TL;DR: The Thread

[Tonkyhonk]

i still despise your minstrel acts, poop.

[Nimmeth]

and where do you claim you dug into "Nitty Gritty" in there? it doesnt seem like you understood how equal outcomes could be problematic. if i use your logic, having equal outcome means giving others inequal opportunities. your responses were ignorant advice(?) of "you should" "they should", without seeing the reality, introducing your background or experience whatsoever to fake your words legitimacy.
(and you must be joking with what you said about this thread being advanced.)
now, i also have a bit of experience in JSL (Japanese as a second language, my major) programs and wouldnt deny american ESL programs being huge (along with huge issues). but i know that such programs do not represent the notion of "Equal Access to Opportunity" no matter how ESL staff want to believe that. It does help their demand of language acquisition when they wish, but it is merely for the convenience for both people around them and themselves living there, not to give them real equal opportunities for jobs. dont you talk to your students?

TL;DR

[jwhitehorn]

i still despise your minstrel acts, poop.

I love you too.

Chief PeePooKaKa
MM Tribe

[Procne]

Perhaps Women are weaker politically in your country to need such special treatment. If women had dominated politics for hundreds of years and men were seen as unable to be in politics, then I would hope that your country would make such a law. The U.S. national politics falls far below 40% but local politics is around that %. A better question to ask about this is "Why would they make a law to empower women, when clearly it takes power away from men?'

Need special tretment? What does that mean? What does "weaker politically" mean? To me it means that either voters trust such candidate less or such candidate does not have required will / skills / knowledge to run in the elections. And you plan to fix it by granting such people seats? So they can have even less will / skills / knowledge? It's not like there is some glass ceiling or male lobby that stops women from being succesful politics.
In their quest of fixing inequalities they create new, artificial ones. They give special rights to one gender.
Now, what equal opportunities is about? About giving everyone equal chances in fullfiling some goals, and it's up to people's will, skills and talents, which are relevant to the goal, to reach those goals. And in this example gender is made, by law, to affect someone's chances, even if it's not that relevant.

The only real way of removing inequalities is to make causes for them disappear. Turn men into women. Give legless people new legs or cut legs of everyone else. Make all people of one race / religion / nationality / sex orientation etc.
Anything else is just increasing inequalities. Before you had men and women, and now you have men and "women with extra rights". Before there was unequal representation by men and women, and now you have it confirmed by the law, that women are "weaker".

Now, I'm all for equal opportunities. But if you don't do it right then you only get an illusion, and in some cases it may backfire and only make it worse. Every sword has 2 edges. Making lifts / slopes for wheel-chair people near stairs to a school is ok, because it makes their handicap matter less in the education process. Giving special benefits to handicapped people, whose handicaps directly impact their education (I don't know - inability of logical thinking, dyslexia etc.) only creates double standards and makes rating process... unequal. If someone can't count then he shouldn't be rated good in mathematics just because he says certificate showing he has some brain disfunction.

[MagicManICT]

Now, I'm all for equal opportunities. But if you don't do it right then you only get an illusion, and in some cases it may backfire and only make it worse. Every sword has 2 edges. Making lifts / slopes for wheel-chair people near stairs to a school is ok, because it makes their handicap matter less in the education process. Giving special benefits to handicapped people, whose handicaps directly impact their education (I don't know - inability of logical thinking, dyslexia etc.) only creates double standards and makes rating process... unequal. If someone can't count then he shouldn't be rated good in mathematics just because he says certificate showing he has some brain disfunction.

Here's the thing, though. How many people can get their Baccalaureate if they can't pass English classes? Math? There are rare exceptions, of course, when a person is such an extreme genius in a particular field that a University will make exceptions (or grades get fudged as has been known to happen with college athletes). How many more never get that chance, though, even though they would be every bit as productive (and probably more so as a talent is likely stronger even if not at a genius level) as the typical graduate?

I realize this is a small margin of students, but the small margin is the issue. The small margin becomes a large margin when allowed to sink into poverty and becomes a drain on the system, either through welfare or crime. There's already enough of that to go around. Better to find a way for those that want to get up out of the hole than to tell them they're not as good as the "average" person.

[Claeyt]

It does help their demand of language acquisition when they wish, but it is merely for the convenience for both people around them and themselves living there, not to give them real equal opportunities for jobs. dont you talk to your students?

How is teaching kids English not giving them more opportunities in America? I see former students all the time. Some are productive members of society, some aren't.

You tell em' ManyLetters

I forgot about that nickname of yours for me.

Need special tretment? What does that mean? What does "weaker politically" mean? To me it means that either voters trust such candidate less or such candidate does not have required will / skills / knowledge to run in the elections. And you plan to fix it by granting such people seats? So they can have even less will / skills / knowledge? It's not like there is some glass ceiling or male lobby that stops women from being succesful politics.
In their quest of fixing inequalities they create new, artificial ones. They give special rights to one gender.
Now, what equal opportunities is about? About giving everyone equal chances in fullfiling some goals, and it's up to people's will, skills and talents, which are relevant to the goal, to reach those goals. And in this example gender is made, by law, to affect someone's chances, even if it's not that relevant.

Honestly, I have no idea what country you're from. Usually in case like this women have been historically barred from power, or the democratically elected government has made a % of seats based on sex the law, to promote women in politics so that half the population isn't left out. And yes in some countries there are lobbies trying to bar women from being in politics.

I admit it's a quick fix like 'Affirmative Action' in U.S. colleges. It may have a time and place based on the country and limiting factors to the rights of women in that society, I don't think we need it in the U.S.

The only real way of removing inequalities is to make causes for them disappear. Turn men into women. Give legless people new legs or cut legs of everyone else. Make all people of one race / religion / nationality / sex orientation etc.

Why don't you try and make them disappear by accepting the rights of others. Instead of your draconian ideas about the end point of equality try these instead: support women in politics/Help people to walk by themselves and build more wheel chair ramps/fight racism/fight religious intolerance/understand other cultures/fight homophobia. These are the answers to those things you mentioned. Hardened demands are never the answer. Convince people, change minds.

Anything else is just increasing inequalities. Before you had men and women, and now you have men and "women with extra rights". Before there was unequal representation by men and women, and now you have it confirmed by the law, that women are "weaker".

There's another way of removing the cause of inequalities, by understanding our differences, accepting them and letting others participate. Since when have I ever said inequality will disappear. Read that La Follette quote again. Equality isn't a hardened goal, but rather a dream. Equality isn't achieved when people are forced to accept, it's achieved when more and more people change their mind about the inequality. Do you think 50 years ago anybody imagined a black president in the U.S., yet that president had already been born. Think how 50 years ago Blacks in the U.S. were barred and harassed from voting in the Southern states. Congress Passed a law, and now the Supreme court has ruled that law past it's usefulness. Equality achieved, no, but I feel we're better off today than in 1965 when they passed the 'Voting Rights Act'.

Are women weak? No, but you're coming at it from your country where their allowed to vote and participate. That's not the case everywhere. Women don't have 'more rights' because their allowed to take a maternity leave, instead society has decided democratically that having a mom home for the beginning of a kids life is better for the kid, the mom, and society in general. Women aren't defined as 'weaker' because 40% of seats are assigned by sex, instead the society has determined democratically that women have faced historic obstacles to political participation and that at that moment in the country's history that law is required. Maybe someday women will achieve more power or a majority, irregardless of the law, and decide that it's not needed anymore.

Now, I'm all for equal opportunities. But if you don't do it right then you only get an illusion, and in some cases it may backfire and only make it worse. Every sword has 2 edges. Making lifts / slopes for wheel-chair people near stairs to a school is ok, because it makes their handicap matter less in the education process. Giving special benefits to handicapped people, whose handicaps directly impact their education (I don't know - inability of logical thinking, dyslexia etc.) only creates double standards and makes rating process... unequal. If someone can't count then he shouldn't be rated good in mathematics just because he says certificate showing he has some brain disfunction.

In this country I've never known anybody diagnosed with a special requirement that didn't need it, and I was on the team of teachers, doctors, and counselors that did the diagnosing in our school. I think you're overstating the idea that any public school kid would voluntarily seek a diagnosis of having a learning disability to get more time for tests. It doesn't happen here, or if it does it's so rare as to be unheard of. A kid who can't count wouldn't be given the answers, he'd be given extra tutoring and more in class help from an assistant to the teacher, and never during tests. A kid can't voluntarily diagnose himself.

That extra time for the kid with dyslexia, who's taking a test is exactly like that wheel chair ramp you mentioned. It's an easier way for that guy to get there. Just like a button that the kid in the wheelchair pushes to open that door, the dyslexic guy is getting a button to push so that he can enter. Once he gets that door open, he still has to meet the qualifications of the job and have the abilities to advance, but getting that door open is where 'Equality of Opportunity' is taking place.

When I taught kids with dyslexia and other learning disabilities, all official state, district and placement tests had directed availability for more time or extra time wasn't allowed. Only tests created by the teacher as 'learning' tools were allowed to be stretched time wise. This included tests for grading, but it's not like kids with learning disabilities were getting free passes to college or strait A's, it was more to help them grow and learn the material and give the teachers a good idea of where the kid was compared to the other kids.

[marvi]

As I taught ESL and Special Ed for years, I know something about this.

It deserves some respect. The question is, did you think about specifics of your environment in comparison to other places?

I'm not a swede and I never was there. From what I understand about the problem they have, from reading various opinions and sources, there is difference between Sweden and US immigration policies. Basically, common conclusion I saw is that their policy is more "open doors".

It seems that there are a lot of people who came to Sweden to work, to provide a better future for their children and are humble enough.

The conflict arises when people bring their beliefs with them and are not willing to give up them. I do believe, these people think about traditions and inheritance in a way Jorb thinks. These traditions can include nice things, like language and food, but there can be other side.

It's important to not generalize and to see both these sides irrespective of race, culture and other, I'd say, "clothing" traits (I can provide elaboration in case it's needed here).

So, as I can see it, Jorb points out following problem: in Sweden, when you try to talk about the other side of immigrant population (the one that tries to preserve their ways), you'll be labeled as a racist immediately. Sure, such viewpoints can lead and will lead to generalizations, unfortunately. While Jorb doesn't mean malice, someone can take his banner to conceive horrible things, etc. But the initial conflict... it still exists. Other side just hides behind label of "freedom", protected by labels of "racist" and "oppression".

[Procne]

Why don't you try and make them disappear by accepting the rights of others.

I do. Or rather, I ignore differences that are irrelevant (subjective, I know). I don't care if politician / policeman / teacher is male or female. Christian or not. As long as he does his job and has proper skills. But I will still prefer a woman who has her own babies as a babysitter for my hypothetical baby.

Instead of your draconian ideas about the end point of equality try these instead: support women in politics

This I won't do. I won't support / vote for women just because they are women. I won't provide special treatment for them. In my opinion it only deepens the differences by admitting that they are weaker indeed. If women are good enough then they'll make it. As far as I know there is no glass ceiling in my country, or some raging discrimination against women in my country. Besides what's so draconian about my ideas?

fight racism/fight religious intolerance/understand other cultures/fight homophobia.

These are very broad expressions. For some people "fight religious intolerance" equals fighting any religions in general and discriminating anyone who is not atheist. That's also part of the problem. Some people take fight with discrimination as fight with the group, whose members tend to discriminate. Fighting with discrimination of women = fight with men. Fight with discrimination of blacks = fight with whites. But that's a topic for another discussion.

Hardened demands are never the answer.

I have no hardened demands. What hardened demands do you mean?

There's another way of removing the cause of inequalities, by understanding our differences, accepting them and letting others participate

It's not removing differences - it's living with them and common sense. And I agree with that.

Do you think 50 years ago anybody imagined a black president in the U.S., yet that president had already been born. Think how 50 years ago Blacks in the U.S. were barred and harassed from voting in the Southern states. Congress Passed a law, and now the Supreme court has ruled that law past it's usefulness. Equality achieved, no, but I feel we're better off today than in 1965 when they passed the 'Voting Rights Act'.

Has congress passed a law that gives extra benefits to black people or simply removed the law giving extra benefits to white people which caused the inequalities?
And is this law that changed it all, or rather, has it only been the result of change in society's mindset?
In any case - from what I understand it wasn't a law which granted a protection / bonuses / minimal representation to blacks, but instead a law which gave equal rights to anyone, no matter what their colour of skin was, right? I disagree with the first and agree with the latter.

Women aren't defined as 'weaker' because 40% of seats are assigned by sex, instead the society has determined democratically that women have faced historic obstacles to political participation and that at that moment in the country's history that law is required.

Not society, but politicians. I can't remember what the polls said about society's views on this. In any case - reserving places for women in candidates lists is stupid. People should appear / not appear on those lists, because they are fit / unfit for elections. Because people trust / respect them or not trust / not respect them. If the reason for lack of women in government is because they got worse qualifications then that solution is dumb. If it's because women don't want to meddle in politics then that solution is dumb again. If it's because majority of society believes men should rule then the mindset of people is the problem and the law doesn't fix it.

In this country I've never known anybody diagnosed with a special requirement that didn't need it, and I was on the team of teachers, doctors, and counselors that did the diagnosing in our school.

I don't overstate it. In my class in basic school there were 2-3 people with "dyslexia". I know also some other people who had the paper as well. They weren't dumb or simply unable to learn to spell. They could easily learn proper spelling. Some of them simply took the test, and cheated (it was enough to make lots of spelling errors on purpose) on it, to get the paper and not have to deal with spelling. BTW, dyslexia doesn't give you extra time, just spelling errors don't count anywhere. Extra time is given to people who can't write themselves or can do it but very slowly.

What's the difference between someone having dyslexia and someone simply not being good in spelling? I was never good with chemistry and it was hard to learn / remember some stuff. So obiously my marks weren't that high. Now, if someone classified this as some "dischemistrylearningia", so that those poor people who have problem learning chemistry had equal chances, and I got the paper then I would probably simply get good marks.

That extra time for the kid with dyslexia, who's taking a test is exactly like that wheel chair ramp you mentioned. It's an easier way for that guy to get there. Just like a button that the kid in the wheelchair pushes to open that door, the dyslexic guy is getting a button to push so that he can enter. Once he gets that door open, he still has to meet the qualifications of the job and have the abilities to advance, but getting that door open is where 'Equality of Opportunity' is taking place.

No, it's not the same. In case of wheelchair guy his inability to walk is totally irrelevant to what school teaches and rates (except for PE, but in this case such guy simply doesn't attend lessons and is not rated). In case of dyslexia guy - spelling / writing is one of the things school is supposed to teach. If everyone is rated from the subject which involves writing / spelling (in english countries it's literature I guess? In mine it's called "xxx language") then what sense does it make to give guy with dyslexia good mark when he can't spell / write properly?

[Tonkyhonk]

How is teaching kids English not giving them more opportunities in America? I see former students all the time. Some are productive members of society, some aren't.

you are so typical, Claeyt. thats all you managed to say?
yeah, i have met quite a few ***** aids like yourself who can only see things they want to see and ignore everything else like no problems can exist in front of them at all and believe they are great. who needs to have open mind?

[FutureForJames]

How is teaching kids English not giving them more opportunities in America? I see former students all the time. Some are productive members of society, some aren't.

you are so typical, Claeyt. thats all you managed to say?
yeah, i have met quite a few ***** aids like yourself who can only see things they want to see and ignore everything else like no problems can exist in front of them at all and believe they are great. who needs to have open mind?

Are you talking about me, when you say "***** aid"?

I know you love me too.