Basing admissions of someone disabled on tests is illegal!

Post Reply New Topic

SAT requirement is fine as long as appropriate accommodations are made. For example it should be a spoken version with appropriate math adaptations for blind folk, or extra time for LD / ID folk. A different room for sensory issues, or a typeable version for people with fine motor skills issues. Flagging the scores is discrimination though. The purpose of accommodations is to put people on an even footing regardless of their disability - so that it measures one's actual aptitude not that filtered through a discriminatory system.

Fnord, b.s.... I'm out about not being NT at work. Not about Autistic Disorder but about not being NT. Should you be out at work? I hate the game not the player. If you can pass as NT, go for it. I guess it's like being LGBT in the '50s.

I'm not being NT at work, either; I'm being ME. They all know that I'm a bit 'eccentric'; they just don't know why. They don't need to know, either.

"Looking at our society(USA) from a big picture point of view how are those who are in top positions the most qualified people? Let's look at the government shutdown and let's look at our economy. If these people who are currently at the top are the most qualified in our society then maybe the qualifications themselves need to be questioned."

I'm certainly not going to defend the actions of the liberal elites--whether Democrat or Republican. I will say though that these are not stupid people, since many of them attended Ivy League schools, although I do believe most of them are thoroughly evil. But that is due to the nature of liberalism, which places the individual and self-interest above the common good. There is a difference.

I would also say some perspective in order. As bad as things are here, they are infinitely worse in most Third World countries. If you want to see true societal and administrative dysfunction, go spend some time in west Africa.

"I've wrestled with this. Are they evil or stupid? My answer is kind of both and kind of neither. This brings up a question in my mind. Do some of them or others else knowingly do evil or do they believe that they're doing good? What if the root of some evil is ignorance?"

Looking at the government shutdown. Republicans think Obama is doing evil and Obama thinks they're doing evil. Both sides believe they're doing good.

As an old-school conservative, I subscribe to traditional notions on the importance of culpability. For example, if a sane, healthy adults hits you in the face, it is much more serious than if a young child does the same thing. The adult is culpable for his actions whereas the young child is not.

Corollary to this, I never attribute to malice or evil that which can be explained by ignorance or stupidity. So, the outcome of an act by someone who is ignorant or stupid can be evil, but not its intent.

Nor is this strictly a conservative perspective. Proto-liberal Emmanuel Kant contended that the only good is a good will.

Your beliefs lead to further inquiry. If humanity is innately depraved, then how can any of us determine what good is and how are they capable of doing good? If we are all depraved then how can any institution attenuate our worst impulses whatsoever? If our very thoughts are based upon the genetic construction of doing evil then how is goodness, virtue and morality doable and knowable? Basically, what your saying is that our free will limited to doing evil and if this is the case then how is it possible for culpability to even hold up? How would it be possible for any of us to be sane and healthy and if no individual is sane and healthy then how is any institution sane and healthy?

Let's take the case of Christopher Dorner. In his mind, he thought he was serving and bringing justice. He thought he was doing good. If we are truthfully depraved and this is first nature to us then how would we as humanity be able to come up with the idea and concept of depravity, good and evil?

As to your question on depravity, being depraved doesn't mean we don't have any good in us--rather it means that we have bad in us, and to varying degrees, depending upon the individual. If we were only depraved, we likely would have no concept of what good is.

As to what good and bad are, let me rephrase to moral and immoral. The basic dynamic in all human societies is between self-interest and the common interest. Self-interest is animalistic, in that all animals have this instinct, which is necessary for self-preservation; it is what drives us to compete in a world with unlimited need and very limited resources.

The instinct to cooperate voluntarialy is unique to humans, and is necessary to complete complex projects and endeavors. The only way to establish cooperation is to establish some means of trust. And the only way to establish trust is through morality.

So morality consists of those imperatives and taboos that mediate between our innate selfish impulses and the common good; and to prevent free-riding, or those who take from the group and don't contribute in return.

Do all societies have morality? Yes, but in varying degrees of effectiveness. In the vast majority of human societies, trust does not extend past the extended family or tribe. This is why that notoriously corrupt culture, Mexico, celebrates la familia. The family is as far as trust has traditionally extended there. This is also how the Mafia originated--as protection of the family against the larger society.

One of the things that makes the West unique is that trust is, or at least has, extended through the entire society, so that we can do business with those we are not related to without too many fears. But as our morals deteriorate, the trust is deteriorating too. I would offer the 2007 meltdown, and particularly the behavior of some of the big banks, as evidence for our crumbling morals. (One big bank with initials G.S. actually advised its clients to buy up toxic mortgages as investments while on the side betting that these same investments would become worthless--which they did, and this bank made a killing while financially devastating their clintele.)

As far as Christopher Dorner goes, we were not all created equal, or the same. Some people are simply more capable of moral behavior than others, with the least being called criminals, sociopaths, etc.

A side note on the LSAC flagging of the scores of disabled students who receive "accommodations", their is two lawsuits regarding this issue.

1. The state of California has passed a law baring the LSAC from doing this, but the LSAC is challenging the law on the grounds that the California law only applies to LSAC and not other test like the MCAT.

2. Their is a class action lawsuit against the LSAC in which California and the U.S Government is involved saying flagging of test scores is discrimination.

So we will see how the courts decide on this action.