue instead against the parents. If the parents are not around very much, and/or if they simply don't care, then you're going to have a preponderance of bad students in ANY school system. This is why cultural barriers are so hard to break. But show me any good student, and I'll show you parents who WANT their child to be a good student.
| Quote | | And many of the good students actively support the dysfunctional culture that produces the bad ones. |
I have also read that the peer pressure is very powerful.
| Quote | Now let me ask you a question if I may:
What's so evil about restricting immigration to those nationalities that:
1) Have proven they can compete without Government arm-twisting
2) Don't look at Western Culture as a tumor that must be eradicated (and the people along with it?) |
In fact, this is how things stand today. Immigration limits on non-Northern European cultures are quite strict (and we all know that the only people worth associating with come from Northern European countries, right?). And those Northern European quotas go WAY underfilled decade after decade. Meanwhile, illegal immigration from Mexico and the Far East is rampant. Illegal immigration from Africa isn't something I've ever seen mentioned at all.
As I've said repeatedly on this thread, most members of most immigration waves have NOT arrived able to compete. They were poor, discriminated against, and didn't speak the language. So I think you're really asking to restrict immigration of those who won't BECOME competitive or will STILL be antagonistic a couple of generations down the road. Can you predict this? On what basis?
Let's say you're a Mexican or an Arab. You can't compete today. But does your nationality indicate that you personally can never compete, or that you personally think the nation you're adopting should be eradicated? Are these characteristics of nationalities, or of individuals?
| Quote | | In other words, let's say France had been importing millions of N.E. Asians, Indians, and Jews instead of North Africans. Do you think that their economy, crime rates, and standard of living would be better or worse? |
I would hope it would depend on the experiences these people have in France. If they are restricted to ghettos, and systematically NOT hired into (or promoted into) decent jobs, and basically treated as worthless, I would imagine ANY of them would eventually protest. The key for me isn't nationality or geographic origin, it's *access to opportunity*. If that access is real and not a sham, then these problems can be avoided. But it has to be real access (not tokenism) and real opportunity (as level a playing field as we can engineer).
And a great deal of that hinges on the expectations of those in the predominant culture. Again, there's a real feedback effect going on here. People will hire any minority individual they expect to work hard and follow the rules. My experience is that the majority types in the US expect blacks to do neither one -- yet when obligated by "government arm-twisting" to hire one anyway, they find that, by golly, he DOES work hard and follow the rules most of the time.
And so I think the real goal here is to modify expectations, on the part of everyone. And maybe the front lines are the parents. That's why I suggested free abortions in inner cities. A way of emphasizing that you don't NEED to have any child you don't want. And if you WANT a child, then you're more likely to care about that child's education and his future. And while we're at it, do NOT pay a bonus for having unwanted children! And do NOT demand that the man of the house be driven away before any assistance is provided.
I think there are workable, effective sets of incentives and disincentives that can be put into place, that wouldn't cost a great deal.
|
