More racist claims

[I_luv_saber]

Clearly strides still need to be made. Minorites (all including women) represent a small percentage of upper management, CEO, CIO, and CFO positions. That's why when we a minority is hired into one of those positions they are written about in publications like Forbes.

I agree. Even though racism will never be eliminated, we should always be fighting against it. I just think we're going about it the wrong way, and that the way AA was put forth there: A temporary bandage, is disingenuous

I don't see it as discrimination.

I get that. I'm not understanding how, though. It's the definition of discrimination.

That's assuming they are applying for a job where education will be of an bearing.

Not necessarily. Often times, just having a degree will get you a job, even if it has only extremely remote (if any) bearing on the job at hand. That is, compared to someone who does not have a degree or practical experience in the field...

I'm not saying that the white applicant would get the job over the black applicant, but it has happened and it does happen. Dateline did an undercover report in the past and shown us that it still does happen.

Unfortunately, I've no doubt that's so.

Let me be clear: I'm not arguing that the conditions that brought about AA have gone away. I'm sure racism is still around, and I would go so far as to say is prevalent in some areas. I'm simply arguing it's an unjust solution to the problem.

I've been turned down for jobs (and discouraged from taking a job) because according to the hiring manager I was over-qualified. I don't think it had anything to do with race, they just didn't think I'd want to do that job. Example: I was looking for a summer job when I was in college. Rita's water ice was hiring so I applied. The owner wanted to hire me but at the same time was trying to discourage me from taking the job.

I think over-qualification is a bit of a separate issue.

He didn't think I'd want to do that type of job. What? Scooping water ice in the summer in an air conditioned building? If I didn't want the job I wouldn't have applied. I took it because I wanted to work there. A) It was 3 blocks from my house B) Free water ice and pretzels.

I never bloody understood that either. If I applied, I've accepted the wage, what's the problem?

You're right, race and hair color are intangibles. But a college may accept a swimmer for the value they'd add to their school. That same school may also accept a minority for the diversity they'd bring to their school.

I understand that. I have no moral objection to a college wanting to add value in the form of diversity to their school. I do have a problem with them engaging in discrimination to do so.

[I_luv_saber]

I'd like to see some real evidence that we're so post-racial as to obsolete the factors that led to affirmative action. That has been claimed a lot,

Again: I'm not arguing that AA has been rendered obsolete due to great advancement in society. I'm simply arguing it's an unjust solution to an unjust problem.

but AA has been called unfair, racist, and unnecessary since Day 1 - and it absolutely opened doors to qualified applicants that otherwise would have remained closed.

Jeff, I've been over this. I've never denied that it has accomplished it's noble goal. I've simply argued that the means it used to accomplish those ends are not right.

In an ideal society we won't need AA - but at a time when political protests have 'send the lying Kenyan back' signs, or some moron says that Michelle Obama is related to an escaped gorilla ---- well, guess what - we're not post-racial yet.

So why should I, who have not done any of those things, suffer a disadvantage against a black person applying to the same college because of my skin tone? Is that not the very same discrimination we are trying to fight? Can you honestly not see where I'm coming from here?

Some of those morons are hiring managers teachers and guidance counselors. Those of us lucky enough to be born with melanin levels that give us privileges in society are usually unaware of it.

So let's counter it with another act of discrimination? Dubious, at best.

[I_luv_saber]

Alas, even the nicest, best-intentioned people are painfully aware of doors shut in their faces, and opportunities denied to them, but are blissfully unaware of doors slammed in other people's faces.

I don't think that's fair. Maybe you should read my posts in more detail before making such a snide comment, as I've made my position clear. I don't know how you got that out of a very clear: "Two wrongs don't make a right"

EDIT: I may have come across a little snide in my own comment, but I did my best in my posts to make it painfully clear that I don't think racism is gone, and I don't think that racism in ANY form is right.

Active discrimination against one race in the hopes that it will fight against racism against another race.

Racial discrimination is ugly, regardless of which way it goes. Two wrongs do not make a right.

It's using racial discrimination to try and stop racial discrimination

Whether or not this is used to counter already present discrimination in the other direction is beside the point when {snip}

I absolutely do not deny this. My argument is that two wrongs do not make a right.

This is the short list of quotes. I've been pretty damned clear that racism is happening against black people, and that I'm not against AA because I feel it's no longer needed. It's a bit frustrating to have that turned into: Oh, so you're complaining when it happens to you, but are ignoring when it happens to others. That's quite the straw man.

[Slim]

I'd like to see some real evidence that we're so post-racial as to obsolete the factors that led to affirmative action. That has been claimed a lot, but AA has been called unfair, racist, and unnecessary since Day 1 - and it absolutely opened doors to qualified applicants that otherwise would have remained closed.

It's also closed the doors to many that were more qualified based on everything else but race. Not only in colleges, but in many civil service positions.

In an ideal society we won't need AA - but at a time when political protests have 'send the lying Kenyan back' signs, or some moron says that Michelle Obama is related to an escaped gorilla ---- well, guess what - we're not post-racial yet. Some of those morons are hiring managers teachers and guidance counselors. Those of us lucky enough to be born with melanin levels that give us privileges in society are usually unaware of it.

How do you know who they are? You're speculating.

But you're right. Listening to the rantings of the "reverends" Sharpton, Jackson, Wright and that nutty professor "Skip" Gates, it's indeed true that racism is alive and well and evil whitey is still out to get them.

However, some good news, just in:

Criticism of Obama 'Not About Race,' Says New Poll of White People
Foreign Birth, Resemblance to Hitler Cited
People who criticize President Obama do so for reasons that have "nothing to do with his race," a new poll of white people indicates.

According to the poll, which was conducted by the University of Minnesota's Opinion Research Institute, those who take issue with the President do so because of his "questionable birth certificate," his "love of socialism," and his "Hitler-like health plan," but "not because of race."

A significant number of Mr. Obama's critics "strongly agree" with the statement, "I don't have any problems with Obama being black, but I do have a problem with him being a socialist from Kenya who is trying to kill my grandmother."

Professor Davis Logsdon, who conducted the survey, says that the poll is "full of good news" for Mr. Obama: "It indicates that race is no longer an issue in America, but a foreign-born president trying to institute a Nazi-slash-socialist euthanasia plan is."
Elsewhere, Fox News host Glenn Beck called for stricter limits on the nation's IQ.

For those who might not know, this is a fictional character being quoted and is pure nonsense. I'm sure there are some here who believe this was a real poll. Hardee har har. Might want to quote the real source, Jeff. Basically its akin to The Onion.

What it really does is make the claims of racism towards the president appear to be the only reasonable choice, and portrays those who disagree as as racist and ignorant "white people". Quite clever by the author. Not so much so for Jeff.

Its ok though. Its only white people.

I think the public schools are doing fine job without the help of Glenn Beck.

[Slim]

I don't think that's fair. Maybe you should read my posts in more detail before making such a snide comment, as I've made my position clear. I don't know how you got that out of a very clear: "Two wrongs don't make a right"

EDIT: I may have come across a little snide in my own comment, but I did my best in my posts to make it painfully clear that I don't think racism is gone, and I don't think that racism in ANY form is right.




This is the short list of quotes. I've been pretty damned clear that racism is happening against black people, and that I'm not against AA because I feel it's no longer needed. It's a bit frustrating to have that turned into: Oh, so you're complaining when it happens to you, but are ignoring when it happens to others. That's quite the straw man.

Face it. You're a racist.

[Slim]

So why should I, who have not done any of those things, suffer a disadvantage against a black person applying to the same college because of my skin tone? Is that not the very same discrimination we are trying to fight? Can you honestly not see where I'm coming from here?

You must continue to pay for the sins of your fathers, you evil white person.

Once again, it's all about liberals trying to make themselves feel better.

[keith]

So let's counter it with another act of discrimination? Dubious, at best.

Unfortunately any action aimed at remediation is discriminatory - the only choice is to say it wasn't me so it's not my problem or accept some degree of penalty. Even if you wanted to dispense with race and use another proxy, say income, you are still penalising people for simply being better off. How unamerican, depriving people of the advantages of their wealth!

I don't think anyone here is actually arguing for the doctrinal expansion of original sin.

[MyrddinsPrecint]

Okay, how about this:

We all seem to agree that historically, white people have had serious advantages in education/jobs/etc (I'm ignoring all other privileged groups for the moment for the sake of keeping this somewhat simpler). We're even pretty united that while serious progress has been made, the problem is not eliminated.

Affirmative Action has some problems. We can argue forever whether or not they're definitional problems, problems in execution, problems that didn't used to be such big problems, perception problems, or whatever else we want to call them. But it hasn't fixed the situation yet, and lots of people don't like it, so we might be able to come up with something that works better, or does the same thing but is more popular, or both.

Any ideas? Even assuming that AA isn't going away short-term, creating opportunities for people who might not have had opportunities before is a good thing.

My idea: A higher focus on Community Colleges. Often people don't have the time/resources/drive to finish a 4 year degree, and they don't really need one for what they want to do with their lives. For many people, an Associates degree allows them to get further education/job training, and then if they find success, and decide they want to continue, they can transfer to a 4 year college. This seems like a better deal to me than trying to shepherd every student to get a 4 year degree or to not bother at all. Many schools, especially state schools, have very high drop out rates. Some of those students might have stood a better chance to succeed at a two year degree, I'm guessing.

Most Community Colleges admit all applicants with a high school diploma or equivalent, so no admissions issues. Tuition is usually fairly cheap, and can usually be financed entirely with government sponsored loans if grants aren't received. Some of those loans, depending on how poor you are, can be interest free until graduation, or can be forgiven entirely if you enter certain careers, so poverty isn't as big a barrier as it might be for 4 year schools.

There is also the issue of meeting the needs of more people. The top 50 or 100 undergraduate programs in the country (however we're defining it) simply can't take that many students. Even if every single spot went to people who had been disadvantaged in some way at some time, it wouldn't solve the problem, it wouldn't right the wrong. Partially because the education only helps so much, but mostly because the "elite" system is small. By growing the availability and services of community colleges that are set up to help those who aren't near the top, we may be able to help more people for less money and less controversy, and still be able to help people get 4 year educations if they want it and work for it.

[thereom4]

My idea: A higher focus on Community Colleges. Often people don't have the time/resources/drive to finish a 4 year degree, and they don't really need one for what they want to do with their lives. For many people, an Associates degree allows them to get further education/job training, and then if they find success, and decide they want to continue, they can transfer to a 4 year college. This seems like a better deal to me than trying to shepherd every student to get a 4 year degree or to not bother at all. Many schools, especially state schools, have very high drop out rates. Some of those students might have stood a better chance to succeed at a two year degree, I'm guessing.

Community college is definitely a good option for a number of people. In Philadelphia many students go to community college. Community College of Philadelphia's total enrollment is something 17,000. Guidance counselors sometimes don't even suggest a 4 year college. At least at my high school they didn't. They just assumed everyone would go to the Community College of Philadelphia. I went to a 4 year in western PA, but after I graduated I've been taking classes at community colleges every since. It's cheaper. I learned to swim at a community college. I'm learning to play the guitar and piano at community college.

If we are going to focus on community colleges we are going to have to get more employers on board with hiring people with 2 year degrees. There are still those companies with open entry level positions that ANYBODY could do that require an applicant to have a BA.

[Slim]

Okay, how about this:

We all seem to agree that historically, white people have had serious advantages in education/jobs/etc (I'm ignoring all other privileged groups for the moment for the sake of keeping this somewhat simpler). We're even pretty united that while serious progress has been made, the problem is not eliminated.

Affirmative Action has some problems. We can argue forever whether or not they're definitional problems, problems in execution, problems that didn't used to be such big problems, perception problems, or whatever else we want to call them. But it hasn't fixed the situation yet, and lots of people don't like it, so we might be able to come up with something that works better, or does the same thing but is more popular, or both.

Any ideas? Even assuming that AA isn't going away short-term, creating opportunities for people who might not have had opportunities before is a good thing.

My idea: A higher focus on Community Colleges. Often people don't have the time/resources/drive to finish a 4 year degree, and they don't really need one for what they want to do with their lives. For many people, an Associates degree allows them to get further education/job training, and then if they find success, and decide they want to continue, they can transfer to a 4 year college. This seems like a better deal to me than trying to shepherd every student to get a 4 year degree or to not bother at all. Many schools, especially state schools, have very high drop out rates. Some of those students might have stood a better chance to succeed at a two year degree, I'm guessing.

Most Community Colleges admit all applicants with a high school diploma or equivalent, so no admissions issues. Tuition is usually fairly cheap, and can usually be financed entirely with government sponsored loans if grants aren't received. Some of those loans, depending on how poor you are, can be interest free until graduation, or can be forgiven entirely if you enter certain careers, so poverty isn't as big a barrier as it might be for 4 year schools.

There is also the issue of meeting the needs of more people. The top 50 or 100 undergraduate programs in the country (however we're defining it) simply can't take that many students. Even if every single spot went to people who had been disadvantaged in some way at some time, it wouldn't solve the problem, it wouldn't right the wrong. Partially because the education only helps so much, but mostly because the "elite" system is small. By growing the availability and services of community colleges that are set up to help those who aren't near the top, we may be able to help more people for less money and less controversy, and still be able to help people get 4 year educations if they want it and work for it.

For the most part I view CC's 13th and 14th grade....basically as a place for kids that didnt have their $hite together in HS and finally realized that they screwed up.

Not everyone mind you, as I have seen some very hard working LEGAL immigrants come to this country and use CCs as a spring board into a 4 year university program.

I think the number of CCs are more of an indication of the failure of the current public HS system than anything else.

[thereom4]

I get that. I'm not understanding how, though. It's the definition of discrimination.

The word discrimination can mean a different thing in a different context.

When I go grocery shopping and I choose one brand A of butter pecan icecream over brand B. I did that because there is marked distinction in taste between the two. That is one form of discrimination.

Someone from one race being told that they cannot enter an establishment because people from that race aren't allowed in that establishment, is another form of discrimination.

When universities and employers are told that they no longer can shut out people from races other than the one that they desire and that they have to hire (admit) people from all races into their establishments, that is inclusion. They have to take affirmative action to ensure that minorities are included. This I do not see as discrimination. I will say however affirmative action can be used in a discriminatory way but AA, is not in and of itself discriminatory.

[Slim]

Community college is definitely a good option for a number of people. In Philadelphia many students go to community college. Community College of Philadelphia's total enrollment is something 17,000. Guidance counselors sometimes don't even suggest a 4 year college. At least at my high school they didn't. They just assumed everyone would go to the Community College of Philadelphia. I went to a 4 year in western PA, but after I graduated I've been taking classes at community colleges every since. It's cheaper. I learned to swim at a community college. I'm learning to play the guitar and piano at community college.

If we are going to focus on community colleges we are going to have to get more employers on board with hiring people with 2 year degrees. There are still those companies with open entry level positions that ANYBODY could do that require an applicant to have a BA.

Huh? As an employer I'm going to take the most educated I can get for my money. I dont care if its a job anyone can do or not.

CC's should be used as a way into 4 year institutions, not as a substitute.

[thereom4]

Huh? As an employer I'm going to take the most educated I can get for my money. I dont care if its a job anyone can do or not.

CC's should be used as a way into 4 year institutions, not as a substitute.

I'm not suggesting that they should be used as a substitute. But what if someone went that route and received an associate's degree and had to stop at an associate's degree for whatever reason or what if they wanted to stop there? Should they not be considered because they don't have a BA? They could be perfectly capable of doing that job and they probably don't need a degree to perform its functions.

I have a BA in Poli Sci and I worked as a receptionist in a law firm for about a year. I didn't need more than good manners, a nice phone voice, good communication skills and common sense to do that job. Now don't get me wrong I'm not downing education. Not at all. I'm just responding to what you said about hiring someone with the most education. And if you are looking to get the most educated person, you're going to have to pay for that. Well maybe not today because of the economy and all.

[I_luv_saber]

Unfortunately any action aimed at remediation is discriminatory - the only choice is to say it wasn't me so it's not my problem or accept some degree of penalty.

Why do you think this? Why would you have to penalize one group in order to grow another? It's A way of doing it, but far from the only way. Fallacy of bifurcation.

Even if you wanted to dispense with race and use another proxy, say income, you are still penalising people for simply being better off.

*sigh* What is so hard to understand here? One is discriminating based on something tangible: In this case one's financial situation (but as I said earlier this could be skills, or what have you). The other is something that is not: Skin tone.

It's all discrimination. Discrimination by skill or some other individual attributes, such as finances, I don't have a problem with (to a point, of course). Even in a job where say, a skill isn't directly related, such as having an engineering degree for running a hotel, it's still a tangible skill and a reasonable factor for discrimination in the employment process.

Race, however (in nearly all situations), is not. Period. If a black person goes all Michael Jackson and bleaches themselves white, they're still the same person they were, just with another skin tone. No different than dyeing your hair. No reason to be given an advantage, or by the same token, be given a disadvantage.

Now, I agree that people of other races (black and otherwise) can and do suffer disadvantages in our society, practically speaking. But I don't think the right answer is to disadvantage everyone else to bring it down to the same level. It's wrong in both cases. Let's work to bring everyone up to the same level, not bring everyone down to the lowest common denominator (in terms of treatment).

Trying to compare skills or finances to this is apples and oranges, and you know this.

[keith]

Why do you think this? Why would you have to penalize one group in order to grow another? It's A way of doing it, but far from the only way. Fallacy of bifurcation.

Nope. It is a zero sum game - taxes and all that. You can certainly argue over whether route A or B is better, but it doesn't change the basic issue that if you assume historical behaviour has resulted in unequal distribution of advantage (money is such an ugly word), fixing that causes a penalty. That penalty may be appropriate, but the person penalised is still, well, penalised.

*sigh* What is so hard to understand here? One is discriminating based on something tangible: In this case one's financial situation (but as I said earlier this could be skills, or what have you). The other is something that is not: Skin tone.

Have a breath. I am broadening the argument. You disapprove of AA, fine. Your basis for discrimination is just as bad (in terms of outcome) as AA.

From the point of view of college admissions parental wealth/income or skin tone are not something the average applicant can do much about.

Trying to compare skills or finances to this is apples and oranges, and you know this.

Absolutely, correlation not being causation. Of course if you are excluded from the college of your dreams because your parents earn $5k too much a year it is still an exclusion independent of your ability to complete that course of study. Which would be discrimination.

[MyrddinsPrecint]

For the most part I view CC's 13th and 14th grade....basically as a place for kids that didnt have their $hite together in HS and finally realized that they screwed up.

Not everyone mind you, as I have seen some very hard working LEGAL immigrants come to this country and use CCs as a spring board into a 4 year university program.

I think the number of CCs are more of an indication of the failure of the current public HS system than anything else.

Sometimes CCs are the second chance for those who didn't do well in high school, for whatever reason (sometimes both the student and the school play a part in the fault, sometimes it's skewed one way or the other). But there are also plenty of adults who didn't have the opportunity to go to college after high school for whatever reason.

But I firmly believe that 4 year colleges are not an ideal environment for every 18 year old. They're great for some people. But some people aren't ready at 18. Some people will never want the advantages that a 4 year college can give. Some people are not smart enough to succeed at a 4 year school. And lots of other reasons.

CCs can be a great springboard into not just some 4 year program, but the right 4 year program. CCs can also be better at targeted job training. The Community College of Rhode Island has long waitlists for their nursing and nursing assistant programs. Rhode Island needs nurses and nurses assistants. But CCRI doesn't have the funding available to make the program bigger (among other things, they can't hire more instructors because demand has driven up wages). That's silly.

[thereom4]

CCs can be a great springboard into not just some 4 year program, but the right 4 year program. CCs can also be better at targeted job training.

You're absolutely right.

[I_luv_saber]

Nope. It is a zero sum game - taxes and all that. You can certainly argue over whether route A or B is better, but it doesn't change the basic issue that if you assume historical behaviour has resulted in unequal distribution of advantage (money is such an ugly word), fixing that causes a penalty.

It seems then we are working from different definitions of "penalize". You seem to be saying (unless I'm misunderstanding here) that if a previous unfair advantage is now lost, it's a penalty.

Have a breath. I am broadening the argument. You disapprove of AA, fine. Your basis for discrimination is just as bad (in terms of outcome) as AA.

IMO it is not (obviously ).

From the point of view of college admissions parental wealth/income or skin tone are not something the average applicant can do much about.

Sure it is. Last I checked, many, many people have worked from nothing to become very successful, usually by eventually improving their financial situation enough to be able to put themselves through college. I personally know many people who work their way through college now.

So no, I do not accept the premise that financial situation is something you can do nothing about. Just as skill, it is an asset on the part of the applicant and can be modified by the applicant.

Absolutely, correlation not being causation. Of course if you are excluded from the college of your dreams because your parents earn $5k too much a year it is still an exclusion independent of your ability to complete that course of study.

I would also be against direct AA in terms of giving extra points because you are beneath a certain income level. Programs to offer grants or loans (i.e., bringing everyone UP to the same level of treatment as this does not put rich kids at a direct disadvantage, just allows you to compete on equal footing) I would not be against. This still is not even close to the same thing as having a different color of skin.

Which would be discrimination.

As I said, it's all discrimination. It's just about what discrimination is acceptable and what is not.

[keith]

It seems then we are working from different definitions of "penalize". You seem to be saying (unless I'm misunderstanding here) that if a previous unfair advantage is now lost, it's a penalty.

No I am challenging what you are willing to class as fair vs unfair, and observe that there is little difference. Simply put the observation is that if Group A is used to getting something since Group B is generally excluded, the individual members of Group A are going to be disadvantaged when Group B gets a look in. Whether you call it penalised, or victimised or getting their just deserts is beside the point - but not beside the political point.

IMO it is not (obviously ).

I guessed that.

Sure it is. Last I checked, many, many people have worked from nothing to be become very successful, usually by eventually improving their financial situation enough to be able to put themselves through college. I personally know many people who work their way through college now.

I think you have this the wrong way around. After all if people can work their way through college there is really no need to use income/poverty as a criteria for discrimination?

So no, I do not accept the premise that financial situation is something you can do nothing about. Just as skill, it is an asset on the part of the applicant and can be modified by the applicant.

Again the wrong way around. I was observing that the criticism that AA is unfair since innocent white folk get penalised, is the same as using any other basis of discrimination for access. Innocent rich folk may be less deserving of sympathy (unless they are also white?) but your actions are equally unsupportable. I imaging it would be as difficult to convince an admissions department that your parents had disowned you as well, something very difficult.

I would also be against direct AA in terms of giving extra points because you are beneath a certain income level. Programs to offer grants or loans (i.e., bringing everyone UP to the same level of treatment) I would not be against. This still is not even close to the same thing as having a different color of skin.

Semantics, if a college/government is to provide these services the money has to come from somewhere.

Face it, you just don't like rich people.

[erooMynohtnA]

The word discrimination can mean a different thing in a different context.

When I go grocery shopping and I choose one brand A of butter pecan icecream over brand B. I did that because there is marked distinction in taste between the two. That is one form of discrimination.

Someone from one race being told that they cannot enter an establishment because people from that race aren't allowed in that establishment, is another form of discrimination.

When universities and employers are told that they no longer can shut out people from races other than the one that they desire and that they have to hire (admit) people from all races into their establishments, that is inclusion. They have to take affirmative action to ensure that minorities are included. This I do not see as discrimination. I will say however affirmative action can be used in a discriminatory way but AA, is not in and of itself discriminatory.

ILS is clearly using discrimination in its older form, meaning simply the act of discerning between two things. Under this definition, anything that even identifies race is discrimination.

You obviously are using the more modern term born of common usage of discrimination as it applies to racial prejudice.

What you guys need to do is tighten up your vocabulary a little, then a real discussion can take place.