Byakuya769
Member
Yea, it helped you because despite your strong moral stand you made use of Affirmative Action that was not even designed for you with a smile on your face! Keep fighting the good fight!
Poll: 57 percent of Millennials oppose racial preferences for college, hiring
- Thread starter Antiochus
- Start date
- Status
Yea, it helped you because despite your strong moral stand you made use of Affirmative Action that was not even designed for you with a smile on your face! Keep fighting the good fight!
You picked a bad statement to challenge.
http://www.nber.org/papers/w9873
Anyway, it doesn't even have to be white people. The evidence shows minorities do discriminate against their own race.
IHaveCandy
Banned
Basing AA around race makes several false assumptions.
1. It assumes the white people left out of AA benefits were aided from slavery. Slavery helped very few white people. It actually hurt many more because manual labor jobs are harder to find if slaves are more economic.
2. It assumes all minorities are at a disadvantage. Some are, some aren't. It's wrong to act as if they all are.
3. It acts as if white people will certainly hire and accept white people if they are not kept in check. How would you feel if your character was questioned because of your race. Isn't that racist?
4. It improperly allocates resources to the wrong people. There are many well off minorities that do not need AA benefits. Those resources would be best used to inderpriveleged people.
1. It assumes the white people left out of AA benefits were aided from slavery. Slavery helped very few white people. It actually hurt many more because manual labor jobs are harder to find if slaves are more economic.
2. It assumes all minorities are at a disadvantage. Some are, some aren't. It's wrong to act as if they all are.
3. It acts as if white people will certainly hire and accept white people if they are not kept in check. How would you feel if your character was questioned because of your race. Isn't that racist?
4. It improperly allocates resources to the wrong people. There are many well off minorities that do not need AA benefits. Those resources would be best used to inderpriveleged people.
IHaveCandy
Banned
And what is the scope of this? You can't seriously think this small test speaks to all or most people?
IHaveCandy
Banned
Once I learned how AA works, I've always placed myself as "other" or chose not to answer any racial question on government documents.
So you think it's not representative, but you don't have any evidence.
IHaveCandy
Banned
I don't think doing a small survey in one city gives you a national scope. If you want to say racism still exists at some level, I would agree with you. These arguments in favor of AA make it sound like an epidemic though. Unfortunately, some, SOME, people are prejudice. That doesn't mean the solution is AA.
And you're still left with nothing to refute it. I don't have a problem with saying that one study doesn't prove anything, I'm going after you for shutting someone down for not having evidence and not having anything to back it up. Size of the experiment aside, this is one of the top 5 most connected cities in the country.
Stop spamming the thread. If you want to respond to multiple people, edit your exist post or multi-quote. You have triple posted twice and double posted once; don't do it again.
And the ideology of colorblindness you espouse does no favors for black people. It is a racial ideology that has largely replaced the old biological racism construct with a new "complex discourse of racialized stories, myths, tropes, arguments, and so forth" that are the source of the four primary frames (abstract liberalism, naturalization, cultural racism, and minimization of racism) of arguments that are used to explain racial phenomena without invoking race. These include ideas such as "nothing should be forced on people" in discussions about school or residential integration; the idea that individual choices are the reason for segregation and therefore group-based models are wrong, despite minorities being discriminated against as a class and whites consequently advantaged as a result and the fact that demanding individual treatment can only result in benefiting members of the dominant group. It also includes stock phrases such as "I am not prejudiced but..." or "Some of my best friends are ... " or evasions such as "I am not black, so I don't know" (e.g., used to preface a statement before one indicates that despite not being black or having any first-hand information, the person believes that it is "less than it used to be" or "exaggerated") or "Yes and no" prefacing statements that are entirely in support of one side.
It also includes rhetorical moves like insisting that "anything but race" is the explanation for significant racial phenomena, major storylines like "the past is the past" or "I didn't own any slaves" or "If Jews, Italians, and Irish have made it, how come blacks haven't?" or "I did not get a job (or a promotion) or was not admitted to a college, because of a minority", testimonies that involved interactions with black people (e.g., negative in which black people are used to justify a position ("e.g., "Blacks are aggressive. A year ago I was called racist by..." (from the book, that) or a way to signify good relations with black people generally by giving an example of a black person who they have good relations with) or stories that involved disclosure of knowledge of someone close to them that was racist (with a tripartite story structure of confession, example, and self-absolution), and so on and so forth.
If we view racial phenomena from a colorblind view point, we are either blind to the problems that affect black and brown Americans as cohorts, or we judge them as individuals whose race has not had any import in their lives, in which case, as Opiate pointed out earlier, we can only come to implicitly racist conclusions about those people.
I benefited from AA. I probably would not have gotten into my university if I wasn't Hispanic. But now I'm a junior chemical engineer who's doing better than a lot of my white friends who came in with better high school prep than I had. So I have to echo the sentiment that AA also helps people who just need a chance to prove themselves.
IHaveCandy
Banned
Mumei, I'm not saying we need to erase the concept of race throughout history. I simply believe that in this day, we should stop using racial groups as a means of identification.
If I tell you I am black, what does that tell you about me? What does placing myself with the "black community" actually do? I am an individual. I may share similar decentency with others, but that does not make us a group. We are all individuals and should be identified as individuals. My actions are not the black communities actions and vice versa. The concern should not be to ensure that all races are properly represented in schools or jobs. The concern should be that each individual person has the proper opportunities to better themselves.
And why shouldn't a white person get a chance to prove themselves?
If I tell you I am black, what does that tell you about me? What does placing myself with the "black community" actually do? I am an individual. I may share similar decentency with others, but that does not make us a group. We are all individuals and should be identified as individuals. My actions are not the black communities actions and vice versa. The concern should not be to ensure that all races are properly represented in schools or jobs. The concern should be that each individual person has the proper opportunities to better themselves.
And why shouldn't a white person get a chance to prove themselves?
Doing this effectively requires the consideration of race, because race is a factor in the limiting of such opportunities.
Smashing Drive
Banned
They need to do something in the workplace otherwise you end up with a strange coincidences like all of your employees happen to be from the same province in mumbai India.
IHaveCandy
Banned
I disagree. Financial status is the true factor that must be addressed. Racism is not an institutionalized epidemic. Yes, some people are racist or prejudice, but I do not see how it is at any level that makes AA based on race sensible. Height, weight, appearance, age, etc, they all also impact an employer's impression of a candidate. We cannot try and micromanage to the point that we try and stop racism from ever happening in any way. You create a lot of collateral damage that way.
Byakuya769
Member
IHaveCandy, why do you suppose there is more negative socio-economic movement between generations in black families versus white families?
BLACK-WHITE DIFFERENCES IN INTERGENERATIONAL ECONOMIC MOBILITY IN THE U.S.
I'm going to bud in and mention the historical socio-economic reasons that are attributed to a history of institutionalized racism.
This is absolutely false!
I'm not sure how you can live in this country and not know that.
I'm so stumped that I'm not even sure what link to give you. Something from Tim Wise? A report of some kind?
I don't know, pick your poison.
It's almost like because certain things didn't happen to you, they must not happen to anyone....
If you ignore what happened in the past, then you're just completely ignoring issues today that are a direct result of what occurred in the past. There are a host of issues stemming from things hit just 40 years ago - not even a full generation back - that are being felt today. When someone says "I don't see racial issues because it makes things too complicated" its nothing more than an out. One that lets the speaker say "I don't care, or bother to care, about a history of things that probably directly screw the next thing out of my mouth" while still keeping it classy from their own perspective. In reality, its one of the most naive and condescending tones you can take.
Not saying they shouldn't. I'm just glad I did.
http://www.princeton.edu/~pager/pager_ajs.pdf
TL;DR version
Here are the call back results of a study wherein resumes were submitted to business by 2 white males, one with a criminal record and one without, and 2 black males, one with a criminal record and one without. All other things being equal on their resume.
White males WITH A FELONY CONVICTION have a better chance of being called back than black males with NO CRIMINAL RECORD.
These are similar results to the last time this study was conducted 8 years prior.
And this is in a system with affirmative action. Imagine how bad it would get without it.
That is an incredibly ignorant statement.
Zoramon089
Banned
http://www.princeton.edu/~pager/pager_ajs.pdf
TL;DR version
Here are the call back results of a study wherein resumes were submitted to business by 2 white males, one with a criminal record and one without, and 2 black males, one with a criminal record and one without. All other things being equal on their resume.
White males WITH A FELONY CONVICTION have a better chance of being called back than black males with NO CRIMINAL RECORD.
These are similar results to the last time this study was conducted 8 years prior.
And this is in a system with affirmative action. Imagine how bad it would get without it.
The problem here is that some people don't realize there is almost an inherent bias in the selection process. They simply think if a black male and a white male for instance have the exact same qualifications and background, they're equal but that's not true. There is always an inequality between the two and that's what affirmative action attempts to rectify
But I'm interested in what people have to say about that graph. How they explain it
Zoe
Member
I'm not a fan of it. I'm not part of one of the over represented Asian groups and look more Hispanic than Asian, but because I want to check the Asian box I'm still held to the same standards.
It's really too bad that you exist in a fantasy world that bears no resemblance to reality, because it sounds like a much nicer place than the universe the rest of us have to live in. I bet the economy is even doing better there.
lol, oh inflammatory joke posts, got to love 4cha..er GAF.
Well, it's good for him. Can't say I'm sad that a black person isn't held back by racism. But there's not a lot to talk about if we can only go on his own experiences and nobody else's.
Byakuya769
Member
Seemed like an apt criticism. Are there any threads complaining about the policies that prop up any of those other groups? If not, why then do AA threads continually crop up with the same arguments?
IHaveCandy
Banned
Perhaps we have a different definition of what a "institutionalized epidemic" is, because I do not see how America could be described in this day to have an institutionalized epidemic issue of racism. In order for racism to be institutionalized, it must be the set standard practice. Racism is not the set standard practice. In order for something to be an epidemic, it must be quite severe. Racism is not prevalent in our society enough in this day for it to be described as severe in my eyes. If you want to say a single case of racism is a severe issue, then you're free to look at it that way. From what I've gathered, racism happens far less often than it does happen. And I do not like to assume racism in hiring/admissions whenever a workforce or student group may appear more "white" than you'd expect. I think such claims need to be proven, not assumed.
Zoramon089
Banned
I feel like you must've interpreted the cartoon differently from the rest of us...
Considering you're basically asking for people to come out as say "Yeah, I don't like x race" you're asking for an unreasonable and nearly impossible burden of proof. Look at the graph posted above. Tell me how you explain that?
So, the majority of people.
IHaveCandy
Banned
If a black person was told by the university that the fact that he is black is what pushed him over the edge to being accepted, and if he were white he wouldn't have been accepted, how should he feel about that?
If a white person was told by the university that the fact that he is white is what pushed him over the edge to not be accepted, and if he were black he would have been accepted, how should he feel about that?
I'm not arguing that cases like these are common, but it is an existing problem.
I love how we love to trudge out the 'poor whites never benefitted from racism' speech forgetting that up until 40 years ago black folks were purposely given inferior education, governmental services, and not even allowed to eat in the same restaurants as white people...you lock millions of people out of competing fairly in the economic & social systems you have in place for centuries then get mad at a few decades worth of work to even the scale. Those poor whites benefitted because for all those years those shitty jobs they had were inevitably better then the shittier jobs black people were able to pull at that time.
As far as 'proving' institutional racism...there are plenty of studies that show that as far as similar crimes are concerned when a minority is involved they get a MUCH more severe sentence, you've got this in Mississipi where minority students were just thrown way into the prison industrial compex...
http://articles.cnn.com/2012-08-10/...enile-detention-detention-center-civil-rights
Etc.
Affirmative action was not put into place for just slavery. People love to trudge this ideal and forget some of our grandparents were knee deep in fighting, or passively keeping in place, systemic racism
I think you're confused, because you seem to think the only kind of racism is the deliberate kind. No one is saying that there is mass deliberate racism. They are saying that there are policies and practices that people do that negatively impact minorities unfairly.
IHaveCandy
Banned
I completely agree that the judicial system is screwed up and constantly fails to remain objective. That is an entirely different issue from AA though.
I understand that explicit racism is not the only kind. If you feel there are policies and practices that are targeted at harming minorities, tackle those policies and practices. Don't try and throw a handicap to even out those policies and practices.
I understand that explicit racism is not the only kind. If you feel there are policies and practices that are targeted at harming minorities, tackle those policies and practices. Don't try and throw a handicap to even out those policies and practices.
Wafflecakes
Member
This in kinda my point of view as well. In the macro sense AA makes sense. However, imo ,on the individual level it is massively unjust and morally bankrupt. At the same time its a very complex issue.
I will say that I think the point of the program is to get to the point where it is no longer needed. Not sure that time has arrived yet. My worry is that I am not sure people on either side have the mental clarity to see when that point is.
Zoramon089
Banned
No it's not...they're both tied together. The judicial system just happens to be a good example of proof of the kind of inequality AA attempts to account for
perfectchaos007
Member
I honestly thought electing a black president would serve as evidence affirmative action was no longer needed in this country. I guess my view was too simplistic.
IHaveCandy
Banned
But it doesn't. A black person who has never served any jail time does not need AA benefits due to an unjust legal system. Fix the legal system. To make an analogy out of this situation, it's almost like a video game handicap and different races are different difficulties. In this case, white is supposed to be easy and being a minority is supposed to be hard. On hard difficulty, the game's rules are changed to make winning much more difficult. AA's proposed fix is to give anybody playing on hard should get unearned stat bonuses. My proposed fix is to undo those double standard rules and hold more accountability to ensuring that a common standard is maintained from above.
Wafflecakes
Member
I personally think AA, especially in an educational setting, should not be used as a bludgeon to try to counteract racism, whether real or perceived, in other parts of society. (Not saying all AA proponents believe that. But I know some who do.)
And how do you do that? How do you fix all of society's biases? Because a lot of people want to know.
If you don't have an answer, then what you are proposing is getting rid of AA and let the institutional racism continue to hurt many people.
EDIT: And you're not correct, anyway. The fact that black people are disproportionately represented in prison changes public opinion of black people as a whole. I mean, even if you seem to have gotten through life pretty well, I'm sure you at least know the many negative stereotypes associated with black people (and, as is known, stereotypes affect behavior.)
Zoramon089
Banned
Good analogy...at least at the start. Yes, going by your analogy white would be easy and minority would be hard. AA wouldn't give minorities unearned stat boosts, it would attempt to add balance. It would say "Now the things the minority player faces are more difficult. How do I still maintain the same level of balance as the player playing on easy?" Now obviously what that entails is a incredibly vague, which is why AA in general and how it would be best handled is such a difficult subject.
You claim the solution is to undo the double standards? HOW? What does that even mean? Just tell people "Don't be biased!" How do you propose this? And to hold them more accountable? We already have statistics. We have accounts of inequality
IHaveCandy
Banned
When it comes to government practices, I don't want them practicing ineffective standards. This is where we may have disagreements on what is a government's responsibility, but I do not think it is our government's job to make sure racism is eradicated at all costs. I wouldn't call myself a full-blown libertarian, but I do share a lot of views. As corrupt and terrible as I believe racism is, I do not view it as something somebody has no right to believe in. To take the issue to an extreme, I believe a racist business owner should have the right to refuse service to whoever he wants for whatever reason. I understand that this would not best serve everybody, but as it is his private business, I see that to be his choice on the matter. This is one reason why I do not like AA. It serves to attempt to eradicate racism in the most blunt way possible.
Zoramon089
Banned
Then the state should have the right to revoke his land or business permit for whatever reason they choose. No one is able to start a business completely on their own. Even a private business entails some sort of granting of rights, land, permits, etc from a much larger ruling entity. By taking advantage of that you naturally should have to abide by certain rules and standards
What do you mean by "ineffective"? Your initial complaints only make sense if it is affecting what it is meant to affect.
Anyway, that's great and all, but you didn't really answer my question, unless your answer is:
"I'm for getting rid of AA and not doing anything else and letting institutional racism continue"
If that isn't your answer, please give me a more concrete answer.
EDIT: Please note, I didn't ask you whether or not the government should get rid of institutional racism. I'm asking "how" it would get rid of institutional racism.
Wafflecakes
Member
That....doesn't make any sense.
I mean I don't agree with what he said about governments roll...but an individual has different rights and responsibilities than the government does. Government must live by different standards.
IHaveCandy
Banned
No, I do not believe that the government should have the right to act racist. A government's responsibility is to treat all of it's citizens equally and fairly. I do not believe private citizens have an enforceable obligation to do the same. For example, under today's law a white man can tell a black man he is not invited to his house ever because he is black. Nothing could be done about this. If that same white man owned a small business down the street, he does not have the right to refuse entry to the same black male. I believe his rights should be extended to his private business.
I do believe that the government should not give any tax benefits to businesses that practice racism though. So if the government were my way, businesses could be racist if they want to because that is their right as a business owner. But those same business owners that choose to be racist would receive zero tax cut benefits.
Except, operating a business requires a license...from the government. To get a license, you need to meet certain requirements.
Operating a business is not the same thing as owning a house.
IHaveCandy
Banned
And I'm saying a requirement should not be that you are obligated to serve everybody. I understand the way the law exists today. I am saying that I believe a private business owner should have more rights than they currently have. It shouldn't surprise you that I also believe a private business owner should have the right to decide whether or not it's customers may or may not smoke in their business. I believe all of this ultimately should be decided by the business owner.
I'm saying, your comparison to a homeowner is ridiculous, because they're not close to the same thing.
It's nice to believe things, but if you're going to try to explain your beliefs, you should back them up better :-/
- Status