Jump to content

Barriers to equal opportunity in education


MSC
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, naitche said:

Yes.

By reducing obstacles to qualification in Education.

Not by singling out who should benefit more based on characterisations of their diverse conditions.

That redistributes the obstacles, with out understanding the effects that might have, but doesn't create any greater potential for humanity as a whole.

You are not qualifying Equality. You are qualifying more Humans, for education.Their equality doesn't come into it. Thats assumed.

Some time's, more words explain less... 🤔

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

The language behind Critical Race Theory  tells us that characterisations of human conditions are essential for equality. We must be responsible for actively upholding that ideal in all facets of our lives.

Refusing space, standing or recognition of value to those who refuse to recognise in-equality. Characterising that as a 'set apart' from Human values on the basis of racism or bigotry, in  broad terms that affect every area of our lives..

That assigns a negative or contrary value to a broad range of people who may display 'Characteristics' 

Language is altered to reflect the new definition of bigotry more accurately. And allows its perpetration on the 'set apart' to enforce conformity. Assigning a negative or contrary value to broad range of the population based on characterisations.

It looks to me this allows  the idea of a biological space, and prediction based on mathematical laws. Equality comes at the expense of diversity. Diversity is our environment.

You reduce environment and keep dong that as long as you try to measure its value by its diversity, rather than its fitness for purpose.

It creates belief that clouds reason and an enemy of humanity if we look to discredit its parts.  When we could contribute to them instead.

Alter perspectives,  instead of removing their positions in space.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 10 months later...
On 1/17/2021 at 9:55 PM, zapatos said:

You seem to have a non-standard definition of the word "discrimination". Discrimination involves unfair or unjust behavior.

I have to disagree with this claim. Not that this definition isn't the non-standard one, you're correct there. However, standard definition does not necessarily mean the correct definition, nor does it mean the only standard. Strict singular definitionalism is rejected not only by philosophers, but by the people that write the laypersons dictionary.

Like most issues in ethics, it is rarely so cut and dry. I find that more often than not, whether or not any action is justified depends greatly on the context the action is happening in. 

Even when it comes to protected characteristics (which tend to vary based on local and national laws and policy) there are a number of contexts where most legal experts and ethicists will agree that discrimination based on even a protected characteristic, is in fact justified. Whether it's not letting any blind person, except for Mr LaForge, fly a commercial airliner.. Or any plane for that matter, telling a trans woman she cannot be your surrogate because she hasn't got a womb (differentiating between gender and biological sex + yes, Monty Python is awesome) a person with Parkinsons can't be a surgeon and a 5 year old cannot run for Congress. Those are a few examples off the top of my head but there are lots more I could use.

The word 'Discrimination' does, can and ought to mean unjustified discrimination, except in the contexts where it does not. There is no other word for me to really use when I mean unjustified discrimination (bigotry doesn't tick all the boxes for me), yet at the same time, no other word for me to use when I mean justified discrimination, that make them both clearly distinct from the other. 

On 1/21/2021 at 5:30 AM, naitche said:

Better than assuming racism or bigotry for the discrepancies, as characterisations of human conditions demands..

Diversity is the antithesis of equality.

I often like to say, assume everything or assume nothing. Case by case basis. Being blind to unjustified discrimination as a reality that happens, amounts to missing it when it does, just as being blind to justified discrimination as a reality amounts to missing it when it also happens. 

Your last line seems strange and I wonder if you can be convinced to shed more light on what you mean by it? Are you saying the inverse, absolute conformity is the epitome of equality? 

A virtue theorist could argue that if diversity is a collective virtue, it is the golden mean between absolute conformity and pure individuality. For the individual, this means individualisation for the purpose of bringing a broad range of skills, aptitudes and value to the collective. For the collective, this means conforming to a shared value of diversity, for the sake of our survival. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
On 12/9/2021 at 3:05 AM, MSC said:

 

 

I often like to say, assume everything or assume nothing. Case by case basis. Being blind to unjustified discrimination as a reality that happens, amounts to missing it when it does, just as being blind to justified discrimination as a reality amounts to missing it when it also happens. 

What I assume,  becomes  part of my existence or being. My self reality is based on those assumptions. If they are not objectively 'true', or universal, I would be basing my existence on  belief. Not truth, or science.

 

If I  assume bigotry or racism, Or assume their lack, I will act on those as truths of my being.  I will be unable to effectively recognize evidence that contradicts my being. 

So I will assume neither if our Humanity is the  object of my study.

 

I can assume both the existence of unjustified discrimination, and its absence. But neither are objective truths of our shared Humanity until they are assumed inherently  into its direction. Its 'in-formation'. 

I will not knowingly assume bigotry or its promotion.  If Humanity is the Object of of my study, I can not then Subject that Humanity to an assumption of bigoty  that directs our form..

Thats not science, its belief. A refusal to recognize or accept what contradicts my subjective reality.

On 12/9/2021 at 3:05 AM, MSC said:

Your last line seems strange and I wonder if you can be convinced to shed more light on what you mean by it? Are you saying the inverse, absolute conformity is the epitome of equality? 

A virtue theorist could argue that if diversity is a collective virtue, it is the golden mean between absolute conformity and pure individuality. For the individual, this means individualisation for the purpose of bringing a broad range of skills, aptitudes and value to the collective. For the collective, this means conforming to a shared value of diversity, for the sake of our survival. 

Diversity is the antithesis of equality.

There is One. The Object of study. Humanity. 

 I objectively assume the equality of its parts to  'in-form' that One manifestation. 

Our equality is not in the subjective. Our diversity is subjective.

Objective and subjective are contradictory values.

An object is reduced to its definition. Of being- no other value but one.

A subjective carries the potential of any other.

Blur the line of definition between the 2 and you will objectively reduce the subject to a uniform state.

 

Edited by naitche
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/21/2021 at 7:08 AM, dimreepr said:

Some time's, more words explain less... 🤔

I see what you mean now.

On 1/21/2021 at 7:13 AM, naitche said:

Yep. 

Just some times you have to sift through a lot of shite to find them.

Maybe if you were more concise and not so intentionally ambiguous, there would be less shite in your word salads. 

Are you perchance a ghost? Because almost all of what you were saying, sounded like woo. It didn't really make much sense and was kind of hard to read because it sounds like you're trying to cultivate mystique and making fallacious appeals to science in an attempt to strengthen whatever it is you're trying to claim. 

Then there is this;

On 12/23/2021 at 7:59 PM, naitche said:

Diversity is the antithesis of equality.

There is One. The Object of study. Humanity. 

 I objectively assume the equality of its parts to  'in-form' that One manifestation. 

Our equality is not in the subjective. Our diversity is subjective.

Neurological, Genetic, Cultural and biological diversity are in no ways "subjective".

It sounds to me like you're trying to abstract away from simply saying "I don't see colour or differences in peoples." Which I think is just you lying to yourself about having subconscious biases, because admitting you have them, would make you seem, in your eye's at least, less good or intelligent. 

You misunderstood completely when I said;

On 12/8/2021 at 10:05 AM, MSC said:

I often like to say, assume everything or assume nothing. Case by case basis. Being blind to unjustified discrimination as a reality that happens, amounts to missing it when it does, just as being blind to justified discrimination as a reality amounts to missing it when it also happens

Assume everything or assume nothing on a case by case basis. Meaning, upon examination of the objective context, which includes the individuals involved subjective beliefs, as it will factor into what is happening, in a given situation deduce whether or not discrimination is going on, and the type and degree of it. It's simpler but probably more appropriate meaning; consider all sides, empathise with and understand how and why different people may view the same situation differently. Give yourself the fullest view of a situation as you can, research it, double/triple check, be rigorous and accept that you fallible humanity will never lead you to a perfect answer. Just a best guess. (Unless it's the hard sciences of course. 9 is the perfect answer to what is the square root of 81.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/26/2021 at 11:04 AM, MSC said:

 

Are you perchance a ghost? Because almost all of what you were saying, sounded like woo. It didn't really make much sense and was kind of hard to read because it sounds like you're trying to cultivate mystique and making fallacious appeals to science in an attempt to strengthen whatever it is you're trying to claim. 

Or you are missing the  dimension of a biological space in the way I use language.

We should know its there, to link the social sciences to biological law and physics.

On 12/26/2021 at 11:04 AM, MSC said:

 

Neurological, Genetic, Cultural and biological diversity are in no ways "subjective".

Yes they are. They subject to environment. The only value of an object/objective is in its being, or statehood.

The direction given to your object/objective is all subject to its existence or being. Its state is determined by that direction.

When you  measure that being/state by any other value, That value is subject to the state its applied to.

Philosophy says all value is subjective. Measurement is subjective. 

On 12/26/2021 at 11:04 AM, MSC said:

It sounds to me like you're trying to abstract away from simply saying "I don't see colour or differences in peoples." Which I think is just you lying to yourself about having subconscious biases, because admitting you have them, would make you seem, in your eye's at least, less good or intelligent. 

But I do see color and diversity, everywhere. I think you read things into what I say because it conflicts with your assumed reality- where value lies in objective states, rather than direction  subjectively provided.

On 12/26/2021 at 11:04 AM, MSC said:

You misunderstood completely when I said;

Assume everything or assume nothing on a case by case basis. Meaning, upon examination of the objective context, which includes the individuals involved subjective beliefs, as it will factor into what is happening, in a given situation deduce whether or not discrimination is going on, and the type and degree of it. It's simpler but probably more appropriate meaning; consider all sides, empathise with and understand how and why different people may view the same situation differently. Give yourself the fullest view of a situation as you can, research it, double/triple check, be rigorous and accept that you fallible humanity will never lead you to a perfect answer. Just a best guess. (Unless it's the hard sciences of course. 9 is the perfect answer to what is the square root of 81.)

I did not misunderstand. Objective context would be the content of the object- Subject value.

Edited by naitche
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Humanity has a common language that directs us through values expressed. Thats biological. 

Objective value is to state.

Subjective to Direction.

If those 2 values are entangled, direction is to achievement and maintenance of state, before any other value can be recognized.

By mechanism of subtraction,  of environment.

Reduced to the desired state.

A better understanding of what is 'environment' might make this more clear, and the workings self evident.

 

Humanity is equal to education.

Education is not equal to Humanity.

Thats the problem we should be addressing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, naitche said:

Humanity is equal to education.

Education is not equal to Humanity.

Thats the problem we should be addressing.

Indeed, get back to me when you've figured it out...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
On 12/31/2021 at 9:29 PM, naitche said:

Or you are missing the  dimension of a biological space in the way I use language.

We should know its there, to link the social sciences to biological law and physics.

Contextualists miss nothing. Onus is on you to be clearer in your communication. I've asked you to clarify multiple times. Can you link me to the literature that is currently inspiring you. I want to understand, however if you will do me the courtesy of reading back some of your own writing from a different perspective, you will find that you have contradicted yourself a few times and that there are a few terms you use that need to be better defined.

On 1/2/2022 at 5:58 PM, naitche said:

Humanity has a common language that directs us through values expressed.

I agree with the sentiment of this, however there is a diversity of modal qualities to every value expressed and clear conflicts of prioritization between values. Security/Freedom is one such conflict. There is also a diversity of thought in meta-ethical dialogical positions and reducing them to something simpler than that, eliminates the subtle but profound impacts of the differences in nuance has on the modal quality of values. 

On 1/2/2022 at 5:58 PM, naitche said:

Humanity is equal to education.

Education is not equal to Humanity.

Thats the problem we should be addressing.

That's the problem we have been addressing. Your reductionism isn't helping. If we cannot discuss diversity and how it relates to equality and equity, then we cannot have the discussion at all. This is about barriers to education. Now, you can express your view, but if you cannot recognize the influence concepts or social constructs and how others view and use them, have on the barriers to equal opportunity in education, then you are ignoring the majority of the problem.

A few facts to keep this all on track.

F1. Not everyone shares your view on how things are, or how they ought to be.

F2. Bigots exist.

F3. Bad faith decisions made by biased individuals on who does or does not get into a certain school, happen.

F4. There are a few different degrees and types of discrimination, direct and indirect, conscious and subconsciously. 

F5. Some people believe diversity exists and has value in a number of different areas.

F6. Public discourse does not take these concepts lightly.  

Conclusion: It is not pragmatic to take the fringe belief that diversity is the antithesis of equality and claims like that require proof. Especially since the concepts 'Equality and 'Diversity have uses in a multitude of different situations. Here, we are discussing equality of opportunity. Believing in the values of equality and diversity are not mutually exclusive. There is even a way to be pro-life and pro-choice based on pragmatic modalities of the underlying values involved. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.