Discriminations

I don't see a problem here. But I see how problems can be imagined or actually arise.

If a Readers is told anything about the student it could influence the scoring. Or if exams were assigned to specific Readers because of some characteristic of the student the same problem would develop.

"If the results are intended to be fair, uniform, and standard, what difference does it make what color or sex the readers are?"

well, you're right that it doesn't (or shouldn't) make any difference. so whether the reader group is purely white or racially mixed is irrelevant as far as scoring goes. but obviously that doesn't mean there's no reason to recruit racially diverse readers. perhaps the scoring process would appear "fairer" if minorities were involved in it. i don't know.

OK John now your are getting to the point of being just petty. It's an announcement for a JOB, for God's sake. Pretty much every announcement for a JOB in the country, uses the same type of verbiage..."Equal Opportunity Employer", "Diversity Applicants enocuraged" or something to that effect.

Now you are just grasping.

Agreed. Darren and John have conflated the issues.

The issue is not the relevance of diversity to scoring the AP Exams. The issue is the relevance of diversity to the OCCUPATION of scoring AP Exams. The tagline, “We especially encourage women and minorities to apply,” suggests that women and minorities are and have been underrepresented in that occupation. The tagline does not suggest that diversity is necessary to scoring a standardized test. Indeed, there has been no claim on the part of the College Board taht they apply differing standards to the grading of the tests. On the contrary they state, "it is essential that each Reader scores his or her papers fairly, uniformly, and to the same standard as the other Readers."

When conservatives confuse these kinds of issues, one has to wonder whether their obfuscation is purposeful. Maybe John and Darren are just joking and I missed the punchline.

This is to bring the fantastic benefits of Diversity to the AP reading environment, not to the product.

Hull - My point, which I've made periodically, is that all sorts of people are "underrepresented" in all sorts of jobs and schools and activities, and always will be. In the absence of discrimination interfering with their participation, this is a colossal non-problem that has engaged multitudes of liberals in seeking unneeded solutions. That's the joke.

John -
So basically you are saying that that you have a problem with women/minorities being encouraged to apply for this particular job opportunity because to quote you: "is that all sorts of people are "underrepresented" in all sorts of jobs and schools and activities, and always will be."

I'm sorry but that is a load of bullsh*t. No special preferences are being according to anyone. There is just a message that women/minorities are encouraged to apply just like any other white anglo saxon male. Would you feel better if WASPs would given an encouraging note to apply too??

Come on John, that reeks of pettiness.

"In the absence of discrimination interfering with their participation"

Many liberal-minded people (like me) believe that most occupations where groups are underrepresented achieved that status by discrimination.

So, again, it's not like AP scorers just organically became a homogenous group. There was very likely a time (and there still could be today) where women and minorites were discouraged from this line of work.

It's not like we just arrived at this moment in time without any preceeding events happening.

I can see your point if we're talking about an occupation that came about only recently and then became dominated by one group (and even then, I would be wary of a discriminatory taint). But, in an occupation that has been around since say, the 1960's, it is very likely that women and minorities were excluded. To me, then, it makes sense to (at least) encourage women and minorites to apply for these positions now that we live in (as you see it) a fair, equal, and discrimination-free society (I should say discrimination-free EXCEPT for so-called race preference of course, which is as we know is the only REAL discrimination we need worry about anymore).

"I should say discrimination-free EXCEPT for so-called race preference of course..."

So called?? Oh yeah, you are definitely an honest advocate!

How about child care and nursing services? Are you OK with discriminating against women to get the numbers up for men in those fields? Those are fields that society has discouraged men from entering, for centuries in fact. OK with you?

"...which is as we know is the only REAL discrimination we need worry about anymore."

You feel that way? 'Cause I know that at this blog, and among CRI advocates, actual discrimination against minorities and women is deplored and enforcement against it is encouraged. You, on the other hand, want to restrict the opprotunities available to my children and grandchildren, especially the men and boys.

Hull states: Many liberal-minded people (like me) believe that most occupations where groups are underrepresented achieved that status by discrimination.

I assume that goes for conservatives on editorial boards and university faculties?