[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
The argument, for college admissions, went something like this: Blacks are X% of the population; yet they're only X-Y% of college admissions. They're scoring worse on entrance tests. They're not genetically inferior intellectually. Therefore the reason why they're scoring worse, and therefore being admitted less, is that they're not prepared as well in their pre-college education, for a variety of reasons, the most important one being the general circumstances of racism and the legacy of racism. That is, the fact that they didn't do as well on tests and were underrepresented in college was de facto evidence of discrimination.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course, that's the argument they put forth. But to succeed as an argument it relies upon a premise that must be accepted axiomatically, and it also neglects to consider that there might exist significant, perhaps even unknown, reasons other than the effects of: 1) discriminatory racism, and 2) genetic intelligence, which could have an effect in producing comparative results. It also asserts that the most important facor is the effects of racism or racist policy.

It is an intuitive argument, but it is not an airtight or well-supported argument. All of the premises it relies upon are questioned by many it seeks to convince. Finally, it finishes on a circular note: that weaker test scores are de facto evidence of the effects of discrimination, since discrimination produces weaker test scores.

I don't blame those who were unconvinced at the outset for remaing unconvinced, because it is not a convincing argument unless one refuses to question several premises. Please note that I do think the efects of discrimination have played a causal role in producing weaker test scores but that is a far cry from making the argument a convincing argument. And to those who do question the argument's underlying premises, it is not much of an argument at all but rather it is more like a collection of assertions.