[extropy-chat] here's how complicated it is

[Mike Dougherty]

On 11/5/06, Lee Corbin <lcorbin at rawbw.com> wrote:
>
>
> Here is my solution:  segregation.  Segregation today,
> segregation tomorrow, and segregation forever.
>
> Right now in California, everyone needs segregating:
> because the white kids can't keep up with the Asians,
> and many of them conclude that math, English, and
> science are for smart kids, not them. As the whites can't
> keep up with the Asians, the Hispanics can't keep up
> with the whites, and the blacks can't keep up with the
> hispanics, so we ought to go back to... yes, segregation.
>

Why does it have to be racist and sexist?  Why can't we 'segregate' (to use
your negatively overloaded term) along dimension of performance capability?
There ARE white kids who are smarter than the "average" asian, so why hold
them to a lower standard due to genetics?  Even within a demographic, there
will be natural tendencies toward excellence within specific subjects -
capitalize on and enhance them.  Do we really need a people to be so "well
rounded" that they don't appear to be 'sharp' in any subject?  Or would
fostering specialization be the right course in our increasingly specialized
fields of expertise?  Why does a CS/Math major need X credits of history
from a liberal arts school?

Unless you are suggesting that someone's ethnic background or gender defines
their potential.... but you wouldn't be saying that, right?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20061105/d3350c2b/attachment.html>