Nandakumar Chandran,

You said, "you had asserted so many things based on the supposed AA in the usa - but the articles i have cited seems to contradict your assertions. would like to see clarification from you."

The essence of what I said is in the "wish list" that I gave. If you feel some other non-consequential aspect is "contradicted" by what you cited, let this be so (though I disagree with you on this). For me, while the US type of AA is acceptable, so is the type of that is presently implemented in India. It seems that if my wishes were pigs, they are indeed flying...

You went on, "but social diversity as an end for AA is not accepted in the usa"

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! My support for AA is because this has the practical effect of increasing social diversity within campuses and work places-- in the US and in India!

Anand

Nandakumar Chandran,

I am under no obligation to "substantiate" my stand (which happens to be the mainstream scientific view) -- at least no more so than you need to "substantiate" YOUR stand (which is based on no one knows what!)

You went on "if every community had even groups of smart/stupid people then no single community would be able to dominate - even less so a community which is a tiny minority."

That is where you are mistaken. Dominance need NOT be (and often is not) a sign or measure of smartness at all. 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.

Next, you may get on to say that men are "smarter" than women because historically they got to dominate over women!

About Wallace's Paradox, you say, "but that's just an "observation". not an established fact."

Facts MUST be based on observation -- and not on what prophets or incarnations of God are alleged to have revealed!

Indeed it is as a result of lot of experimentation "with varied dynamics - population of varied sizes, varied cultures, varied circumstances etc" that scientists have at last come to believe that racism and caste system are based on myths of group superiority.

You went on, "but even then it can only be considered plausible - not fact."

Suit yourself. Cling on to hope to sustain your unscientific beliefs! I prefer to go by available evidence -- even if this is incomplete and "not established".

You alleged, "then demonize your opponent with misrepresentation?"

Did I misrepresent you when I said that according to you, the reason why some large communities are under-represented is because of innate lack of merit, or unwillingness to work hard?

But I happy that you now agree that anyone who would give the above reason for under-representation is a demon! Okay, please clarify and tell us your correct stand on this -- so that we can decide whether or not you are a demon by your own standards.

I agree that "most of what passes for 'science' today is heavy speculation". But  speculation that is consistent available evidence; speculation that can be falsified by contrary evidence (if this surfaces in future); and speculation that is the most parsimonious among all other plausible theories.

Would I be demonizing you again if I say that you prefer speculations based on religious myths, revelations, ancient texts and so on? Well, you may tell as as to the type of speculations that you prefer, and on what basis...

Anand

> Declaration that the primary aim of AA is to achieve greater social diversity which is good for >society as a whole, and not as sop to this or that under-represented group.

but social diversity as an end for AA is not accepted in the usa :

As a result, the 5th U.S. Court of Appeals suspended the university's affirmative action admissions program and ruled that the 1978 Bakke decision was invalid—while Bakke rejected racial quotas it maintained that race could serve as a factor in admissions. In addition to remedying past discrimination, Bakke maintained that the inclusion of minority students would create a diverse student body, and that was beneficial to the educational environment as a whole. Hopwood, however, rejected the legitimacy of diversity as a goal, asserting that "educational diversity is not recognized as a compelling state interest." The Supreme Court allowed the ruling to stand. In 1997, the Texas Attorney General announced that all "Texas public universities [should] employ race-neutral criteria." 

anand, i'm not talking about a wishlist here - yea one wishes pigs could fly ...!

you had asserted so many things based on the supposed AA in the usa - but the articles i have cited seems to contradict your assertions. would like to see clarification from you.

Nandakumar Chandran,

Suffice if I say that I would support in India a clone of the affirmative action (AA) as implemented in the US:-

a) Must also cover private sector and private educational institutes

b) Must include all under-represented groups -- including women

c) Must do away with centrally specified quotas, and replace this with legal stipulations for expected social diversity to be achieved by campuses and work places

d) Legal expectation that campuses and work places will achieve specified levels of social diversity through preferential admission criteria/ schemes for under-represented groups.

e) Periodic government audits to monitor social diversity as acheived by campuses and work places -- and a scheme of reward and penalty for achievers and defaulters.

f) Declaration that the primary aim of AA is to achieve greater social diversity which is good for society as a whole, and not as sop to this or that under-represented group.

g) Census to include measures of representation (in universities and professions) of identifiable groups

h) No concept of creamy layer!

Anand

pls check this out as well : http://www.infoplease.com/spot/affirmativetimeline1.html

This case involved affirmative action programs at the state and local levels—a Richmond program setting aside 30% of city construction funds for black-owned firms was challenged. For the first time, affirmative action was judged as a "highly suspect tool." The Supreme Court ruled that an "amorphous claim that there has been past discrimination in a particular industry cannot justify the use of an unyielding racial quota." It maintained that affirmative action must be subject to "strict scrutiny" and is unconstitutional unless racial discrimination can be proven to be "widespread throughout a particular industry." 

As a result, the 5th U.S. Court of Appeals suspended the university's affirmative action admissions program and ruled that the 1978 Bakke decision was invalid—while Bakke rejected racial quotas it maintained that race could serve as a factor in admissions. In addition to remedying past discrimination, Bakke maintained that the inclusion of minority students would create a diverse student body, and that was beneficial to the educational environment as a whole. Hopwood, however, rejected the legitimacy of diversity as a goal, asserting that "educational diversity is not recognized as a compelling state interest." The Supreme Court allowed the ruling to stand. In 1997, the Texas Attorney General announced that all "Texas public universities [should] employ race-neutral criteria." 

A state ban on all forms of affirmative action was passed in California: "The state shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting."

comrade nair, i actually did some reading on AA. i don't know what AA you are talking about :

pls check this :

http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761580666/affirmative_action.html

some notable points as to why historical discrimination is the basis for AA, why it is applicable mainly to minorities, why a quota system is opposed in the usa, why it affects only a small percentage of the whole :

AA policies used in the United States to increase opportunities for minorities by favoring them in hiring and promotion, college admissions, and the awarding of government contracts. 

Generally, affirmative action has been undertaken by governments, businesses, or educational institutions to remedy the effects of past discrimination against a group, whether by a specific entity, such as a corporation, or by society as a whole. 

The Court’s ruling in Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978) declared that it was unconstitutional for the medical school of the University of California at Davis to establish a rigid quota system by reserving a certain number of places in each class for minorities. 

In Fullilove v. Klutznick (1980) the Court upheld a provision of the Public Works Employment Act of 1977, which provided a 10 percent “set-aside” for hiring minority contractors on federally funded public works projects. 

However, in a separate decision, the Court rejected the affirmative action program used in the university’s undergraduate program, which was challenged in Gratz v. Bollinger. The undergraduate program used a point system in deciding how to weigh applicants, with minority applicants receiving a large number of points. The Court ruled that this method was too “mechanistic” and amounted to a quota system. The law school program, the Court said, was permissible because it evaluated each applicant individually and used race as one of many factors in deciding whom to admit.

And of course, infrastructure building and increasing awareness need to take place along with affirmative action.

In India, the States that implemented AA most vigorously are ALSO those which fairly succeeded in infrastructure building and awareness enhancement -- namely Tamil Nadu and Kerala. One is obviously not at the sacrifice of the other!

Anand

Nandakumar Chandran,

You asked, "why not try to address the possible causes for under representation like lack of infrastructure or awareness or exposure etc?"

Because according to me, these are NOT the significant causes for gross under-representation in India.

Because, affirmative action is not primarily intended to "help" the under-represented group, but to benefit society as a whole.

Because affirmative action causes the suppressed merit within society to be set free -- by widening the social base out of which meritorious individuals can emerge.

Because gross social inequity (the consequence of the evil caste system) promotes mediocrity and keeps India backward.

Anand

Nandakumar Chandran,

You told me, "you have yet to provide supporting evidence" for statistics, and so on.

Whatever for? Why do I need these "supporting evidence" in support of the mainstream scientific view that normal genetic variation among individuals distributes evenly among all large groups of people?

I can understand that you disagree with the above view. But do you ALSO contend that this is not the mainstream view that is overwhelmingly accepted by scientists in the 21st century?

Would you be satisfied if I quote a few scientists? I can certainly do that! But is there any reputed living scientist who would say that some races or castes are innately superior to the others (either intellectually or morally)?

Well, I can name two who hold views similar to yours! Dr James Watson, a Nobel Prize winning scientist (now 79 years old, and well past his prime) recently implied in a statement that Africans are not as intelligent as whites. His comments have been forcefully refuted by fellow scientists.

Neourobiologist Prof Steven Rose of the Open University,  was quoted by Telegraph, "No evidence that claimed to find people of African descent were less intelligent than Europeans or other racial groups had stood up to scientific scrutiny".  He said such “racist” comments were also “genetic nonsense”.

(Dr Watson had earlier said that darker-skinned people have a higher sex drive and that women should hypothetically have the right to abort fetuses that “may have a tendency to become homosexual”)

Satoshi Kanazawa, an evolutionary psychologist at the London School of Economics, published a paper claiming African states were poor because their populations were less intelligent than Europeans and Asians. (The more widespread opinion is that IQ tests are culturally biased and lower average scores among blacks can be explained by social rather than genetic factors.)

The point is that scientists with racist views as that of Watson and Kanazawa are increasingly turning into a minority. Moreover, no one would deny that there is far more variation in intelligence and genetics within racial groups than between them.

I know which camp I am in!

Anand