nrf
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 30, 2004 12:09 pm
Post subject: Re: Jews in the Ivy Leagues |
|
|
"volantus4" <misters@swbell.net> wrote in message
news:deb969ed.0401291915.5ab3700f@posting.google.com...
| Quote: | "nrf" <noglikirf@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<ne3Sb.135943$5V2.698024@attbi_s53>...
"volantus4" <misters@swbell.net> wrote in message
news:deb969ed.0401281901.6d3e44cd@posting.google.com...
If the educational institutions in question only use "objective"
criteria such as grades and scores on Scholastic Educational and
similar tests, then there would be no reasonable basis for suspicion
of discrimination in education based upon ethnicity, religion, or any
other irrelevant criteria. (I do not know if they only use these
objective criteria. If they only use objective criteria, then there is
no reasonable case for asserting unjust and discriminatory bias in
favor of jews.) However, if these educational institutions do use non
reportable, subjective, secretive, and potentially corrupt means to
grant admission to the same, then there is a reasonable suspicion that
ethnic discrimination if favor of jews and possibly other groups may
exist. Jews DO NOT have a monopoly on above average and high I.Q.'s
nor in scholastic achievment in comparison to other ethnic and/or
religious groups in the USA.Rather, the statistical evidence clearly
demonstrates that, although Jews do, on average, have higher IQ's than
the average American, their proportion of all Americans who do have
high IQ's is SMALL statistically such that their over representation
at these institutions of higher learning implies signficant unjust
ethnic bias in their favor either overt or covert. I believe in
"Republican" principles. That is, every individual, including Jewish
indiviudals, should be judged as an individual rather than a member of
a certain ethnic group,race, religion, and/or nationality. However, it
is clear to me that, if the facts stated in the original post are true
and non-objective criteria are used to admit students to these
educational institutions, not only reasonable suspicion but probable
cause exists that those individuals of Jewish ethnicity are granted
unjust and discriminatory advantage with regard to admission to these
educational institutions. An investigation into the same is,
therefore, reasonable and just.
Your assertion is that while Jewish IQ's are high, their high IQ's
cannot
explain their great overrepresentation and that therefore they must be
enjoying preferential treatment. The problem with your assertion is, of
course, that IQ is only a small factor in determining one's academic
success. Even more important than IQ is motivation, and Jews have
historically had this in great abundance. We've all met brilliant (high
IQ)
but lazy people. Jews not only enjoy high intelligence, but also high
levels of motivation, which is why even when comparing Jews and non-Jews
with the same IQ, Jewish academic performance as measured by, say,
grades
and graduation rates tend to be higher.
The bulk of the evidence strongly indicates that any nonobjective
criteria
that are being used almost always serves to hurt Jews, not help them,
and
yet the Jews have succeeded nonetheless. The Jews are in fact entirely
comparable to Asian-Americans in this respect. Whatever you might think
of
ethnic-based AA, you must concede that admissions is a zero-sum game and
therefore whatever doesn't help you must hurt you, and so ethnic-based
AA
does Jews (as it does the Asian-Amerians) no favors, which is ironic
because
whatever social pathologies or the righting of historical wrongs
ethnic-based AA is designed to remedy were not caused by Jews or by
Asian-Americans. Considerations of geographic diversity also serve to
injure Jews for Jews tend to congregate in certain areas of the country
(as
do the Asian-Americans). Not going to find too many Jews (or
Asian-Americans) in, say, the backwoods of Appalachia.
From a historical standpoint, the evidence is clear that Jews have
encountered significant discrimination from colleges and universities.
http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/anti-semitism/harvard.html
http://www.uweb.ucsb.edu/~bmaatuk/immigrants.html
Different as are the significations in which the ancients used this
term for a science or an art, we may safely infer, from their actual
employment of it, that with them it was nothing else than a logic of
illusion- a sophistical art for giving ignorance, nay, even intentional
sophistries, the colouring of truth, in which the thoroughness of
procedure which logic requires was imitated, and their topic employed
to cloak the empty pretensions. Now it may be taken as a safe and
useful warning, that general logic, considered as an organon, must
always be a logic of illusion, that is, be dialectical, for, as it
teaches us nothing whatever respecting the content of our cognitions,
but merely the formal conditions of their accordance with the
understanding, which do not relate to and are quite indifferent in
respect of objects, any attempt to employ it as an instrument (organon)
in order to extend and enlarge the range of our knowledge must end in
mere prating; any one being able to maintain or oppose, with some
appearance of truth, any single assertion whatever.
Such instruction is quite unbecoming the dignity of philosophy. For
these reasons we have chosen to denominate this part of logic
dialectic, in the sense of a critique of dialectical illusion, and we
wish the term to be so understood in this place
|
So if you are arguing that logic is but an illusion, then why did you appeal
to the principles of logic in your original thread? You can't appeal to
logic for your argument, and then when presented with a counterargument that
also appeals to logic, state that logic is irrevelent. Either logic is a
useful pedagogical tool, or it isn't. You can't have it both ways. |
|
FAQ
Memberlist
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in