OT: Officer Crowley

[Andrew McCeltic]

ryan,

this is where Occam's razor comes back in- your "hypothetical" example isn't, in literal scientific terms, that- it's an elaborate example based on several debatable assumptions

and the idea that there could be some undetectable trace of racism, when does a lack of evidence finally become persuasive? the same problem comes up with marxism & freudian psychoanalysis, the idea that 'false consciousness' or 'repression' can be used to explain ANY contrary opinion

[GuyClinch]

So, there's a perfectly reasonable and realistic example of institutional racism. It's virtually undetectable and almost completely impossible to identify without either being in that insurance company's office or without reviewing their records and connecting the dots or without being in the head of the general manager. This is the kind of thing that could be happening all across America and if we aren't vigilant about detecting it, we'll never know. That's my point--we need to vigilant.

LMAO some lawyer would soon these guys asses off.. This is hardly "undetectable". Lawyers would be salvating over a case like this. Its a gigantic payday.

[jfs1000d]

Some here trying to argue that racism doesn't exist? Really, would you rather be a black guy in this society or white?

Is this really a debate?

This is actually an instance of institutional racism. The notion that everything is equal when it isn't is a form of racism. The whole disparate punishment between crack and powder cocaine is a prime legal example of institutional racism.

Did you know that crack babies really don't exist? It's a racial pejorative that was disguised as a medical fact in the late 1980s. What is that rather than a racially motivated way to explain a lack of black intelligence.

BTW, ever here of a racial dog whistle? Whenever you here the terms like busing, welfare queen, or school choice it is racially charged. Whenever you here "states rights" it is also in a racial context. It's political code words. Why do you think flying the confederate flag brings out such intense feelings?

The Obama birther flap is racism incarnate.

Now vitriolic racism and violence is no longer tolerated in the United States SOCIALLY. Being a racist isn't socially acceptable anymore. That's the only thing we really change.

If race didn't matter at all, why do we put it on our birth certificate?

[GuyClinch]

Who are these people arguing that racism doesn't exist? This is a strawman argument.. <g> Sometimes I wonder if reading comprehension still exists..

[Parasite]

Some here trying to argue that racism doesn't exist? Really, would you rather be a black guy in this society or white?

Is this really a debate?

This is actually an instance of institutional racism. The notion that everything is equal when it isn't is a form of racism. The whole disparate punishment between crack and powder cocaine is a prime legal example of institutional racism.

Did you know that crack babies really don't exist? It's a racial pejorative that was disguised as a medical fact in the late 1980s. What is that rather than a racially motivated way to explain a lack of black intelligence.

BTW, ever here of a racial dog whistle? Whenever you here the terms like busing, welfare queen, or school choice it is racially charged. Whenever you here "states rights" it is also in a racial context. It's political code words. Why do you think flying the confederate flag brings out such intense feelings?

The Obama birther flap is racism incarnate.

Now vitriolic racism and violence is no longer tolerated in the United States SOCIALLY. Being a racist isn't socially acceptable anymore. That's the only thing we really change.

If race didn't matter at all, why do we put it on our birth certificate?

How's la-la land treating ya? Nice waterfront view? Good roads?
Oh, and as far as "vitriolic racism" not being tolerated in this country.....ever hear the terms "cracker" and "redneck" and "white trash" being bandied about? Sure you have, because they happen to be socially accepted. Do you complain about that? Didn't think so. Now back to la-la land with you.

[ryaningf]

ryan,

this is where Occam's razor comes back in- your "hypothetical" example isn't, in literal scientific terms, that- it's an elaborate example based on several debatable assumptions

and the idea that there could be some undetectable trace of racism, when does a lack of evidence finally become persuasive? the same problem comes up with marxism & freudian psychoanalysis, the idea that 'false consciousness' or 'repression' can be used to explain ANY contrary opinion

All 'hypotheticals' are based on debatable assumptions--or they wouldn't be hypothetical.

Occam's razor is a maxim for choosing between two or more otherwise equally probable theories. All other things being equal, racism is a pretty simple way of describing behavior and thus would seem to be in keeping with Occam's razor.

As for when the lack of evidence becomes persuasive--probably after we've all been dead for a long long time. As I was saying in the other post, if institutional racism is a product of individual racist attitudes, then we ought to be on the lookout for institutional racism until individual racist attitude has become extinct.

[ryaningf]

So, there's a perfectly reasonable and realistic example of institutional racism. It's virtually undetectable and almost completely impossible to identify without either being in that insurance company's office or without reviewing their records and connecting the dots or without being in the head of the general manager. This is the kind of thing that could be happening all across America and if we aren't vigilant about detecting it, we'll never know. That's my point--we need to vigilant.

LMAO some lawyer would soon these guys asses off.. This is hardly "undetectable". Lawyers would be salvating over a case like this. Its a gigantic payday.

Your East Coast bias might be showing on this one, Pete. We're talking about the rural Midwest, where racial discrimination against Native Americans is still tacitly condoned. The rural Midwest is also severely under-served by lawyers per capita. The easy intervention of a lawyer assumes both Native American financial well-being (reservation life is one of the poorest in the country), and the ability to navigate with confidence in the white world--something most rural Native Americans have yet to attain (for a variety of reasons)--or the availability of a Native American lawyer, something which, again, is severely under-represented in the rural Midwest. And then that lawyer would have to prove intent--because, in the example put forth, the institutional racism lies only in the discerning mind of the general manager... Hardly a gigantic payday.

[GuyClinch]

^^^ Having less lawyers per capita doesn't exactly indicate a shortage IMHO. Law schools continue to crank out lawyers with no thoughts about the market for said lawyers. Now if we were talking about Doctors I would believe you. But with lawyers pathetically low barriers of entry there is a chronic oversupply. If your willing to put up the money for law school and you can read and write decently you can be a lawyer.

Anyway I find your example suspect because I know lawyers look for case involving large companies like insurance companies. Your scenario sounds like a nice big payday for a law firm. Moreover its hypothetical. A real documented case would carry a ton more weight.

Sure racism still exists - don't get me wrong. But we have made enough progress such that its not the root cause of the problems with these minority communities, IMHO. I think the cultural and economic issues reign supreme there. Back in the day racism was the BIG issue but your thinking is about 30 years behind the time.

Whereas racism used to be mainstream nowadays the people pushing it are all the wackos.. Young people today just don't care that much about race. Obama being elected is a prime example of this. A black president was seen as something comedic 20 years ago. The US has changed.

[wigglestrue]

Some here trying to argue that racism doesn't exist? Really, would you rather be a black guy in this society or white?

At the moment there are advantages and disadvantages to being black, all else being equal. It would depend on if what I was being subjected to (inferior taxi service, occasional slurs, countless awkward encounters, being tracked by mall security, random purse-clutching, being told an apartment was taken even when it was still available at least once in my life, DWB at least once in my life, among other things) were worth the material benefits (scholarships/grants exclusively given to minorities, job/admittance preference for diversity purposes).

Also, I never argued that racism doesn't exist. But yeah, real-world instances and consequences of racism have been pretty much eradicated except for **** like rogue individual instances and small extremist groups. Entire generations of racists are dead and dying. Racists alive today are few and far between, and frightened of social and legal retribution when caught in an act of racism. The future of racism is bleak. Racist stereotypes linger vaguely in a lot of minds, but they're vanishing too, and almost always inconsequential. There is no longer in any real sense such a phenomenon as institutional/systemic racism. We'll never be 100% rid of racism, just like we won't be completely rid of terrorism or "drugs" or poverty. But the war is won. It's an insult to the people who fought that cultural war for decades, and won, to ignore their victory (and yes, that means a lot of folks are unfortunately insulting themselves).

Is this really a debate?

Yes.

This is actually an instance of institutional racism. The notion that everything is equal when it isn't is a form of racism.

So you're accusing me of perpetrating racism? Yeah, lol, real funny.

The whole disparate punishment between crack and powder cocaine is a prime legal example of institutional racism.

Sure, if "prime" is a synonym for "rare and vestigial".

Also, I'm pretty sure that the physical and mental effects and the affordability of crack will **** up a person/community a lot more than nose candy. I'm also pretty sure that white crackheads exist, abundantly. They're almost always poor, by the way. People who snort cocaine tend not to be poor.

Did you know that crack babies really don't exist? It's a racial pejorative that was disguised as a medical fact in the late 1980s. What is that rather than a racially motivated way to explain a lack of black intelligence.

Did you know that using cocaine during pregnancy will **** up your baby? It will. You're wrong.

BTW, ever here of a racial dog whistle? Whenever you here the terms like busing, welfare queen, or school choice it is racially charged. Whenever you here "states rights" it is also in a racial context. It's political code words.

Welfare queeen, maybe. Haven't heard that in a long, long time. Busing is busing, dude. Plenty of legitimate reasons to oppose it, and it wasn't just white people who opposed it. Same for school choice, plenty of legitimate reasons to support it, and it isn't just white people who want it. "States rights" is a ****ing constitutional issue dating back centuries, and even if used as code today would probably always refer to abortion. Code words my ass, it's what the issues are called. What are the proper terms, comrade?

Why do you think flying the confederate flag brings out such intense feelings?

Because it was the flag of a pro-slavery rebellion about 140 years ago.

The Obama birther flap is racism incarnate.

Yeah, it's not like those same people weren't after Clinton with crazy ****.

Now vitriolic racism and violence is no longer tolerated in the United States SOCIALLY. Being a racist isn't socially acceptable anymore. That's the only thing we really change.

Well, and the laws. Laws that prohibit and punish acts of racism.

If race didn't matter at all, why do we put it on our birth certificate?

So that leftist think tanks can calculate how much racism exists by measuring statistical gaps?

I'm not even close to being a conservative. It's just that the tripe you've put forward makes me gag.

[wigglestrue]

As I was saying in the other post, if institutional racism is a product of individual racist attitudes, then we ought to be on the lookout for institutional racism until individual racist attitude has become extinct.

No, no, no, no, no -- the collective product of individual racist attitudes. And there is hardly anything left to collect, there aren't that many people left who would act in any significant way on their racist attitudes. The institutions themselves have over the decades been scrubbed of all their racist rules and almost all of their racist employees. Anything left of racism is on the individual level, where it will always remain to a small extent.

Yeah, most of the known institutional racism has been either reversed, minimized, or is in the process of being corrected. My examples don't suck--they only cease to be good examples once they are identified, such is the nature of identifying bad things--once you identify them they tend to be corrected and thus are no longer 'bad.' And that was my point in the first place--just because I can't point to an ongoing example of institutional racism doesn't mean anything one way or the other. It doesn't mean that institutional racism has been eradicated and it doesn't mean that it still exists.

Yes, it does. You might be able to find a handful of leftover by-laws or whatever, and I have zero problem with anyone looking for those cases. But on an institutional level, racism is gone, and good riddance.

It means, simply, that we should be on the lookout for instances where it might crop up. We're in agreement that institutional racism springs forth via individual racist attitudes, right? Then, until every individual racist attitude has been quelled, it makes sense to be on the lookout for more examples of institutional racism that we can correct, right?

Those examples today are examples of individual racism. One low-level bank employee with a racist attitude who unfairly denies black people does not implicate an entire institution, nor is it "systemic".

[ryaningf]

As I was saying in the other post, if institutional racism is a product of individual racist attitudes, then we ought to be on the lookout for institutional racism until individual racist attitude has become extinct.

No, no, no, no, no -- the collective product of individual racist attitudes. And there is hardly anything left to collect, there aren't that many people left who would act in any significant way on their racist attitudes. The institutions themselves have over the decades been scrubbed of all their racist rules and almost all of their racist employees. Anything left of racism is on the individual level, where it will always remain to a small extent.

Thanks for trying to clarify my language by inserting the word 'collective'--but doesn't the word 'product' imply 'collective'?

I don't get the distinction that less people with racist attitudes leads to less institutional racism--what it leads to is less tolerance of institutional racism. The 'collective' product that became institutionalized racism was never a huge great number of people plotting. It was a small minority of people--the decision makers--plotting in ways that maintained and increased their power. The racist element went unchecked until recently because implicitly everyone agreed with those attitudes.

The reason I brought up rural communities in the midwest for my hypothetical is that because they have small populations which are usually social conservative, meaning the racist elements which have otherwise been eliminated are still at play regardless of what we think on the East coast. Further, though there ARE enlightened folks in the rural midwest communities, they don't represent the majority nor hold much corrective influence on their community--all elements leading to circumstances ripe for institutional racism--especially in low-level institutions like county mutual insurance companies, which are relatively isolated and not subject to much substantive oversight by local government.

Yeah, most of the known institutional racism has been either reversed, minimized, or is in the process of being corrected. My examples don't suck--they only cease to be good examples once they are identified, such is the nature of identifying bad things--once you identify them they tend to be corrected and thus are no longer 'bad.' And that was my point in the first place--just because I can't point to an ongoing example of institutional racism doesn't mean anything one way or the other. It doesn't mean that institutional racism has been eradicated and it doesn't mean that it still exists.

Yes, it does. You might be able to find a handful of leftover by-laws or whatever, and I have zero problem with anyone looking for those cases. But on an institutional level, racism is gone, and good riddance.

It means, simply, that we should be on the lookout for instances where it might crop up. We're in agreement that institutional racism springs forth via individual racist attitudes, right? Then, until every individual racist attitude has been quelled, it makes sense to be on the lookout for more examples of institutional racism that we can correct, right?

Those examples today are examples of individual racism. One low-level bank employee with a racist attitude who unfairly denies black people does not implicate an entire institution, nor is it "systemic".

My hypothetical involved the discussion makers at low-level institutions operating in rural midwest America--the CEOs and general managers of the local county mutual insurance company or the town's credit union. All it takes is one person and the complicity of others and, bang!, you have some institutionalized racism.

Systemic racism is different--it relates to inherent inequalities found in the structure of the system itself.

[ryaningf]

.... {rest of post deleted because irrelevant}.....

As to the white privilege allegation, the whole reason I brought up academic (and hence IQ) scores, is to point out that both Ashkenazim Jews (highest of all), and NE Asians consistently outscore whites, and also earn more than whites. So if whites are in the business of white privilege, they're doing a pretty crappy job of it. That's all. That's the whole point of exercise, to refute the notion of white privilege. Not to vilify anybody. In fact, it's an attempt to stop the vilification of whites as privileged and racist. Clearly, you and I will never see eye to eye on this, and that's fine.

What does IQ testing have to do with white privilege? Those findings are interesting but refute nothing. White privilege doesn't claim white supremacy--it claims that the circumstances of being white and privileged account for much of the 'success gap' enjoyed by white people. There's also the white privilege point of view which ignores the advantages of being white and privileged and assumes that all things are equal.

[GuyClinch]

My hypothetical involved the discussion makers at low-level institutions operating in rural midwest America--the CEOs and general managers of the local county mutual insurance company or the town's credit union. All it takes is one person and the complicity of others and, bang!, you have some institutionalized racism.

You do realize that the actions of a rural guy in a big company would get linked to the larger company. These large insurance companies avoid such actions as its a **** storm of liability. Your example sucks. A better example of 'institutional" racism would be the recent case of where white fireman and police where passed over because of PC nonsense..

http://www.cleveland.com/nation/index.s ... white.html

That's the kind of "racism" that's around now - and it's not REALLY much of a problem most of the time. Your like stuck 20 years in the past. That's why you have to resort to "hypotheticals" to prove your case.

If we want to talk about discrimination that exists now - I think you have to talk about more obscure factors that people overlook but probably play a role. Things like discrimination against fat people, old people, ugly people and short people. Of course most of that happens on subconcious level, IMHO so its not really something people care about.. But its likely just as strong at the racism effect your crying about.

Some interesting stuff has been written about taller folks winning in politics has been written..

Pete

[Bill Lumbergh]

.... {rest of post deleted because irrelevant}.....

As to the white privilege allegation, the whole reason I brought up academic (and hence IQ) scores, is to point out that both Ashkenazim Jews (highest of all), and NE Asians consistently outscore whites, and also earn more than whites. So if whites are in the business of white privilege, they're doing a pretty crappy job of it. That's all. That's the whole point of exercise, to refute the notion of white privilege. Not to vilify anybody. In fact, it's an attempt to stop the vilification of whites as privileged and racist. Clearly, you and I will never see eye to eye on this, and that's fine.

What does IQ testing have to do with white privilege? Those findings are interesting but refute nothing. White privilege doesn't claim white supremacy--it claims that the circumstances of being white and privileged account for much of the 'success gap' enjoyed by white people. There's also the white privilege point of view which ignores the advantages of being white and privileged and assumes that all things are equal.

I'm saying that intelligence is causal in success, both within group, and inter-group. Not iron clad, but it is the prominent cause in success. I'm saying that race is not the first cause in success, that intelligence is. Unintelligent whites, blacks, asians, jews, people of whatever stripe, are less likely to have favorable life outcomes.

Why do you not speak of Asian privilege, or Ashkenazim privilege, when it comes to explaining their success? Have some logical consistency. I'm saying their group level success, in doing better both economically as well as academically (unquestionable relationship, in my view) as compared to all other groups, but specifically as compared to whites, since you are claiming that white privilege is the cause of B-W gaps, is compelling evidence against the weak allegation of white privilege. I'm saying it's logically inconsistent to say that B-W gaps exist because of white privilege, and then not apply the same logic to asian --white/hispanic/black differences, or Ashkenazi---white/hispanic/black differences.

How can you keep making the white privilege argument and have no sort of cognitive dissonance about it when faced with the success of Asians and Jews relative to whites? Do whites just need to buckle down and try harder at white privileging themselves when it comes to Jews and Asians?

White privilege is a gigantic load of crap.

[ryaningf]

My hypothetical involved the discussion makers at low-level institutions operating in rural midwest America--the CEOs and general managers of the local county mutual insurance company or the town's credit union. All it takes is one person and the complicity of others and, bang!, you have some institutionalized racism.

You do realize that the actions of a rural guy in a big company would get linked to the larger company. These large insurance companies avoid such actions as its a **** storm of liability. Your example sucks. A better example of 'institutional" racism would be the recent case of where white fireman and police where passed over because of PC nonsense..

Pete, have you ever heard of a county mutual insurance company? They're small insurance companies--usually below $500,000 in total assets--operating in a certain amount of counties within a single state. There is no larger insurance company that they report to--they have a re-insurance company that re-insures their policies but which exerts no real influence in the day-to-day operations of their business and which has no liability for mismanagement on the local level. These are small businesses--yes they do exist and yes they are small. Small town banks, small town county mutual insurance companies, the example could be anything--not everything has been corporatized yet. My example doesn't suck--you're ability to think beyond what you know is what's lacking...

http://www.cleveland.com/nation/index.ssf/2009/06/supreme_court_rules_for_white.html

That's the kind of "racism" that's around now - and it's not REALLY much of a problem most of the time. Your like stuck 20 years in the past. That's why you have to resort to "hypotheticals" to prove your case.

If we want to talk about discrimination that exists now - I think you have to talk about more obscure factors that people overlook but probably play a role. Things like discrimination against fat people, old people, ugly people and short people. Of course most of that happens on subconcious level, IMHO so its not really something people care about.. But its likely just as strong at the racism effect your crying about.

Some interesting stuff has been written about taller folks winning in politics has been written..

Pete

Yeah, there are some interesting discriminatory practices out there--mostly they play on the common biases of people and along aesthetic lines--beauty has a way of attracting, if you know what I mean.

But while that kind of 'discrimination' is on a person-by-person basis and even changes amongst people (people don't agree on what's beautiful)--racism is pretty universal and is based on something--skin color, nation of origin, etc.--that is pretty much agreed upon. There's no way that kind of discrimination is anywhere near the discrimination based on race. Try again.

[Bill Lumbergh]

... All it takes is one person and the complicity of others and, bang!, you have some institutionalized racism. ...

Institutional racism must, of necessity, involve some institution, no? Like, government, business, academia, etc.

In my opinion, there is clear evidence of racially inequitable policies within institutions, and none of them are benefiting whites in any way. If you have a given policy, and it benefits one group over another, our government regards the very same policy entirely differently based solely on which group it benefits. If the policy specifically benefits whites, it is regarded as evil, racist and discriminatory (any such policies that benefited whites have long since been struck down). If it specifically benefits blacks, it is regarded as beneficial and affirmative, hence, affirmative action, hiring preferences, preferences in school admissions, etc.

So if the exact same policy benefits whites, it is racist, if it benefits blacks it is positive and affirmative.

There are NO institutionalized racial policies that benefit whites. There are many that benefit blacks, hispanics, etc (not seeing signs of white privilege here either).

[ryaningf]

.... {rest of post deleted because irrelevant}.....

As to the white privilege allegation, the whole reason I brought up academic (and hence IQ) scores, is to point out that both Ashkenazim Jews (highest of all), and NE Asians consistently outscore whites, and also earn more than whites. So if whites are in the business of white privilege, they're doing a pretty crappy job of it. That's all. That's the whole point of exercise, to refute the notion of white privilege. Not to vilify anybody. In fact, it's an attempt to stop the vilification of whites as privileged and racist. Clearly, you and I will never see eye to eye on this, and that's fine.

What does IQ testing have to do with white privilege? Those findings are interesting but refute nothing. White privilege doesn't claim white supremacy--it claims that the circumstances of being white and privileged account for much of the 'success gap' enjoyed by white people. There's also the white privilege point of view which ignores the advantages of being white and privileged and assumes that all things are equal.

I'm saying that intelligence is causal in success, both within group, and inter-group. Not iron clad, but it is the prominent cause in success. I'm saying that race is not the first cause in success, that intelligence is. Unintelligent whites, blacks, asians, jews, people of whatever stripe, are less likely to have favorable life outcomes.

It depends on what you consider to be intelligence. I hate to bring up Gladwell's book again (don't hate me), but he makes a pretty persuasive point that intelligence (at least as identified in IQ tests) is not a predictor of success. There are two points Gladwell makes--there's an intelligence threshold that one must be above to achieve relative success. It doesn't necessarily matter how far above the threshold you are--each person has roughly the same access to success provided they're above the threshold. The other point Gladwell makes is that one's socio-economic circumstances plays a huge role in determining what one makes of one's intellectual talents. People from low-income households don't often trust authority and this impacts their ability to move adroitly within society, meaning that they lack a practical intelligence to get their way in whatever environment they find themselves in, an intelligence which is not inborn but which comes from watching your parents and grandparents operate in the world. The lack of this 'worldiness' inversely affects their ability to succeed, meaning that even if they are above the intelligence threshold, they still are prevented from succeeding.

Why do you not speak of Asian privilege, or Ashkenazim privilege, when it comes to explaining their success? Have some logical consistency. I'm saying their group level success, in doing better both economically as well as academically (unquestionable relationship, in my view) as compared to all other groups, but specifically as compared to whites, since you are claiming that white privilege is the cause of B-W gaps, is compelling evidence against the weak allegation of white privilege. I'm saying it's logically inconsistent to say that B-W gaps exist because of white privilege, and then not apply the same logic to asian --white/hispanic/black differences, or Ashkenazi---white/hispanic/black differences.

How can you keep making the white privilege argument and have no sort of cognitive dissonance about it when faced with the success of Asians and Jews relative to whites? Do whites just need to buckle down and try harder at white privileging themselves when it comes to Jews and Asians?

White privilege is a gigantic load of crap.

Mencius, you seem like a very smart person, but I don't think you understand fully the meaning of the theory of white privilege. First of all, the success of those groups--Jews from Ashkenazim and the people from NE Asian--is outside of the purview of the white privilege theory. The theory of white privilege was a unique theory fashioned against the backdrop of the American milieu which sought to explain the success gap between whites and non-whites in America. It's also a description of the way white Americans perceive their own success--an incorrect view which assumes all things are equal. In the same way the white privilege attitude ignores the circumstances of non-whites, so does the theory itself ignore non-American success stories--it's a theory of American success.

As for the success of the groups you cite, I'd say they come from the unique cultural circumstances of those peoples--one that emphasizes scholastic enrichment and rewards persistence. I'm sure you don't care, but Gladwell has a fascinating discussion in "Outliers" as to why Asians seem to be so smart--his conclusion, roughly stated, is that the shared cultural experience of farming rice paddies (which are extremely labor intensive) fostered a high degree of cultural persistence and work ethic, which translates into a greater willingness to work hard and to persist in the face of not knowing something. There's also an interesting discussion on the Chinese language and how the 'simplied' language of numbers in that language may explain why Asians seem to advantage when it comes to math.

[ryaningf]

... All it takes is one person and the complicity of others and, bang!, you have some institutionalized racism. ...

Institutional racism must, of necessity, involve some institution, no? Like, government, business, academia, etc.

Try not quoting me outta context. I was referring to one person in a position of power, at say a business or small school in the rural midwest, and how that one person's racial attitude (and complicity of others) could rise to the level of institutional racism.

In my opinion, there is clear evidence of racially inequitable policies within institutions, and none of them are benefiting whites in any way. If you have a given policy, and it benefits one group over another, our government regards the very same policy entirely differently based solely on which group it benefits. If the policy specifically benefits whites, it is regarded as evil, racist and discriminatory (any such policies that benefited whites have long since been struck down). If it specifically benefits blacks, it is regarded as beneficial and affirmative, hence, affirmative action, hiring preferences, preferences in school admissions, etc.

So if the exact same policy benefits whites, it is racist, if it benefits blacks it is positive and affirmative.

There are NO institutionalized racial policies that benefit whites. There are many that benefit blacks, hispanics, etc (yet more examples of whites doing a lousy job at the white privilege business).

These are all baseless claims and you've done a pretty good job inhabiting the white and privileged attitude too. Affirmative action is an important breakthrough in quelling institutional racism and discrimination in general and anybody with a tiny understanding of the history of this country will understand why.

There's a reason the 'benefits' are judged good or bad, or legal or illegal, based on which group they go to--because that's what affirmative action is!!!!! It's action designed to level the playing field and to remove--however clumsily--the racial and social inequalities in play in this country for the last 200 years. Are whites adversely affected? Hell yes. And rightly so, because how else are you going to re-level the playing field without redistributing access to success.

Think of it like this--you're a poor Native American living on a reservation in the Dakotas. You're actually an oddity in your community--unlike a majority of Native Americans your parents both have decent jobs, and don't abuse alcohol--they are pillars in their community. From an early age, they've instilled a good work ethic and the belief that you can whatever you want to do as long as you work hard. But, despite hitting the lottery in terms of good parents, you still live on the reservation, your school is still underfunded, you still have zero access to the kinds of after-school activities white kids have--band practice, piano lessons, etc.--and you're surrounded in the community with alcoholics, rampant suicide, and heart-breaking poverty--you've had 10 friends you knew well that have committed suicide. But you still do your best to survive and it's your dream to be a lawyer and to come back and help your community in any way you can. So, you do well, get good grades in high school, go to the local reservation community college for two years, transfer to the state college after that, and then apply for law school. Now, you've worked hard, but it's hard to overcome where you come from--your LSAT score wasn't great, and in fact your college grade point average was barely above a 3.0. But, with a little affirmative action, they let you into law school anyway, in place of the white male student who had enjoyed all the fruits of his white and privileged childhood--better schools, better environment, better food--but was still well below the upper achievers amongst other white applicants. Are you telling me that white student SHOULD have gotten into law school over the hypothetical Native American? If so, you have no heart and zero sense of fairness. Affirmative action is one action that attempts to undo a lifetime's worth of disadvantage.

[GuyClinch]

These are all baseless claims and you've done a pretty good job inhabiting the white and privileged attitude too. Affirmative action is an important breakthrough in quelling institutional racism and discrimination in general and anybody with a tiny understanding of the history of this country will understand why.

Important breakthough? Race based affirmative action is reverse discrimination. How could it be considered a breakthrough when its merely the practice of something which you claim to dislike.

As I have pointed out before (side-stepping the idea of race based on genes) race based on COLOR of skin is a faulty premise as people with similiar skin tones do not necessarily have similiar genetics. So you (and of course you know this) end up with a scattershot of deserving and undeserving folks culled by this "racial" lens.

Your far better of selecting DIRECTLY from factors that have had a negative impact on a persons "chances" if that's your goal. Colleges need not look at race. They can simply choose to favour kids with an impoverished backaround both culturally (born on a reservation) or fiscally. Using "race" as your selection factor is wrong.

Despite your constant bleeding heart hypotheticals there exist solid middle and upper class minority children here in the US that do not need any special consideration to succeed. This is why the time for affirmative action based on race has passed. Its simply too inaccurate a lens.

Moreover affirmative action is a bandaid on more signicant problems. We should instead concentrate on making sure even poor kids have access to good schooling and are shielded from negative cultural pressures. Thus we won't have to move away from merit based tests for school acceptance..or job promotion (like they did in the firefighter case).

Like I said your living in the dark ages. The time for thinking in these "racial' ways is over. You like Gates are actually adding to the problem. You feel that minorities need to make up for shortcomings that they don't necessarily have. So the deserving students that get into schools or jobs or achieve success become shorted because people feel they didn't earn it.


Pete

Pete

[ryaningf]

These are all baseless claims and you've done a pretty good job inhabiting the white and privileged attitude too. Affirmative action is an important breakthrough in quelling institutional racism and discrimination in general and anybody with a tiny understanding of the history of this country will understand why.

Important breakthough? Race based affirmative action is reverse discrimination. How could it be considered a breakthrough when its merely the practice of something which you claim to dislike.

The practice of which also attempts to reverse a lifetime of limited access. It's not the perfect solution by far--but it serves a purpose.

As I have pointed out before (side-stepping the idea of race based on genes) race based on COLOR of skin is a faulty premise as people with similiar skin tones do not necessarily have similiar genetics. So you (and of course you know this) end up with a scattershot of deserving and undeserving folks culled by this "racial" lens.

Your far better of selecting DIRECTLY from factors that have had a negative impact on a persons "chances" if that's your goal. Colleges need not look at race. They can simply choose to favour kids with an impoverished backaround both culturally (born on a reservation) or fiscally. Using "race" as your selection factor is wrong.

You're right on this account--with the advent of the Internet and the improvements in data management, it's probably possible to take ALL THOSE FACTORS into account--thereby truly leveling the playing field. The affirmative action based solely on race is out-dated--but that's an argument towards improvement, not to do away with it completely...

Despite your constant bleeding heart hypotheticals there exist solid middle and upper class minority children here in the US that do not need any special consideration to succeed. This is why the time for affirmative action based on race has passed. Its simply too inaccurate a lens.

No, the time has come to improve upon it.

Moreover affirmative action is a bandaid on more signicant problems. We should instead concentrate on making sure even poor kids have access to good schooling and are shielded from negative cultural pressures. Thus we won't have to move away from merit based tests for school acceptance..or job promotion (like they did in the firefighter case).

Like I said your living in the dark ages. The time for thinking in these "racial' ways is over. You like Gates are actually adding to the problem. You feel that minorities need to make up for shortcomings that they don't necessarily have. So the deserving students that get into schools or jobs or achieve success become shorted because people feel they didn't earn it.

This is rich, Pete. And a load of BS. How is Prof. Gates 'adding to the problem'? I've seen this bandied about and I've yet to hear a reasonable explanation of what you're getting at. Are you suggesting that because 'deserving students' are supposedly getting 'shorted because people feel they didn't earn it,'--that this is how he's adding to the problem? Just because some perturbed, white and privileged person feels his minority classmate didn't 'earn it' like he did--how does that viewpoint constitute a problem for the minority anyway? Are you saying Prof. Gates is adding to the problem because he's making whitey mad and making him hold stupid views? Yeah, let's not upset whitey--that'll really add to the problem! Whose view is outdated again?

And who said anything about 'feel[ing] that minorities need to make up for shortcomings that they don't necessarily have'? The shortcoming is within the system--the one that builds good schools in the rich, mostly white neighborhoods and lets schools in poor, mostly minority communities go unfunded--not in the minority.

All Gates (and me, to a much lesser extent) are doing is keeping the dialogue open and not letting the question of race and discrimination get buried, once again, in the nation's unconscious.