- Location
- United States
I was infracted 25 points for the following post, on being asked why I oppose college affirmative action.
Text of the infraction:
I respectfully appeal this infraction in its entirety, on the grounds that it incorrectly applies Rule 2.
The infraction cites me for advocating for stricter standards in such a way that its "subtext" "essentially" makes a point that the moderator considers equivalent to "pulling the ladder up" on disadvantaged groups, but this reading is flatly contradicted by the actual text. Setting aside that I argued for objective standards, not stricter standards (as the very same paragraph considers that some standards should be objectively relaxed), the very next paragraph consists of nothing but examples of ladders that the post supports expanding, and footnote 3 points out that these ladders would be redistributive along racial lines even if applied in a colorblind way, on account of the numerous material legacies of racism. Reading of the rest of the post does not support a finding that it advocates for pulling of ladders for disadvantaged groups nor that it denies the material legacy of racism.
The post does admittedly advocate against racial college admissions AA, but the question of whether that such AA even actually constitutes an effective "ladder" is itself a debatable policy position. The infraction takes for granted that it is, but a merely pragmatic policy disagreement with moderator staff is not against the rules, and so does not support a finding of Rule 2 violation.
Further, even considering the quoted sentence in isolation does not support a Rule 2 finding, as explicitly calling attention to objective environmental racism as a contributor to substandard academic performance among affected minorities is the opposite of what someone dismissive or unconcerned with the legacy of racism would do. And indeed, even without being cited as an example in the next paragraph, the cited cause (racially disproportionate pollution exposure to children) is self-evidently a problem readily amiable to proactive correction (which is part of why I choose it). Anyone might disagree with the broader points that the example is meant to make (that many relevant harms from the legacy of racism have already occurred by the time someone is applying for college, and that objective performance in many fields is too important to sacrifice for such benefits even if they existed), but again, these are debatable questions of fact or policy, which are not against the rules.
Further, even supposing a problematic reading of the post could be made, via the mod-admitted dependence on "subtext" that "essentially" says what the infraction alleges, this would not be sufficient to support a finding of Rule 2 violation, because "...Rule 2's 'Be considerate of how your opinions and statements can be interpreted by others' is not a blank check for hostile intrepretations; it covers reasonable misunderstandings...". (2023-AT-14: Staff and Driven by Apathy, EarthScorpion, writing with the majority.) For the reasons stated above, a reasonable reader, considering either the entire post or the cited sentence in isolation, would not find it to be advocating for hateful positions, or even overly dismissive positions.
Alternatively, even supposing that the post were taken to advocate pulling ladders up, or any specific ladder up, from disadvantaged groups notwithstanding all of the above, that would still not be a Rule 2 violation, as while Rule 2 's ban on hatefulness is easily read to bar advocacy of unambiguously racist policies, it does not compel support for any specific anti-racist, or purportedly anti-racist, policy or intervention. Nor does it bar advocating against such a policy, or making particular arguments against it, if not made in a hateful way or for hateful purposes. (See ibid, in which the appellant's infraction for advocating against a proposed anti-colonial intervention for pragmatic reasons was overturned.) Topically, part of the debate on racial college admissions AA is the argument that, as heretofore practiced, it is racist against Asian Americans. Whether that is true or not is, again, a debatable question beyond the scope of the rules, but it would be absurd to suggest that the mere claim that it is an anti-racist position makes it a Rule 2 violation to argue against it. If it did, it would completely bar good faith debate on the effectiveness, efficiency, or trade-offs of any anti-racist or purportedly anti-racist policy, as no one could argue anything but support.
Alternatively, if the cited line is found to be infractable solely on the basis of being a poor choice of words in some way, then I appeal to have the infraction reduced to staff notice, as 25 points is excessive for a single instance of sub-optimal phrasing in an otherwise inoffensive and good faith post.
In any case that this appeal is given a resolution other than Overturn, I request that the reason for the infraction be posted onto the infracted post by a moderator, as the explanation-free Rule 2 infraction gives the impression that the post was infracted for opposing racial college admissions AA per se, which would mislead future thread readers as to SV policy. I do not believe I can simply do so myself, as it's my understanding that this would constitute "speaking for a moderator", or something like that.
Iron Roby said:
Iron Roby said:I was being charitable, cause @AssaultRaven did express support for "welfare and school funding equality at the primary and secondary levels", so I was just trying to figure out their reasoning of why stop at also not gentrifying the higher education specifically?
Two main reasons, I would say.
First, you have to start discriminating on the basis of actual ability to execute eventually, and college seems like the right point to transition from pouring money into people just for the sake of giving them a chance, like we should do with children, and towards optimizing for performance and economic efficiency, like adults.[1] It sucks if the only reason someone can't be an aerospace engineer is that they're severely mentally disabled from lead poisoning as a child in their racially red-lined neighborhood, but acknowledging that history won't make them better at calculus. Not every disadvantage is so severe, or every degree so high-stakes, but if any standard of performance exists, then it presumably does so for a reason. If there is no reason, then you can as well relax it for everyone. If it's only relative, then you still want to top performers, however you're measuring that.
Secondly, as to remediating the legacy of racism, I don't think explicitly racial policies are needed to correct them.[2] Hispanic children can't disproportionately attend broke schools if there are no broke schools. Black children can't be disproportionately poisoned by lead in cities if the lead has been remediated. American Indian children can't be disproportionately malnourished if every child has guaranteed school meals. The children of refugees can't lack health care if no child lacks health care. If you set about to address any material legacy of racism, why would you stop at only addressing the racist parts?[3]
Damage said:I imagine last names are going to be looked at heavily here. With lots of assuming race based on someone being a Jackson, Goldberg, Wong, or McCarthy.
Regarding color-blindess, I will say that being color-blind yourself does not mean being blind to other people's racism. Rather than ignoring the issue, in actual practice I say that a color-blind admission policy would require positive steps to enforce that color-blindness, so that the people running the process could not introduce bias even if they wanted to, or have sub-conscious bias towards doing so. This one is easy: replace names with numeric identifiers. It gets harder from here, but the effort would be worthwhile.
[1] This point is equally applicable today, and in my blue sky world where nationally useful degrees are free and students receive a living stipend. Also, this isn't about "STEM vs humanities". If you agree that the study of, eg, history is important, you should still want historians to be competent, and to get more historians for the same public cost.
[2] I agree with the Supreme Court that any de jure policy of racial distinction is so inherently toxic that any use of one must survive strict scrutiny.
[3] As as I said before, to the extent all of those things are true today, then to that same extent would addressing those issues be redistributive along racial lines.
Text of the infraction:
Your post (SCOTUS news thread) violates the rules.
Rule 2 states:
Rule 2: Don't Be Hateful
We want to build a welcoming community. You can't post anything that is hateful or advocates harassment or violence, even against fictional or historical people. Be mindful in everything that you post.
- Be understanding of other viewpoints and perspectives.
- Be considerate of how your opinions and statements can be interpreted by others.
When advocating for stricter standards for higher education a statement such as "It sucks if the only reason someone can't be an aerospace engineer is that they're severely mentally disabled from lead poisoning as a child in their racially red-lined neighborhood, but acknowledging that history won't make them better at calculus." is not what we would be consider being mindful of the subject matter at hand. Particularly in the context of the controversial removal of policy that is meant to give disadvantaged minorities a step up, the subtext reads as essentially pulling the ladder up while leaving these groups at the bottom.
You have been infracted for 25 points and have been banned from the thread for 72 hours.
I respectfully appeal this infraction in its entirety, on the grounds that it incorrectly applies Rule 2.
The infraction cites me for advocating for stricter standards in such a way that its "subtext" "essentially" makes a point that the moderator considers equivalent to "pulling the ladder up" on disadvantaged groups, but this reading is flatly contradicted by the actual text. Setting aside that I argued for objective standards, not stricter standards (as the very same paragraph considers that some standards should be objectively relaxed), the very next paragraph consists of nothing but examples of ladders that the post supports expanding, and footnote 3 points out that these ladders would be redistributive along racial lines even if applied in a colorblind way, on account of the numerous material legacies of racism. Reading of the rest of the post does not support a finding that it advocates for pulling of ladders for disadvantaged groups nor that it denies the material legacy of racism.
The post does admittedly advocate against racial college admissions AA, but the question of whether that such AA even actually constitutes an effective "ladder" is itself a debatable policy position. The infraction takes for granted that it is, but a merely pragmatic policy disagreement with moderator staff is not against the rules, and so does not support a finding of Rule 2 violation.
Further, even considering the quoted sentence in isolation does not support a Rule 2 finding, as explicitly calling attention to objective environmental racism as a contributor to substandard academic performance among affected minorities is the opposite of what someone dismissive or unconcerned with the legacy of racism would do. And indeed, even without being cited as an example in the next paragraph, the cited cause (racially disproportionate pollution exposure to children) is self-evidently a problem readily amiable to proactive correction (which is part of why I choose it). Anyone might disagree with the broader points that the example is meant to make (that many relevant harms from the legacy of racism have already occurred by the time someone is applying for college, and that objective performance in many fields is too important to sacrifice for such benefits even if they existed), but again, these are debatable questions of fact or policy, which are not against the rules.
Further, even supposing a problematic reading of the post could be made, via the mod-admitted dependence on "subtext" that "essentially" says what the infraction alleges, this would not be sufficient to support a finding of Rule 2 violation, because "...Rule 2's 'Be considerate of how your opinions and statements can be interpreted by others' is not a blank check for hostile intrepretations; it covers reasonable misunderstandings...". (2023-AT-14: Staff and Driven by Apathy, EarthScorpion, writing with the majority.) For the reasons stated above, a reasonable reader, considering either the entire post or the cited sentence in isolation, would not find it to be advocating for hateful positions, or even overly dismissive positions.
Alternatively, even supposing that the post were taken to advocate pulling ladders up, or any specific ladder up, from disadvantaged groups notwithstanding all of the above, that would still not be a Rule 2 violation, as while Rule 2 's ban on hatefulness is easily read to bar advocacy of unambiguously racist policies, it does not compel support for any specific anti-racist, or purportedly anti-racist, policy or intervention. Nor does it bar advocating against such a policy, or making particular arguments against it, if not made in a hateful way or for hateful purposes. (See ibid, in which the appellant's infraction for advocating against a proposed anti-colonial intervention for pragmatic reasons was overturned.) Topically, part of the debate on racial college admissions AA is the argument that, as heretofore practiced, it is racist against Asian Americans. Whether that is true or not is, again, a debatable question beyond the scope of the rules, but it would be absurd to suggest that the mere claim that it is an anti-racist position makes it a Rule 2 violation to argue against it. If it did, it would completely bar good faith debate on the effectiveness, efficiency, or trade-offs of any anti-racist or purportedly anti-racist policy, as no one could argue anything but support.
Alternatively, if the cited line is found to be infractable solely on the basis of being a poor choice of words in some way, then I appeal to have the infraction reduced to staff notice, as 25 points is excessive for a single instance of sub-optimal phrasing in an otherwise inoffensive and good faith post.
In any case that this appeal is given a resolution other than Overturn, I request that the reason for the infraction be posted onto the infracted post by a moderator, as the explanation-free Rule 2 infraction gives the impression that the post was infracted for opposing racial college admissions AA per se, which would mislead future thread readers as to SV policy. I do not believe I can simply do so myself, as it's my understanding that this would constitute "speaking for a moderator", or something like that.