Nandakumar Chandran,

You said, "that is what is meant by keeping the creamy layer out"

Would you like to tell that to the US government where there is no provision to exclude the "creamy layer" from affirmative action?

The point is that those who oppose the creamy layer concept do so because IN THEIR CONSIDERED VIEW, the objective of affirmative action is to broaden the social diversity in campuses and work places by letting in more candidates from under-represented groups -- through positive discrimination where necessary.

Do not bother to first mis-represent our reasons for supporting AA, and then telling us that these reasons are invalid. I agree with you that if our reasons for supporting AA (and the non-exclusion of the creamy layer) are really what you tell us these are, then there should be no reservations! But these are NOT OUR reasons -- WE should know, right?

You went on, "...the current practice of practically giving away seats on a platter based on a ridiculously low "minimum merit" is the issue. "

If you are suggesting that this is  the case with reservations in India, you are WRONG. We saw this clearly by studying the admission list for the 12 medical colleges in Tamil Nadu. To remind you, here are the facts:-

a) In the year 2004, 612 (out of 1224 available seats) were allotted to those in the merit list with top ranks from 1 to 612 -- irrespective of community, and PURELY on merit.

b) The total number of reserved category candidates who were admitted was 845 (69% of 1224). Out of this, 598 were from those who got top ranks between 1 to 612.

c) That leaves out 247 reserved category students who got admissions with ranks worse than 622. Those among them who got ranks from 622 to 1228, would have got admissions even without reservations (given that there are 1224 vacancies).

d) It is true that few reserved category students with ranks worse than 1224 too got admissions. THIS is the intended effect of reservations! (Remember that the objective is to increase the representation of under-represented groups -- through positive discrimination).

The point is that even the reserved candidate who got admitted with the lowest rank had to compete hard with others from the same reserved category to qualify for the limited seats. This can hardly be described as "the current practice of practically giving away seats on a platter based on a ridiculously low minimum merit"! This is a prejudiced statement that does not stand up to informed scrutiny.

You claimed "we were talking about the even spread of qualities 'within communities'..."

Who ever said that qualities are spread "evenly" within any community?

What has been said by me is that there is wide variation in the innate intellectual potential of individuals within any large endogamous group of humans. But if we compare large endogamous groups of humans, this variation is even (or not too different for different large groups).

That is, if we survey Caucasians, Africans, Brahmins, Dalits and so on, we would find some people (within each group) are genetically bright, some dull, some hardworking and so on. This is the variation within each group.

And when we compare the percentage of individuals within a group who can be classified as genetically "bright" or genetically "hard working", with this for other groups, this percentage would be around the same for all large groups. THIS is what is meant when I talk of variations (of intellectual ability that may be attributed to genetic causes) being evenly spread (or distributed) across large groups.

Anand

>You rightly said, "if somebody from a well off background claims historical discrimination for >not being able to get a medical or engineering seat, i personally think that he needs a good >kick on the backside!"

>I TOTALLY agree with you on this!

>I do not support Affirmative Action based upon such invalid cribs by individuals.

great - if you didn't get it, that is what is meant by keeping the creamy layer out. we have to make sure that people who are already priveleged do not avail of reservation.

>the practical effect of implementing this successfully can ONLY be an increase in social >diversity within campuses and work places?

>What is obvious is that those who disagree with you (and there are a few of us out here) >believe that social diversity in campuses and work places is a good thing, and  to us, this is >the most important objective for affirmative action!

anand, as usual you are missing the point. social diversity in campus is a good thing. AA in aid of it too is ok. but what kind of AA - that's the question. the current practice of practically giving away seats on a platter based on a ridiculously low "minimum merit" is the issue. AA should be more about removing perceived disadvantages if any and making the candidates work for it thereby maximising the potential for achievement.

>Responding to my (easily verifiable and universally accepted) statement that skin colour is >NOT evenly spread across communities, you asked, "how do you know this?".

>Are you blind or something? 

no - rather it is you who has missed the argument in your hysteria. we were talking about the even spread of qualities "within communities" - not amongst populations. i think you should try to focus instead of getting emotional about all this.

Nandakumar Chandran,

You rightly said, "if somebody from a well off background claims historical discrimination for not being able to get a medical or engineering seat, i personally think that he needs a good kick on the backside!"

I TOTALLY agree with you on this!

I do not support Affirmative Action based upon such invalid cribs by individuals. I believe that greater social diversity in campuses and work places is a good thing. I believe that greater social diversity would lead to the flowering of merit in societies that achieve this.

And thus, I support Affirmative Action because this results in increasing the representation of under-represented (identifiable) groups.

Anand

Nandakumar Chandran,

You declared, "but whether such a[n] ideal has been considered a policy of the state anywhere. no, it hasn't. that's the issue."

So what even if you are right? How does that impact my reason for supporting affirmative action in the US and in India? Which is that increased social diversity in campuses and in work places benefits society as a whole.

How does "the issue" as identified by you affect my claim that the practical effect of implementing this successfully can ONLY be an increase in social diversity within campuses and work places? It seems that you have chosen NOT to contest this assertion by me!

You went on, "but i do contest that social diversity itself should be a goal or the scope of AA in ensuring this."

That is your private opinion -- perhaps shared by others who are alson opposed to the idea that greater social diversity is good for society!

What is obvious is that those who disagree with you (and there are a few of us out here) believe that social diversity in campuses and work places is a good thing, and  to us, this is the most important objective for affirmative action!

Responding to my (easily verifiable and universally accepted) statement that skin colour is NOT evenly spread across communities, you asked, "how do you know this?".

Are you blind or something? Do you disagree that "white" (low melanin) skin colour is more prevalent amaong Caucasians than among Africans or Indians? Do you really what me to produce research findings to establish this? You must be kidding.

Colour variations among human beings is due to genetic causes -- and NOT due to socio-economic or cultural factors. An African child brought up in the US by White parents will continue to be dark-skinned, and with curly hair...

On the other hand, there is no evidence whatsoever that similar variation of intellectual capacity ACROSS ethnic groups that can be attributed to genetic, rather than to socio-cultural factors. This opinion of most scientists of the 21st century is that the human brain has NOT significantly evolved in the past 13,000 or so years.

I do take the findings of science very seriously. I see that you don't. Yes, I do base real life decisions on the findings of science.

You probably prefer superstition to get by. Best of luck!

Anand

people have to work for what they want. i can see that you are getting hysterical at the mere mention of the word "laziness" - because it condradicts your holy cow theories. the fact is that a lot of people would rather get something easy than work for it. heck even i as a kid was lazy particularly when it came to studying my school books. to open a text book would put me to sleep. but i had no such laziness when i came to reading novels or listening to music or playing my guitar or watching movies or hanging out with my friends. i did not do too well at school. i do not now whinge that i did not get into IIT or a medical college - simply because i did not put in the needed hardwork to deserve such.  nor i do not claim that the discrimination meted out to brahmins in tamilnadu for the last few decades or the hindu society traditionally condemening brahmins to poverty and priesthood are the reasons for my not getting an IIT seat. there's no substitute for hardwork. likewise if somebody from a well off background claims historical discrimination for not being able to get a medical or engineering seat, i personally think that he needs a good kick on the backside!

>I would not bother to join issue on whether my reason (as above) for supporting affirmative >action represents a "minority opinion" 

no, that's not the issue. but whether such a ideal has been considered a policy of the state anywhere. no, it hasn't. that's the issue.

the state can provide everybody an equal opportunity to achieve a goal. if some people are disadvantaged in a certain way then it can help them with their disadvantages. beyond that what's the need for the state to get into a issue like ensuring "social diversity"? 

not only is that a difficult thing to even guage/verify (which is clearly the case in india) there are much more important things for the state to do like ensuring security and prosperity of the nation.

>But I would like to insist that whatever the reasons for people to support AA, the practical effect >of implementing this successfully can ONLY be an increase in social diversity within >campuses and work places. Would you like to contest this assertion by me?

what is there to contest in this?

but i do contest that social diversity itself should be a goal or the scope of AA in ensuring this.

>You asked a strange question, "but according to you all qualities are evenly spread across >communities right?"

>Wrong! This is NOT my stand. Skin colour is NOT "evenly spread across communities". Nor is >average height, and so on. 

how do you know this? has any research been done on this?

if qualities like stupidity or intelligence can be evenly spread across, so can complexion or height be evenly spread across *within* a community.

>The point is that 10,000 years (this is how long back when all of us were hunter gatherers) is >long enough for cosmetic differences to have evolved in case of groups separated by >geographical features (oceans, mountains etc), and distance.

you are talking as if you are a million years old and observed all these changes yourself first hand!

most of these so called sciences are only the product of the last 50 years or so. and in that time they have already mapped the age of dinosaurs millions of years old!

most of this is just speculation - maybe plausible but not definitely fact.

>But 10,000 years is too short for any substantial difference to have evolved -- particularly in the >human brain. 

i think you need to get it into your brain not to take all these "sciences" too seriously or base real life decisions on them.

Nandakumar Chandran,

My reason for supporting affirmative action in the US and in India is that increased social diversity in campuses and work places benefits society as a whole. I am happy that this is an opinion that is shared by many people all over the world -- including Justice Powell in the US.

I would not bother to join issue on whether my reason (as above) for supporting affirmative action represents a "minority opinion" -- though I am reasonably certain that this is not a minority opinion among those who SUPPORT affirmative action.

But I would like to insist that whatever the reasons for people to support AA, the practical effect of implementing this successfully can ONLY be an increase in social diversity within campuses and work places. Would you like to contest this assertion by me?

You asked a strange question, "but according to you all qualities are evenly spread across communities right?"

Wrong! This is NOT my stand. Skin colour is NOT "evenly spread across communities". Nor is average height, and so on.

The point is that 10,000 years (this is how long back when all of us were hunter gatherers) is long enough for cosmetic differences to have evolved in case of groups separated by geographical features (oceans, mountains etc), and distance.

But 10,000 years is too short for any substantial difference to have evolved -- particularly in the human brain.

There is a view that evolution of the brain was more rapid when we were hunter gatherers having to live in a dangerous niche. In the forests or grasslands where early man lived, he had to deal with wild animals that were physically stronger and larger than human beings. In such a niche, it takes smartness (and not physical strength) to survive to adulthood and to procreate. This survival imperative to be smart (which caused the human brain to evolve rapidly then) has become less significant since we abandoned the hunter-gatherer life styles.

Today, it is great if I have a brain that can comprehend calculus -- but if I am innately unable to do this, I am very unlikely to get killed due to this disability! The fact is that for the past 10,000 years or so, there has been comparatively lesser selection pressure for the human brain to get smarter.

Anand

>I prefer to go by available evidence -- even if this is incomplete and "not established".

intellectual honesty demands that if something is not really established one can only maintain an ambivalent stand about it and issues based on it.

but that's fact enough for you to spout other theories based on it. that's the problem.

for example communists, post independence viewed kerala as the apt ground for implementing their philosophy. they were so brainwashed by class distinctions and other communist categories, that tried to retrofit everything local to their worldview without taking the trouble to understand if the two were really reconcilable. but apart from running the local industries into the ground and making it dependent on petrol dinars, communism didn't accomplish much in kerala. that's the effect of misusing a plausible theory as a fact.

>May be some people do not accept this as the moral basis of AA. Well I do accept this. And so >do many people in the US, including Justice Powel whose judgment I quoted yesterday!

so only you and judge powell - so pretty much a minority opinion not really accepted across the usa. ok. i have no problem with your wishes - just that pls do not misrepresent it as being the effective policy in the usa.

>At times this could be a matter of muscle power; at other times of ruthlessness and >immorality; or on possession of a weapon or inherited money power. 

but according to you all qualities are evenly spread across communities right? not smartness alone. so muscle power, ruthlessness, immorality too will be spread across and so cannot be accepted as an argument for the dominance of one community.

>Facts MUST be based on observation -- 

not really. because such observations might be dependent on a particular space and time. so what passes as true for one situation/circumstance need not be true for the other.

>Would I be demonizing you again if I say that you prefer speculations based on religious >myths, revelations, ancient texts and so on?

ofcourse - you need a strawman to make yourself/your theories relevant. as all communists do.

instead of focussing on the argument you resort to personal attacks, personal motivations etc - so ...