The Academic Bill of Rights

Funny - that's not the comment I made. I guess conservatives don't know how to read, either? What do you think you're going to accomplish by hurting my feelings all the time like that, Faith? How very Christian of you. Oh, name games. How very mature!

By being rude and insulting yourself? How would that work?I ask again - what's the point of all this? What do you hope to accomplish when you substitute insult for argument?

You're not going to get much respect at a science board saying something like that. I mean it's pretty much an excuse to reject any data you disagree with, now isn't it? In other words, women earn less because they deserve less. We know what you're trying to say.

Of course they do. What you've described is the perfect rationale to abandon any sort of responsibility or concern about people who have been discriminated against."We're provided equal opportunity", you say, without any explanation of how that is actually so. "If people fail now it must be their own fault."Brilliant. It's the perfect rationale for your self-centered nihilism. You'll pardon the rest of us if we're too busy actually doing something about problems to play along, ok?

I don't know anything about affirmative action. What I do know is bullshit when its put in front of me. It's the smell, you see.

What? No, no. Like I said I don't know anything about the effacacy of affirmative action.The bullshit I was talking about was CanadianSteve's bullshit about "equal opportunity." That's just some convinient sophistry to rationalize being selfish.

Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't realize calling a spade a spade was "hostile and antagonistic."Well, respond or not. Doesn't really matter - you've put your selfish nihilism on display for everyone.

Oh, us poor white men. So underprivleged. Except for the "equal work, more pay" thing. Oh, and we live longer and get better health care than men of other races.Oh, and we're less likely to be pulled over just because we're behind the wheel of a nice car. Of course, we're more likely to be behind that nice wheel in the first place, because, on average, a white family pulls in twice that of a black family. (Assuming the black family even has an income; unemployment among black people is twice that among whites.)But hey, it's all "equal opportunity", right? Except when it's not:

quote:

---

Are Emily and Greg More Employable than Lakisha and Jamal? A Field Experiment on Labor Market Discrimination

​

We perform a field experiment to measure racial discrimination in the labor market. We respond with fictitious resumes to help-wanted ads in Boston and Chicago newspapers. To manipulate perception of race, each resume is assigned either a very African American sounding name or a very White sounding name. The results show significant discrimination against African-American names: White names receive 50 percent more callbacks for interviews. We also find that race affects the benefits of a better resume. For White names, a higher quality resume elicits 30 percent more callbacks whereas for African Americans, it elicits a far smaller increase. Applicants living in better neighborhoods receive more callbacks but, interestingly, this effect does not differ by race. The amount of discrimination is uniform across occupations and industries. Federal contractors and employers who list Equal Opportunity Employer' in their ad discriminate as much as other employers. We find little evidence that our results are driven by employers inferring something other than race, such as social class, from the names. These results suggest that racial discrimination is still a prominent feature of the labor market.

---

Are Emily and Greg More Employable than Lakisha and Jamal? A Field Experiment on Labor Market Discrimination | NBERHey, that's the "equal opportunity" offered by those like CanadianSteve. It's the equal opportunity for people to discriminate agaist minorities. Selfish, shameless nihilism.

Absolutely erroneous. Today's conservatism is marked by an ideology that will flinch at no government expenditure or intrusive legislation to advance their religious social agenda; an ideology that will shy from no application of military force to promote American empire.The so-called "right" is far more socialist than the left has ever been; they're absolutely ruthless in their application of socialist means to theocratic ends.It is the Democratic party, with it's platform of limited federal government, eliminating profligate spending, and reducing government interference in people's personal lives, that most approximates the classical liberalism to which you refer.

He's a cool customer, you're right about that.