The Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld Michigan’s ban on the use of racial preferences in university admissions, a decision that might encourage other states to adopt similar prohibitions.
By a vote of 6 to 2, the court concluded that it was not up to judges to overturn the decision by Michigan voters to disallow consideration of race when deciding who gets into the state’s universities. California, Florida and the state of Washington have similar prohibitions.
Read the court's decision
Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action
The Supreme Court says in a 6-2 ruling that Michigan voters had the right to change their constitution to prohibit public universities from considering race in admissions decisions
Related:
Supreme Court continues to scrutinize affirmative action
Supreme Court continues to scrutinize affirmative action
Robert Barnes OCT 13, 2013
Case asks justices whether Michigan’s ban on preferences can violate guarantee of equal protection.
Supreme Court remands Texas affirmative action plan
Supreme Court remands Texas affirmative action plan
Robert Barnes JUN 24, 2013
Decision is likely to spawn more challenges of race-based admissions, but keeps them alive.
“This case is not about how the debate about racial preferences should be resolved. It is about who may resolve it,” Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote in the court’s controlling opinion.
“There is no authority in the Constitution of the United States or in this court’s precedents for the judiciary to set aside Michigan laws that commit this policy determination to the voters.”
Kennedy was joined by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas agreed with the outcome, but would have gone further to prohibit racial preferences.
Justice Stephen G. Breyer also agreed with the judgment, abandoning the liberal wing of the court.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented, joined by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Justice Elena Kagan did not take part in the decision.
Sotomayor, for the first time in her tenure on the court, noted how strongly she disagreed with the decision by reading her dissent from the bench.
“Today’s decision eviscerates an important strand of our equal protection jurisprudence,” wrote Sotomayor in her 58-page dissenting opinion. “For members of historically marginalized groups, which rely on the federal courts to protect their constitutional rights, the decision can hardly bolster hope for a vision of democracy that preserves for all the right to participate meaningfully and equally in self-government.”
An appeals court had said that a Michigan constitutional amendment banning the use of racial preferences in university admissions, approved by 58 percent of the state’s voters in 2006, had restructured the political process in a way that unfairly targeted minorities.
The Supreme Court decision to uphold the ban was not surprising. At oral arguments, a majority of the justices had been skeptical of the appeals court’s rationale and questioned how requiring the admission process to be color-blind could violate the constitution’s guarantee of equal protection.
Kennedy said the court’s decisions that allow race to be used in limited ways in admission decisions did not dictate that it must be used.
Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette praised the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn the appeals court ruling.
“The U.S. Supreme Court made the right call today,” Schuette said. “Our state constitution requires equal treatment in college admissions, because it is fundamentally wrong to treat people differently based on the color of their skin. A majority of Michigan voters embraced the ideal of equal treatment in 2006, and today their decision was affirmed.”
In a sense, the decision does not change what states are allowed to do, and even many conservative states--Texas, for instance--have been adamant that they be allowed to consider race in order to achieve diverse student bodies.
But the court’s decision could encourage opponents of affirmative action to press for action, using the decision as an impetus.
“The Supreme Court has given voters the green light to eliminate the use of racial preferences in college admissions, which is discouraging for racial diversity,” said Richard D. Kahlenberg, a scholar at the Century Foundation who has advocated for economic diversity in admission decisions.
“The good news, however, is that there are alternative ways to achieve diversity that can also deal with economic inequalities.”
At issue at the Supreme Court was language that says state colleges and universities “shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin.”
The amendment was approved by voters after the Supreme Court, in another case from Michigan, in 2003 allowed the limited use of race as part of an “individualized, holistic review of each applicant’s file.”
But the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit, which narrowly tossed out the Michigan amendment, ruled that there was a difference between not using affirmative action and banning it in the state constitution. The latter violates the principle that minorities must be allowed to fully participate in creating laws and that “the majority may not manipulate the channels of change so as to place unique burdens on issues of importance to them,” Judge R. Guy Cole Jr. wrote.
His comparison was that while residents of Michigan’s Upper Peninsula may lobby decision-makers to grant preferences to their underrepresented students, minority groups would now have to change the constitution before even having a chance to advocate racial considerations because of the amendment.
The case is Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action. Kagan gave no reason for her recusal, as is customary, but it was likely because she had worked on the issue while previously serving as the Obama administration’s solicitor general.
Last term, in a case challenging the University of Texas’s use of race in making some admission decisions, the court declined to revise its holding in a previous case. The justices sent the case back to a lower court for a closer look at whether the university had used all the tools at its disposal to increase racial diversity before resorting to considering race in admissions.
It's the correct ruling. Affirmative action (or any similar program) is only barely legal under equal protection anyway, so a State doing away with it shoudn't be a major problem.
Plus, its good to see the downtrodden white person get a break for once, am I right?
“shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin.”
I've been following this case for quite some time...
I'm trying to figure out how is it that banning discrimination can be deemed discriminatory? o.O
Yeah... these kind of laws are really pants on head... they dont improve anything, and actually serve to set back the people they intent to put ahead, as now even people who got into schools based on grades have to deal with the "diversity hire" stigma that they are there based on skin colour as opposed to personal talent.
But of course, some idiot will start spewing off about how people who think as you and I do are just white privilaged mysogynists who are too busy clubbing baby seals in between driving our hot orange chargers around town while drinking TNT beer and shooting guns out the sun roof.
Because people like that just cannot understand the complexities of how its racist for one group to be granted some extra privilidge through law, and totally not racist for another group to be granted the same extra privilidge through law.
Affirmative action isn't the fight worth having for the progressive movement. It's well meaning, and probably did some good, but it's always been philosophically... rickety.
The opposition to it has its own problems, but it's hard to argue with racial preferences by an ostensibly* color blind government.
*What's mystifying, of course, is all of the selfless crusaders against the racist tyranny of affirmative action are so frequently silent about the huge differences in how races do in the legal system. Maybe now that this is done, they will move on to that?
Good. Affirmative action is founded on the racist belief that black people are interchangeable - that you can counteract discrimination against Alan by discriminating in favour of Bob. The sooner we are rid of it, the better.
Well, this is a touchy issue for her in particular, and I think legal minded progressives in general.
There's no real legal support for her dissent, and plenty of legal support for the majority. The problem she has is that the majority isn't relying simply on the law, they are basically declaring an end to any attempt to redress racial inequality. From any sort of practical, realistic view point, arguing that affirmative action hurts racial inequality is bunk.
But its part of a larger trend in the current discource. Liberals have painted conservatives into a corner, by pointing out how nearly all of their issues hurt, directly or indirectly, disadvantaged minorites. While true, it's asinine to assume racism is behind all of American conservatism. It's a gun that liberals wave around way too much.
The problem is that the defense conservatives have developed is to simply refuse to acknowledge any racism after about 1972. Conservatives are obsessed with racism, but only to the extent that they dont' want to be accused of it.
So we have two factions basically talking past each other. In the past, it didn't matter, because racial politics weren't highly correlated to party or even ideology (althgouh highly to geography). Now, a racial progressive is almost always a democrat, and vice versa.
There's no real legal support for her dissent, and plenty of legal support for the majority. The problem she has is that the majority isn't relying simply on the law, they are basically declaring an end to any attempt to redress racial inequality. From any sort of practical, realistic view point, arguing that affirmative action hurts racial inequality is bunk.
The problem of course is that AA doesn't do that. What it does do is reinforce inequality by creating a racial spoils system.
You want to help equality and "minorities?" Help poor people. You want to help poor people? Give them a good education.
Well, this is a touchy issue for her in particular, and I think legal minded progressives in general.
There's no real legal support for her dissent, and plenty of legal support for the majority. The problem she has is that the majority isn't relying simply on the law, they are basically declaring an end to any attempt to redress racial inequality. From any sort of practical, realistic view point, arguing that affirmative action hurts racial inequality is bunk.
But its part of a larger trend in the current discource. Liberals have painted conservatives into a corner, by pointing out how nearly all of their issues hurt, directly or indirectly, disadvantaged minorites. While true, it's asinine to assume racism is behind all of American conservatism. It's a gun that liberals wave around way too much.
The problem is that the defense conservatives have developed is to simply refuse to acknowledge any racism after about 1972. Conservatives are obsessed with racism, but only to the extent that they dont' want to be accused of it.
So we have two factions basically talking past each other. In the past, it didn't matter, because racial politics weren't highly correlated to party or even ideology (althgouh highly to geography). Now, a racial progressive is almost always a democrat, and vice versa.
Eh... I think the public is getting to the point that we are increasingly tired of being compartmentalized into "race categories".
We are Americans. The sooner we realize that... the current racial tensions would dissipate.
We are Americans. The sooner we realize that... the current racial tensions would dissipate.
If race issues were just about 'feels' yeah maybe, but they're not. Race is class stratified in the US. Blacks and Hispanics are poorer than their white counterparts overall, and you can just make that go away by fixing education or with a better welfare system (both of which are often blocked by a lot of the same people who argue race isn't an issue anymore).
So long as that race divide exists, racism won't cease to be an issue. No one can honestly look at how much poorer blacks are, how much more frequently they go to jail, and how much more frequently they are killed, and say race doesn't matter in American society because we're all Americans. That's nonsensical. It's an argument and world view born from old racism and pushed by people who haven't given it any thought.
And that's not even touching Native Americans, who we still have walled off in their own micro-nations where we patently ignore rampant third world-esque living conditions.
Polonius wrote: From any sort of practical, realistic view point, arguing that affirmative action hurts racial inequality is bunk.
Tell that to a Chinese-American who must get an SAT score 450 points higher than his African-American classmate if he wants the same opportunities to go to college. How is telling him that he needs an SAT score of 1550 and not 1100 to get in, purely because he is of Chinese descent and not of African descent, not racist?
Polonius wrote: From any sort of practical, realistic view point, arguing that affirmative action hurts racial inequality is bunk.
Tell that to a Chinese-American who must get an SAT score 450 points higher than his African-American classmate if he wants the same opportunities to go to college. How is telling him that he needs an SAT score of 1550 and not 1100 to get in, purely because he is of Chinese descent and not of African descent, not racist?
That post is filled with so much stereotyping that is becomes a parody of the whole thread...
Polonius wrote: From any sort of practical, realistic view point, arguing that affirmative action hurts racial inequality is bunk.
Tell that to a Chinese-American who must get an SAT score 450 points higher than his African-American classmate if he wants the same opportunities to go to college. How is telling him that he needs an SAT score of 1550 and not 1100 to get in, purely because he is of Chinese descent and not of African descent, not racist?
That post is filled with so much stereotyping that is becomes a parody of the whole thread...
Polonius wrote: From any sort of practical, realistic view point, arguing that affirmative action hurts racial inequality is bunk.
Tell that to a Chinese-American who must get an SAT score 450 points higher than his African-American classmate if he wants the same opportunities to go to college. How is telling him that he needs an SAT score of 1550 and not 1100 to get in, purely because he is of Chinese descent and not of African descent, not racist?
That post is filled with so much stereotyping that is becomes a parody of the whole thread...
Thats reality in California.
*Puts a finger up in dissent*......Yeah it actually is true.
AlexHolker wrote: Tell that to a Chinese-American who must get an SAT score 450 points higher than his African-American classmate if he wants the same opportunities to go to college. How is telling him that he needs an SAT score of 1550 and not 1100 to get in, purely because he is of Chinese descent and not of African descent, not racist?
That's easy. It's not racist because Asian-Americans aren't as large a voting bloc as African-Americans, and nowhere near as monolithic.
We are Americans. The sooner we realize that... the current racial tensions would dissipate.
If race issues were just about 'feels' yeah maybe, but they're not. Race is class stratified in the US. Blacks and Hispanics are poorer than their white counterparts overall, and you can just make that go away by fixing education or with a better welfare system (both of which are often blocked by a lot of the same people who argue race isn't an issue anymore).
So long as that race divide exists, racism won't cease to be an issue. No one can honestly look at how much poorer blacks are, how much more frequently they go to jail, and how much more frequently they are killed, and say race doesn't matter in American society because we're all Americans. That's nonsensical. It's an argument and world view born from old racism and pushed by people who haven't given it any thought.
And that's not even touching Native Americans, who we still have walled off in their own micro-nations where we patently ignore rampant third world-esque living conditions.
You don't fix racism by being more discriminatory.
This is Michigan's referendum:
“The state shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting.”
How is that a bad thing?
We can talk about issues that are impacting certain race or class all day long. That's not the point here.
Michigan can now move forward on equally treating their citizens... equally.
You fix racism and race based discrimination and adverse effects caused by race based policies by implementing policies that counteract those effects.
Deciding that group x does not have the same resources available to them as group y so group x should not have the same exact standards as group y is not racism. But this thread is oozing so much white privilege that any reason will just drown.
whembly wrote: You don't fix racism by being more discriminatory.
You don't fix it by pretending it doesn't exist either (if anything, that encourages racism). If Affirmative Action really worked, we'd probably have seen better results, but I don't really see any improvement in the conditions for minorities. That's because Affirmative action doesn't really address the problem.
It tried to elevate minorities by lowering 'white people standards' (I'm just gonna call it this for *shrugs* reasons) to a level that they could meet. That's counter productive, as affirmative action does nothing to actually redress the reasons why minorities can't meet 'white people standards' in the first place. It's a lot like the ACA, an attempt to fix the problem of people who can't afford medical care by giving them all insurance while doing nothing to address why healthcare is so damn expensive in the US.
I'm not arguing for AA. But people have gotten it into their heads that AA isn't needed anymore because racism is dead and that is a load of BS. AA is bad is because it doesn't work, not because we are now free to ignore the plights of the underprivilaged because none of us hate black people anymore.
It's really based less on race and more on money. I saw this one graph (I'll have to look it up) that showed a direct correlation between parent's income and SAT score.
d-usa wrote: You fix racism and race based discrimination and adverse effects caused by race based policies by implementing policies that counteract those effects.
Deciding that group x does not have the same resources available to them as group y so group x should not have the same exact standards as group y is not racism. But this thread is oozing so much white privilege that any reason will just drown.
How in the bloody hell is this white privilege?
o.O
The way to stop discriminating on the basis of race is... wait for it... to stop discriminating on the basis of race.
whembly wrote: You don't fix racism by being more discriminatory.
You don't fix it by pretending it doesn't exist either (if anything, that encourages racism). If Affirmative Action really worked, we'd probably have seen better results, but I don't really see any improvement in the conditions for minorities. That's because Affirmative action doesn't really address the problem.
It tried to elevate minorities by lowering 'white people standards' (I'm just gonna call it this for *shrugs* reasons) to a level that they could meet. That's counter productive, as affirmative action does nothing to actually redress the reasons why minorities can't meet 'white people standards' in the first place. It's a lot like the ACA, an attempt to fix the problem of people who can't afford medical care by giving them all insurance while doing nothing to address why healthcare is so damn expensive in the US.
I'm not arguing for AA. But people have gotten it into their heads that AA isn't needed anymore because racism is dead and that is a load of BS. AA is bad is because it doesn't work, not because we are now free to ignore the plights of the underprivilaged because none of us hate black people anymore.
O.o
I'm not sure we're both arguing on the same position.
I'm all for social programs, tax money being used to help the poor and such. Just not on the basis of race.
If a particular group has, picking numbers out of the air, 50% of the nations prison places and 2% of university places but makes up 15% of the population, it makes sense to target that group above and beyond a group which is doing much better in terms of having more people in higher education than prison...
The best way to break the cycle is to take people out of the environment by offering them chances that they might not otherwise have because of the quality of the school they went to, or the parents they had, or because there is no money to put them through university, etc.
While it may seem unfair on the surface, it actually makes the world a fairer place. There are no shortage of places to learn, but some people need a bit of help to reach where they may well have been able to get to had they been given more breaks in their life.
The best way to break the cycle is to take people out of the environment by offering them chances that they might not otherwise have because of the quality of the school they went to, or the parents they had, or because there is no money to put them through university, etc.
And what happens when they fail because they had a lower quality education?
Stop cutting school budgets would be a good start . I really think we should just go towards universal schooling. Or at the very least, improve student loans.
Expanding social programs to help the poor will likely help improve the plights of African Americans, but they have a unique place in US culture and history (much like how Native Americans occupy a unique place as well). We can't really solve their problems by pretending otherwise because of reverse racism nonsense. The best way to solve specific problems is to deal with specific problems. Broader social assitence and welfare programs will help all the poor but it's unlikely to resolve the issues plaging specific groups of the poor.
Expanding social programs to help the poor will likely help improve the plights of African Americans, but they have a unique place in US culture and history (much like how Native Americans occupy a unique place as well). We can't really solve their problems by pretending otherwise because of reverse racism nonsense. The best way to solve specific problems is to deal with specific problems. Broader social assitence and welfare programs will help all the poor but it's unlikely to resolve the issues plaging specific groups of the poor.
Before we devolve further in this back-n-forth joust.
Expanding social programs to help the poor will likely help improve the plights of African Americans, but they have a unique place in US culture and history (much like how Native Americans occupy a unique place as well). We can't really solve their problems by pretending otherwise because of reverse racism nonsense. The best way to solve specific problems is to deal with specific problems. Broader social assitence and welfare programs will help all the poor but it's unlikely to resolve the issues plaging specific groups of the poor.
So favor one above all is what I notice here. I know you did not mean that literally.
If you expand the Social Programs all one is doing is digging the hole deeper. For if I am getting a crap ton of benefits with no effort then why would I make the effort to improve my standards and lose those benefits?
Expanding social programs to help the poor will likely help improve the plights of African Americans, but they have a unique place in US culture and history (much like how Native Americans occupy a unique place as well). We can't really solve their problems by pretending otherwise because of reverse racism nonsense. The best way to solve specific problems is to deal with specific problems. Broader social assitence and welfare programs will help all the poor but it's unlikely to resolve the issues plaging specific groups of the poor.
So favor one above all is what I notice here. I know you did not mean that literally.
If you expand the Social Programs all one is doing is digging the hole deeper. For if I am getting a crap ton of benefits with no effort then why would I make the effort to improve my standards and lose those benefits?
So, do you think that if you are poor it automatically means that you are lazy and live a parasitic life? Because that's what you are insinuating.
The best way to break the cycle is to take people out of the environment by offering them chances that they might not otherwise have because of the quality of the school they went to, or the parents they had, or because there is no money to put them through university, etc.
And what happens when they fail because they had a lower quality education?
Who says they will fail? I don't know what entrance requirements are like in the US, but here in the UK the 'best' institutions give the highest entry requirements... not necessarily because they give the highest quality education, simply because you are 'paying for the badge' (to put it in terms of cars ).
I'm currently doing my third post-graduate qualification as part of a professional qualification and registration, at my third university. All three have been somewhere in the top tables for UK and even world universities, with the current being a world leading centre for my area of study and a world leading university in its own right... yet the content and assessment of material has not differed significantly between each course or each centre in terms of the quality expected, nor has this been the case, as far as I am aware, for people with different educational backgrounds who attained their education at differnt schools and universities.
"Positive discrimination" can take a number of forms, from preferentially selecting a candidate from group x when there are candidates who are otherwise equal, giving a "boost" to candidates from group x by offering them lower entry requirements, etc...
It is not just a case of taking anyone just because they are from group x, but ensuring that they have an increased, reasonable chance.
And as mentioned, there are plenty of places to learn... by ensuring that all, but especially top univetsities open up slots that would otherwise have gone to the largest population group who don't have any particular problems and, as the saying goes "could walk into any school on the planet and do well", you provide maximum advantage for the disadvantaged, while only putting a small disadvantage on the advantaged.
There are others who can explan much better (and who are not uaing a phone to post!) So i shall leave it to them, or for you to do a search for the literature.
d-usa wrote: You fix racism and race based discrimination and adverse effects caused by race based policies by implementing policies that counteract those effects.
Deciding that group x does not have the same resources available to them as group y so group x should not have the same exact standards as group y is not racism. But this thread is oozing so much white privilege that any reason will just drown.
But discriminating against others as a result of your decision IS racism.
Expanding social programs to help the poor will likely help improve the plights of African Americans, but they have a unique place in US culture and history (much like how Native Americans occupy a unique place as well). We can't really solve their problems by pretending otherwise because of reverse racism nonsense. The best way to solve specific problems is to deal with specific problems. Broader social assitence and welfare programs will help all the poor but it's unlikely to resolve the issues plaging specific groups of the poor.
So favor one above all is what I notice here. I know you did not mean that literally.
If you expand the Social Programs all one is doing is digging the hole deeper. For if I am getting a crap ton of benefits with no effort then why would I make the effort to improve my standards and lose those benefits?
So, do you think that if you are poor it automatically means that you are lazy and live a parasitic life? Because that's what you are insinuating.
Where's Seaward to preach about the value of bootstraps?
SilverMK2 wrote: If a particular group has, picking numbers out of the air, 50% of the nations prison places and 2% of university places but makes up 15% of the population, it makes sense to target that group above and beyond a group which is doing much better in terms of having more people in higher education than prison...
Yes indeed.
The best way to break the cycle is to take people out of the environment by offering them chances that they might not otherwise have because of the quality of the school they went to, or the parents they had, or because there is no money to put them through university, etc.
Give them the opportunity for an excellent education. IT DOES NOT MEAN they should get preferences over others.
Again why does the poor Appalachian and Hmong refugee get discriminated against?
d-usa wrote: You fix racism and race based discrimination and adverse effects caused by race based policies by implementing policies that counteract those effects.
Deciding that group x does not have the same resources available to them as group y so group x should not have the same exact standards as group y is not racism. But this thread is oozing so much white privilege that any reason will just drown.
But discriminating against others as a result of your decision IS racism.
You are not discriminating against them though, they have the same relative change to get accepted instead of their peers as anybody else.
All you are doing is not discriminating in their favor any longer.
That social welfare is a good think for helping the underprivilaged, but if we ignore race we end up ignoring specific problems affecting people of a specific race. The higher rates of death and incarcaration of young blacks for example, will likely be reduced by better social programs, but we'll likely still see them suffering those problems at a much higher rate than others because the programs don't specifically address them.
We'd have to put time and money into identifying the factors that lead to those problems (which is tricky) and then develop plans to resolve them. That means that we would have to spend government money, specifically on african american communities.
That doesn't mean we don't spend money on anyone else. Rural appalachian populations (especially in coal towns) have their own specific set of problems are are mostly white. Indian Reservations imo have been ignored far too long as well. I don't know enough about any of those issues to solve them myself, if I did I'd be a rich government administrator by now (maybe)
All I'm really say is that ignoring that there are race based social inequilities doesn't make them go away.
d-usa wrote: You fix racism and race based discrimination and adverse effects caused by race based policies by implementing policies that counteract those effects.
Deciding that group x does not have the same resources available to them as group y so group x should not have the same exact standards as group y is not racism. But this thread is oozing so much white privilege that any reason will just drown.
Asking that everyone should be judged by the same merits is not white privilege.
Scholarships, support, aid, whatever's needed in order to compensate for minorities falling behind, fine, that's helping them "catch up", as it were, to the rest. Once we start going into the practice of lowering admittance requirements for some people but not others we're missing the point. The point isn't to get more minorities into College, the point is to increase the educational level of minorities to match those of the majority, at which point the College representation will solve itself.
d-usa wrote: You fix racism and race based discrimination and adverse effects caused by race based policies by implementing policies that counteract those effects.
Deciding that group x does not have the same resources available to them as group y so group x should not have the same exact standards as group y is not racism. But this thread is oozing so much white privilege that any reason will just drown.
Asking that everyone should be judged by the same merits is not white privilege.
Believing in the myth that things are a meritocracy when everything shows otherwise is. Ideally it would be, but it isn't, and pretending it is doesn't generate change.
You are not discriminating against them though, they have the same relative change to get accepted instead of their peers as anybody else.
If you're putting a quota on certain groups thats discrimination, else your whole disparate impact argument falls apart.
You don't have to apply a quota method to give an advantage to someone. In fact, I would think the quota method ia about the worst system it is possible to use.
My wife's school uses metrics like 'value added' to lookm at what grade students are expected ti get based on their socioeconomic background, family background, etc... (it is surprising how accurately you can predict the kinds of grades someone will get by looking at their ability at the start of school and their background) if they do better then the predicted grade then the school has 'added value' (little fuzzy on rhe specifics but that is the essentials of the odea). By using the same kind of information to shed light on the grades of candidates, universities can then select on a more level playing field.
Asking that everyone should be judged by the same merits is not white privilege.
Believing in the myth that things are a meritocracy when everything shows otherwise is. Ideally it would be, but it isn't, and pretending it is doesn't generate change.
Almost none of life is a meritocracy.
There's a phrase that gets tossed out a lot in this topic "just take the most qualified applicant." Which presupposed that there is such a mythical creature. In nearly all cases, especially in college admissions, there are plenty of borderline cases with some strengths, and some weaknesses.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, Affirmative Action isn't there to fight racism, its there to fight racial inequality. There's almost no good way to fight racial inequality without targetting the racial group in question.
d-usa wrote: You fix racism and race based discrimination and adverse effects caused by race based policies by implementing policies that counteract those effects.
Deciding that group x does not have the same resources available to them as group y so group x should not have the same exact standards as group y is not racism. But this thread is oozing so much white privilege that any reason will just drown.
Asking that everyone should be judged by the same merits is not white privilege.
It is because it includes pretending that everybody had the exact same opportunities and resources as you.
You are not discriminating against them though, they have the same relative change to get accepted instead of their peers as anybody else.
If you're putting a quota on certain groups thats discrimination, else your whole disparate impact argument falls apart.
Show me where I advocated quotas then.
A quota system is stupid and the worst possible way to implement any form of affirmative action. You shouldn't have a magic formula that says "10% of kids in our community are black, so 10% of students we accept need to be black". That doesn't take the actual struggles of the different groups into consideration and doesn't prevent them or right them.
What Affirmative Action is supposed to do is to look at each individual group (and it should be culturally based, more so than racially based, because a white kid in an inner city school growing up in poverty surrounded by crime is facing the same issues that a black kid faces) and realize that each group has individual barriers and influences that they have to deal with.
A kid growing up in an inner city public school with minimal funding, surrounded by poverty and crime is going to have a much more difficult educational path than a kid growing up in a well funded school with lots of extracurricular activities and AP classes, well funded parents that can further their education, and who don't have to worry about getting killed on the way to school each day or having to skip homework because they have to work to help bring income for the family.
So the black student might have an SAT score that is 100 points lower than the white kid and a GPA that is 0.25 lower than the white kid. But the black kid might be in the top 5% of his peer group and the white kid might be in the top 30% of his peer group. Relatively speaking the black kid has shown more success than the white kid, and that is the kind of stuff that affirmative action should take into consideration. He should be accepted not because he is black and they don't have enough black kids yet, he should be accepted because he was more successful considering the circumstances than the white kid.
That's not racism, that's not rewarding him for being black or punishing the white kid for being white, that's rewarding the person that did the most with what life gave them.
The point here is that The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment either means what it clearly says or it doesn’t.
If it doesn’t mean that citizens are equal under the law, then I guess we can end the discussion about thing like SSM. We can’t claim that 'Teh Equal Protection' means ‘equal protection’ in some cases and not others.
The idea that we can or should remedy past discriminatory wrongs by furthering discrimination... especiallyagainst those that played no role in the past is just fething crazypants.
Further, the notion that a particular race, class or gender should be collectively punished for what their predecessors did runs contrary to the 14th amendment.... and really our way of life.
In essence, we are punishing the child for the sins of the great-great-grandparent and we are doing so without affording him an iota of due process. He is guilty by the virtue of his birth.
All men are created equal under the law. This does not mean that we are all equal in life outcomes...
If discrimination under the law is wrong, then it must be wrong in all cases.
Yup, didnt take long for people to start throwing around the white privilidge and so on BS.
Anything to justify racism in the form of preferential treatment based on race.
If it was REALLY about helping poor people, guess what, you can still legislate that poor people get more scholarships and access to post 2ndary educations,
WITHOUT discrimination or favortism based on race.
Giving a certain race favorable treatment, based soley on race, and the racist idea that being favorable to jon some how undoes the racist stuff done to paul decades ago, just because they are the same race.
its also racist, because now the race(s) who benifit from AA have to contend with the stigma that they are ONLY there because they are (insert race here) and not because of their personal talents.
The only ones pretending racism doesnt exist, are the proponents of AA , where AA legislates extra privilidges people based soley on race, who cant see the inherent racism in the policy.
AA provides privilidge based on race, and race alone.
Providing privilidge based on race, is racist.
People who support AA, are supporting racism, plain and simple.
To assert that they even NEED AA is racist, as it implies they are an inferior race that cannot do it on their own.
Discrimination is key to a lot of activities, including "the fair selection" of university candidates. After all, you are discriminating against those who did not do as well.
I would be pretty puzzled if medical staff did not discriminate against sending the guy with a broken arm directly into surgery just because he got there before the guy with multiple life threatening injuries who has been rushed in by air ambulance.
Discrimination, like most things in life, is not black and white.
Nor is trying to sort out pronblems that exist now in some way only being done because of wanting to make up for something that happened hundreds of years ago or to "punish" someone just for being in a better position...
whembly wrote: The point here is that The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment either means what it clearly says or it doesn’t.
If it doesn’t mean that citizens are equal under the law, then I guess we can end the discussion about thing like SSM. We can’t claim that 'Teh Equal Protection' means ‘equal protection’ in some cases and not others.
The Equal Protection Clause would actually support AA because it protects people from race-based policies that have discriminated against them and put them in the situations where AA is needed in the first place.
The idea that we can or should remedy past discriminatory wrongs by furthering discrimination... especiallyagainst those that played no role in the past is just fething crazypants.
Only if you ignore the fact that it is not discrimination.
Further, the notion that a particular race, class or gender should be collectively punished for what their predecessors did runs contrary to the 14th amendment.... and really our way of life.
You are not being punished because of what your predecessors did. You are just pretending that you no longer benefit from those actions.
It also makes sure that minority groups are not punished by the effects that are still very much alive today that were created by the policies that were enacted by your predecessors and which still benefit you today.
In essence, we are punishing the child for the sins of the great-great-grandparent and we are doing so without affording him an iota of due process. He is guilty by the virtue of his birth.
NO, we are no longer punishing a different child for the sins of our great-great-grandparents (and if you think you have to go back 4 generations to hit racist policies then you are really out of touch).
All men are created equal under the law. This does not mean that we are all equal in life outcomes...
But today, right now, all men do not have equal opportunities. Running your mouth about equal outcomes is irrelevant as long as we are not all starting with the same resources. Bootstrapping is the wishful name for white priviledge.
If discrimination under the law is wrong, then it must be wrong in all cases.
Period.
End of.
Story.
So quit discriminating against people, which AA isn't doing unless it's a stupid quota system.
If it doesn’t mean that citizens are equal under the law,
Define equal under the law. This is where a lot of people hit cold harsh reality, where what words say and what they mean is not a clear cut issue. "Nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws" that kind of immediately raises the question "what if they weren't equal to begin with?"
We could go to intent, but then you'd have to deal with the Freedman's Beauru, and obvious early attempt at Affirmative Action by the same prople who went on to pass the 14th Amendment.
easysauce wrote: Yup, didnt take long for people to start throwing around the white privilidge and so on BS.
Anything to justify racism in the form of preferential treatment based on race.
Anything to help you go "blah blah blah I didn't benefit from anything because of my race blah blah blah".
If it was REALLY about helping poor people, guess what, you can still legislate that poor people get more scholarships and access to post 2ndary educations,
WITHOUT discrimination or favortism based on race.
A poor person in a well funded school is still going to have better success than a poor person in a non-funded school.
And as soon as the majority of the scholarships go to black people because they need it everybody will be accused of discriminating against white people again.
Giving a certain race favorable treatment, based soley on race, and the racist idea that being favorable to jon some how undoes the racist stuff done to paul decades ago, just because they are the same race.
You don't base it solely on race.
its also racist, because now the race(s) who benifit from AA have to contend with the stigma that they are ONLY there because they are (insert race here) and not because of their personal talents.
That stigma says a lot more about the racist and prejudicial thoughts of white people if they see a black person in college and automatically assume that they are not smart enough to be there. It has nothing to do with AA, it has nothing to do with the minority, it has everything to do with prejudicial attitudes that are still present today even though we are supposedly past that kind of thinking.
The only ones pretending racism doesnt exist, are the proponents of AA , where AA legislates extra privilidges people based soley on race, who cant see the inherent racism in the policy.
They don't get extra privileges.
AA provides privilidge based on race, and race alone.
False.
Providing privilidge based on race, is racist.
Except it isn't based solely on race.
People who support AA, are supporting racism, plain and simple.
Opponents of AA are wanting to keep their benefits that they got from racism, plain and simple. (see how easy it is to make stupid statements that are not based on facts?)
To assert that they even NEED AA is racist, as it implies they are an inferior race that cannot do it on their own.
AA has nothing to do with any assumption about the intelligence or abilities of minorities. It has everything to do with acknowledging the effect of policies on certain socioeconomic subgroups .
Co'tor Shas wrote: Stop cutting school budgets would be a good start . I really think we should just go towards universal schooling. Or at the very least, improve student loans.
I agree, I personally think school funding should be controlled by the federal government and not state, along with standards and testing.
Its stupid you can drive an hour and get the same scores and pass where you just failed.
wow... gee, I must have been sick that day at life when they were handing out all this free stuff for white people...
White privilidge is nothing more then asserting that all white people are racist, inherently and unchangably so.
Anyways, everything I said is factually true, despite your claims that AA isnt based on race, it is in fact, based on race. It does in fact give positions away based on race. Not sure why you would argue those points, as its written into the AA law that they work that way.
My GF is asian, and my best friend is black, both agree with me that AA is detrimental at this point in history, and likely was before as well.
So your idea that I only hold this position because im a "privilidged white" is just silly, and Ill just assume your not intentionally trying to be insulting, but it is insulting.
Its just as bad to assume white people got where they are because of white privilidge as it is to assume black people only got into colledge because of AA.
No matter how you slice or spin it, AA is racist, and hypocritical.
I think the opposite. Standardized testing makes for nice easily measured results, but it encourages people to not even bother thinking and to simply memorize the 'correct' answer. Air apostrophes necessary because most text books used in our schools (especially in literature and history) contain about 50% misinformation.
LordofHats wrote: I think the opposite. Standardized testing makes for nice easily measured results, but it encourages people to not even bother thinking and to simply memorize the 'correct' answer. Air apostrophes necessary because most text books used in our schools (especially in literature and history) contain about 50% misinformation.
And what if there are no standards? People will work as little as possible.
Speaking from second hand personal experience (my father was an undergrad counselor @ UC Davis for 30+years), I'm glad this was upheld. A student's admission to university shouldn't be made on race, it should be made on merit. I can't count the number of times I listened to my dad rant about how stupid the university was, because state law forced it to offer admission to students who did poorly academically, over those who worked their asses off.
White privilidge is nothing more then asserting that all white people are racist, inherently and unchangably so.
100% factually incorrect, that is about as far away from what White Privilege is as you could possibly be.
So your idea that I only hold this position because im a "privilidged white" is just silly, and Ill just assume your not intentionally trying to be insulting, but it is insulting.
You don't "only hold this position" because you are white. It's just wishful thinking to pretend that your socioeconomic background and your race had absolutely nothing to do with it.
Its just as bad to assume white people got where they are because of white privilidge as it is to assume black people only got into colledge because of AA.
Acknowledging that your race is one benefit that you have over a minority, while also acknowledging that it is not the only factor, is exactly the same as acknowledging that certain groups have lower test scores because of policies because of policies that have been implemented over many decades and which also continue today.
To repeat: White people are not successful only because they are white. Black people are not less successful only because they are black. Both groups are affected by laws, policies, and funding levels that had specific impacts on multiple socioeconomic and cultural groups. Some groups are more aware of the impact these policies continue to have on them than others.
d-usa wrote: You fix racism and race based discrimination and adverse effects caused by race based policies by implementing policies that counteract those effects.
Deciding that group x does not have the same resources available to them as group y so group x should not have the same exact standards as group y is not racism. But this thread is oozing so much white privilege that any reason will just drown.
Asking that everyone should be judged by the same merits is not white privilege.
Believing in the myth that things are a meritocracy when everything shows otherwise is. Ideally it would be, but it isn't, and pretending it is doesn't generate change.
Hence the second part of my post that you ignored.
d-usa wrote: You fix racism and race based discrimination and adverse effects caused by race based policies by implementing policies that counteract those effects.
Deciding that group x does not have the same resources available to them as group y so group x should not have the same exact standards as group y is not racism. But this thread is oozing so much white privilege that any reason will just drown.
Asking that everyone should be judged by the same merits is not white privilege.
It is because it includes pretending that everybody had the exact same opportunities and resources as you.
VermGho5t wrote: A student's admission to university shouldn't be made on race, it should be made on merit.
And Unicorns and Iron Man suits should be real, but they ain't.
It can however, be based on neutral criteria. For example the top 10% of students in every high school in Texas are guaranteed a spot at a UT school. Aggieville requires a knowledge of math and/or pickup trucks. g
U of Houston requires advanced hand to hand combat and CQB techniques to survive the parking lot, and the ability to sign your name. Guess where I went...
VermGho5t wrote: A student's admission to university shouldn't be made on race, it should be made on merit.
And Unicorns and Iron Man suits should be real, but they ain't.
It can however, be based on neutral criteria. For example the top 10% of students in every high school in Texas are guaranteed a spot at a UT school.
And in a way that is affirmative action, implemented in a way that is fair and takes into account that a student in a crap underfunded school surrounded by poverty doesn't get left out. Top 10% in a crap school gets the same shot as top 10% of the best school.
VermGho5t wrote: A student's admission to university shouldn't be made on race, it should be made on merit.
And Unicorns and Iron Man suits should be real, but they ain't.
It can however, be based on neutral criteria. For example the top 10% of students in every high school in Texas are guaranteed a spot at a UT school.
And in a way that is affirmative action, implemented in a way that is fair and takes into account that a student in a crap underfunded school surrounded by poverty doesn't get left out. Top 10% in a crap school gets the same shot as top 10% of the best school.
Anything to help you go "blah blah blah I didn't benefit from anything because of my race blah blah blah".
So white people don't live in poor places that have crap underfunded schools surrounded by poverty?
So people don't read all of a discussion and re-ask answered questions?
I dunno, I've seen people discuss around each other before in here and past each other, I thought I'd give it a try.
Though I'm more curious how recently white = 100% privileged, considering that not long ago the Irish were discriminated against as well. Could someone give me a low down on what is considered a privileged vs non-privileged class nowadays.
White Privilege isn't about having nice things, or being wealthy, nor has it ever meant those things. It has to do with unearned, systematic, institutional things that are often overlooked or unnoticed when you are white, which also makes it difficult to explain to some people.
ZebioLizard2 wrote: considering that not long ago the Irish were discriminated against as well.
So was being Italian, but we don't live in the past, and those two groups are now considered white. There are books out there about it if you want to learn more, like How the Irish Became White, for starters.
Anything to help you go "blah blah blah I didn't benefit from anything because of my race blah blah blah".
So white people don't live in poor places that have crap underfunded schools surrounded by poverty?
So people don't read all of a discussion and re-ask answered questions?
I dunno, I've seen people discuss around each other before in here and past each other, I thought I'd give it a try.
Though I'm more curious how recently white = 100% privileged, considering that not long ago the Irish were discriminated against as well. Could someone give me a low down on what is considered a privileged vs non-privileged class nowadays.
If you'd spend more time reading and less time ranting you might have seen that I have said that socioeconomic status and cultural groups would be a better indicator of who should benefit from AA because a white kid living in poverty in a crime ridden area and going to a crap underfunded school would have the same difficulty as a black kid in the same neighborhood.
The sad thing is that at this point, even in 2014, racial groups are still not affected equally by these problems so race continues to be used as a quick "catch-all" for those groups.
That's why policies like the UT schools create sensible AA actions. Top 10% of every school gets automatic admission to any UT school. There will be students from well off schools and affluent neighborhoods that will be left out of that, and there will be kids from poor schools and crap neighborhoods that will be automatically accepted because they are in the 10%. Race is not an overt factor in that, but cultural and socioeconomic factors are taken into consideration.
whembly wrote: The point here is that The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment either means what it clearly says or it doesn’t.
If it doesn’t mean that citizens are equal under the law, then I guess we can end the discussion about thing like SSM. We can’t claim that 'Teh Equal Protection' means ‘equal protection’ in some cases and not others.
The Equal Protection Clause would actually support AA because it protects people from race-based policies that have discriminated against them and put them in the situations where AA is needed in the first place.
What are these "race-based policies that have discriminated against them" that justified things like AAnow?
The idea that we can or should remedy past discriminatory wrongs by furthering discrimination... especiallyagainst those that played no role in the past is just fething crazypants.
Only if you ignore the fact that it is not discrimination.
If one group is given preferential treatment over another group based on skin color, isn't that discrimination?
Further, the notion that a particular race, class or gender should be collectively punished for what their predecessors did runs contrary to the 14th amendment.... and really our way of life.
You are not being punished because of what your predecessors did.
Then why am I (or my sons) held to different standards then?
You are just pretending that you no longer benefit from those actions.
What are these benefits? Please list those out.
It also makes sure that minority groups are not punished by the effects that are still very much alive today that were created by the policies that were enacted by your predecessors and which still benefit you today.
What are these again?
In essence, we are punishing the child for the sins of the great-great-grandparent and we are doing so without affording him an iota of due process. He is guilty by the virtue of his birth.
NO, we are no longer punishing a different child for the sins of our great-great-grandparents (and if you think you have to go back 4 generations to hit racist policies then you are really out of touch).
What are the racist policies that you think I'm directly or indirectly perpetuating here?
All men are created equal under the law. This does not mean that we are all equal in life outcomes...
But today, right now, all men do not have equal opportunities. Running your mouth about equal outcomes is irrelevant as long as we are not all starting with the same resources. Bootstrapping is the wishful name for white priviledge.
You think everyone should start with the same resources? Have the same life experiences?
And I'm out of touch with reality?
Dude!
If discrimination under the law is wrong, then it must be wrong in all cases.
Period.
End of.
Story.
So quit discriminating against people, which AA isn't doing unless it's a stupid quota system.
I'm advocating a belief in treating people as individuals and not simply as a member of race.
If you want to get technical, the color of a person’s skin is technically a difference, but it is not a significant difference.
Or... as my grandpa... who was a crusty, old fogey likes to say: "If ya skin a white man, and skin a black man... what do you see? Ain't much difference...eh"
So was being Italian, but we don't live in the past, and those two groups are now considered white. There are books out there about it if you want to learn more, like How the Irish Became White, for starters.
Huh, might pick that up next time I check at the library, I've always been curious how that swap in cultural image came about. Though I actually didn't know about the Italian's being discriminated against so that might be worth a check as well.
That's why policies like the UT schools create sensible AA actions. Top 10% of every school gets automatic admission to any UT school. There will be students from well off schools and affluent neighborhoods that will be left out of that, and there will be kids from poor schools and crap neighborhoods that will be automatically accepted because they are in the 10%. Race is not an overt factor in that, but cultural and socioeconomic factors are taken into consideration.
Hmmm, true enough, those are better options for trying to attempt to allow for lower economic stature groups to pull themselves up, though at the same time it still means we have to fix the issue with the poor area's to begin with as while that 10% is getting a far better education, that 90% still sadly suffers in an area where they will have issues trying to gain growth in education.
White privilidge is nothing more then asserting that all white people are racist, inherently and unchangably so.
100% factually incorrect, that is about as far away from what White Privilege is as you could possibly be.
No, thats exactly what you are saying, you just dont want to admit that the other side to "all white people have privilidge because they are white" is that it only works if all white people are racists who give privilidge to other white people, because they are white.
Just because you deny its correct, doesnt make it incorrect.
You keep asserting that all white people give all other white people special privilages, which by default, means all white people must be racist to give away privilages based on that.
You cannot have it both ways, either every white person gets and grants white privilage, and thus all white people are racist (which was true at one point, about every race on the planet, not just white people)
Or you can accept the fact that its now 2014, and that white people as a matter of course are not handing out special privilages to others based on skin colour just as asian people are not doing it for asian people as a matter of course.
You are also lumping all "white" people together with it, which is just asinine, and incorrect.
Because if we entertain the idea that "white" people universally discriminate against non whites, then why stop there? they could easily disciminate against other white people because they are irish, or somthing along those lines.
You hold the position that all white people have white priviladge, yes or no.
if yes, how do you explain the fact that all white people get/grant this privilage, whithout being racist?
(doing it subconciously, is still an accusation of inherant, unchangable, racism BTW)
list some SPECIFIC things I am granted by my "white privilage"
If it doesn’t mean that citizens are equal under the law,
Define equal under the law. This is where a lot of people hit cold harsh reality, where what words say and what they mean is not a clear cut issue. "Nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws" that kind of immediately raises the question "what if they weren't equal to begin with?"
We could go to intent, but then you'd have to deal with the Freedman's Beauru, and obvious early attempt at Affirmative Action by the same prople who went on to pass the 14th Amendment.
Actually... that's a good point.
Depends on how you interpret the Constitution.
Ie: Textualist - RAW (Scalia fits this mold I think)
Ie: Originallist - RAI ( Thomas and Alito?)
Ie: Modernist - "living document crowd" (everyone else?)
Automatically Appended Next Post:
LordofHats wrote: I think the opposite. Standardized testing makes for nice easily measured results, but it encourages people to not even bother thinking and to simply memorize the 'correct' answer. Air apostrophes necessary because most text books used in our schools (especially in literature and history) contain about 50% misinformation.
I think there's a place for standardized testing... but, not to the degree that we're seeing now. Especially troublesome linking government fundings based on those results.
White privilidge is nothing more then asserting that all white people are racist, inherently and unchangably so.
100% factually incorrect, that is about as far away from what White Privilege is as you could possibly be.
No, thats exactly what you are saying, you just dont want to admit that the other side to "all white people have privilidge because they are white" is that it only works if all white people are racists who give privilidge to other white people, because they are white.
Just because you deny its correct, doesnt make it incorrect.
You keep asserting that all white people give all other white people special privilages, which by default, means all white people must be racist to give away privilages based on that.
You cannot have it both ways, either every white person gets and grants white privilage, and thus all white people are racist (which was true at one point, about every race on the planet, not just white people)
Or you can accept the fact that its now 2014, and that white people as a matter of course are not handing out special privilages to others based on skin colour just as asian people are not doing it for asian people as a matter of course.
You are also lumping all "white" people together with it, which is just asinine, and incorrect.
Because if we entertain the idea that "white" people universally discriminate against non whites, then why stop there? they could easily disciminate against other white people because they are irish, or somthing along those lines.
You hold the position that all white people have white priviladge, yes or no.
if yes, how do you explain the fact that all white people get/grant this privilage, whithout being racist?
(doing it subconciously, is still an accusation of inherant, unchangable, racism BTW)
Your fancy wall of text fails at the basic level that you appear to think that white privilege relies on white people doing stuff for other white people.
And that is where your entire idea of what white privilege really is falls apart.
Your fancy wall of text fails at the basic level that you appear to think that white privilege relies on white people doing stuff for other white people.
And that is where your entire idea of what white privilege really is falls apart.
so ad hominem insults then?
I am perfectly aware of what it is, maybe answer the questions instead of just assuming lil old me cant fathom the idea.
so now, in contrast to your earlier statements where its something white people actually do and benifit from,
white privilage is now something that no one does?
so if no one is doing it, how can anyone benifit from it?
it just "happens".... a force of nature, like hurricanes or lightning...
right,
You are avoiding the hard questions because you dont have good answers D-usa.
answer the very simple, yes/no question, and list the what specific benifits white privilage is granting white people in 2014
Your fancy wall of text fails at the basic level that you appear to think that white privilege relies on white people doing stuff for other white people.
And that is where your entire idea of what white privilege really is falls apart.
so ad hominem insults then?
Feel free to inform me or any of the MODs about what part of that text was an insult.
easysauce wrote: oh so white privilage is something that no one does?
it just "happens".... a force of nature, like hurricanes or lightning...
right,
You are avoiding the hard questions because you dont have good answers D-usa.
answer the very simple, yes/no question, and list the what specific benifits white privilage has granted white people.
Are we honestly pretending that we never covered this on Dakka?
Okay then, let's pretend that nobody has every explained this to you before. Here are three big ones:
People living in poverty:
Likelihood of ending up in prison (giant picture):
Spoiler:
Wage discrepancy
White people are statistically less likely to live in poverty, are statistically less likely to be arrested and if they are arrested they are get smaller sentences for similar crimes (crack cocaine vs powder cocaine is a wonderful example of racially based sentencing guidelines), if they do have a job they are more likely to make more money.
That's not because white people give other white people a break. That's not because white people are actively trying to keep the minority down. It is because through decades of bad laws and bad policies we have created a class of people (largely overlapping with race) that is stuck in a pit and can't get themselves out without any help. We now pretend that these people don't exist and that they don't suffer from the cycle of misery that our policies have created.
White Privilege is not about White People helping out other White People. White Privilege is about White People being statistically much less likely to have to deal with any of that crap, and therefore having a much better change to not be affected by it and moving up, and then not even realizing that they are benefiting from that statistical difference.
I'm confused. Per NBC hispanics are white or black too.
Wouldn't be more appropriate to target the poor. Defining "white" and "Asian" as privileged is... interesting. Indians evidently are privileged as well.
Women in contrast appear to be unprivileged despite being a majority of the population.
Which targets blacks more than white, because more blacks are poor than whites.
How about you target all, else its discriminatory impact against poor whites, Asians, Indians, hispanics, eskimoes, native Americans, and Pacific Islanders. .
Which targets blacks more than white, because more blacks are poor than whites.
How about you target all, else its discriminatory impact against poor whites, Asians, Indians, hispanics, eskimoes, native Americans, and Pacific Islanders. .
If you target ALL poor people, you will target more black people than white people because there are more of them.
Which brings us back to the problem of why AA was implemented in the first place.
And what if there are no standards? People will work as little as possible.
I don't mean having no standards (that would defeat the purpose) but the way standardized testing works as we have it now is to break everything down to the lowest common denominator. The only people who can't past those tests are complete idiots, and everyone who passes basically just memorized some run of the mill answers (honestly the SAT is the same way. It's a really basic logic test that really only says you bothered to study basic math and word roots). Their ability to read critically is minimally tested or trained, and their ability to look at material and draw conclusions isn't tested at all.
Can we institute a new thing called Dakka Lottery that you auto win as soon as someone mentions privilege (or privilidge as the case may be). Everytime someone mentions privilege I feel the only people who make any sense of the argument may be hotsauceman due to studying sociology.
( I also think kidneys devilled in hotsauce may sound very tasty)
This whole privilege thing boils down to one thing, economics. People are poor , in a user pays system there will be less access for the poor , this creates an underclass for menial jobs, which lets face it are the most important jobs that need to be done in society.
These AA programs will take GENERATIONS to take effect. Not everyone who can be given a better educational opportunity who exists in a poor socio-economic group will take it , only a small few who can actually see a way out of the gak hole they are in.
Unless the program is applied to all under a certain income level regardless of race it is racist , pure and simple. I'm all for increasing higher education for poorer people (be aware I am in a low income bracket) but giving out benefits for race with quotas is wrong.
The problem is money/education not race. Put anyone in a similar situation regardless of genes and the outcomes will be very similar, essentially it is a social problem not a genealogical one.
Which targets blacks more than white, because more blacks are poor than whites.
How about you target all, else its discriminatory impact against poor whites, Asians, Indians, hispanics, eskimoes, native Americans, and Pacific Islanders. .
If you target ALL poor people, you will target more black people than white people because there are more of them.
Which brings us back to the problem of why AA was implemented in the first place.
Which targets blacks more than white, because more blacks are poor than whites.
How about you target all, else its discriminatory impact against poor whites, Asians, Indians, hispanics, eskimoes, native Americans, and Pacific Islanders. .
If you target ALL poor people, you will target more black people than white people because there are more of them.
Which brings us back to the problem of why AA was implemented in the first place.
How exactly is that a problem???
It's not a problem, it just helps us understand why AA targeted who they targeted. They didn't target blacks because they were black, they targeted blacks because they were the most affected. They screwed the pooch by implementing quota systems and acting like sending X minority kids to college would fix anything without actually looking at who they were sending. I think that AA wouldn't have the reputation as a jacked up reverse racist program if they would have managed to stay away from the damn quota BS.
This ruling is a step in the right direction, but how will this be enforced?
I don't know how the school system works in the US, if it is based on a test score than it can easily be checked, but if it is subjective it will be more difficult to check.
Ahtman wrote: White Privilege isn't about having nice things, or being wealthy, nor has it ever meant those things. It has to do with unearned, systematic, institutional things that are often overlooked or unnoticed when you are white, which also makes it difficult to explain to some people.
The fact that it's hilarious pixie dust bs also plays a role in making it hard to explain, I think.
Ahtman wrote: White Privilege isn't about having nice things, or being wealthy, nor has it ever meant those things. It has to do with unearned, systematic, institutional things that are often overlooked or unnoticed when you are white, which also makes it difficult to explain to some people.
The fact that it's hilarious pixie dust bs also plays a role in making it hard to explain, I think.
It also has something to do with not growing up in a social area with endemic unemployment. I agree with seaward that the less angel dust taken the better.
Ahtman wrote: White Privilege isn't about having nice things, or being wealthy, nor has it ever meant those things. It has to do with unearned, systematic, institutional things that are often overlooked or unnoticed when you are white, which also makes it difficult to explain to some people.
The fact that it's hilarious pixie dust bs also plays a role in making it hard to explain, I think.
Yeah, im still waiting for the list of specific things granted to whites to make them so privileged.
Especially the institutionalized benefits written into our law granting special things.
The reason why people like D-usa cannot provide a list or answer simple yes/no questions with a yes/no, is because they are talking out of their butts on this one.
the fact that D-usas own chart shows that currently, asian people are BETTER off then whites as a group, despite asians undergoing the same racism in ye olde america, is proof that white privilege is a lie.
or is it asian privilege too?
or maybe all the white people are just specifically holding back black people only, and asians get a pass....
the fact that D-usas own chart shows that currently, asian people are BETTER off then whites as a group, despite asians undergoing the same racism in ye olde america, is proof that white privilege is a lie.
or is it asian privilege too?
I could point out that as a group, the discrimination against Asians in the US has always been fleeting compared to that against Blacks, Hispanics, and Natives. I could also point out that many of the racial stereotypes of Asians are viewed positively not negatively, more so as time goes on, and that most Asians in the US were financially well off and successful when they came to the US during the big Asian immigration boom of the last 30 years. I could also say even that a single percentage point on a single chart is hardly a significant issue in what the charts are being used to show.
But that would all just be a waste of time so I wouldn't bother pointing any of it out
I don't know if this has been covered or not cause I haven't read the whole thread but you know what grinds my gears is when I see white people be almost automatically dismissive of other visible minorities opinions on race/ethnicity, you're basically telling them that because of their
race/ethnicity or that their life experiences are different than yours there opinions don't matter, it's condescending. At least give them the benefit of the doubt or try to understand why they came to that conclusion before you judge, that's all I ask. I'm sure someone is going to be dismissive of
this post cause I'm politically liberal/social democrat, young, self-hating white person, have white guilt, social justice warrior or some of other bull gak reason rather than the actual argument but whatever.
the fact that D-usas own chart shows that currently, asian people are BETTER off then whites as a group, despite asians undergoing the same racism in ye olde america, is proof that white privilege is a lie.
or is it asian privilege too?
I could point out that as a group, the discrimination against Asians in the US has always been fleeting compared to that against Blacks, Hispanics, and Natives. I could also point out that many of the racial stereotypes of Asians are viewed positively not negatively, more so as time goes on, and that most Asians in the US were financially well off and successful when they came to the US during the big Asian immigration boom of the last 30 years. I could also say even that a single percentage point on a single chart is hardly a significant issue in what the charts are being used to show.
But that would all just be a waste of time so I wouldn't bother pointing any of it out
well, yes, it is a waste of time to point out things that are incorrect....
If you only see positive asian stereotypes, and no long term racism, then its because you are will fully not looking for it.
I literally just ruined my monitor when you said discrimination against natives was fleeting... you sir owe me a new monitor... and owe yourself a learning, because if you actually consider genocide of an entire race to be "fleeting" it just shows how ill equipped you are to be in this debate.
I could point out that as a group, the discrimination against Asians in the US has always been fleeting compared to that against Blacks, Hispanics, and Natives.
Not sure you can really include Hispanics here. I mean, unless there was some Hispanic enlsavement, internment, or forced upheaval leading to genocide that I missed.....
I could also point out that many of the racial stereotypes of Asians are viewed positively not negatively, more so as time goes on, and that most Asians in the US were financially well off and successful when they came to the US during the big Asian immigration boom of the last 30 years. I could also say even that a single percentage point on a single chart is hardly a significant issue in what the charts are being used to show.
But that would all just be a waste of time so I wouldn't bother pointing any of it out
It would probably be a waste of time, then, to point out that Asian "stereotypes" are all predicated on hard work, discipline, and self reliance...attributes that are wholly "Traditional America".
race/ethnicity or that their life experiences are different than yours there opinions don't matter, it's condescending. At least give them the benefit of the doubt or try to understand why they came to that conclusion before you judge, that's all I ask. I'm sure someone is going to be dismissive of
Is that at all similar to the "if you have a penis you can't comment on abortion" theory that's so popular these days?
LordofHats wrote: I could point out that as a group, the discrimination against Asians in the US has always been fleeting compared to that against Blacks, Hispanics, and Natives. I could also point out that many of the racial stereotypes of Asians are viewed positively not negatively, more so as time goes on, and that most Asians in the US were financially well off and successful when they came to the US during the big Asian immigration boom of the last 30 years. I could also say even that a single percentage point on a single chart is hardly a significant issue in what the charts are being used to show.
But that would all just be a waste of time so I wouldn't bother pointing any of it out
That's true today. It definitely wasn't true when we were building the railroads.
And if you think it's because all the Asian immigrants came over rich in the last thirty years, I dunno what to tell you, save to sit back and think a little harder about why Asian stereotypes might have changed.
I could point out that as a group, the discrimination against Asians in the US has always been fleeting compared to that against Blacks, Hispanics, and Natives. I could also point out that many of the racial stereotypes of Asians are viewed positively not negatively, more so as time goes on, and that most Asians in the US were financially well off and successful when they came to the US during the big Asian immigration boom of the last 30 years. I could also say even that a single percentage point on a single chart is hardly a significant issue in what the charts are being used to show.
But that would all just be a waste of time so I wouldn't bother pointing any of it out
In Sociology there is a concept called "Model Minority"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model_minority Basically that the model minority are "Honorary Whites" with a good family, good worth ethic, but still regarded with suspicion.
In America, Asians are a model Minority
That's true today. It definitely wasn't true when we were building the railroads.
yeah our distaste for Asians has historically been rather selective At some times we probably treated certain whites worse than we treated Asians... the poor Polish...
And if you think it's because all the Asian immigrants came over rich in the last thirty years,
It's more about how the population demographics work out. Asians have always been a smaller minority group in the US. They are today, were 200 years. But they used to be much much smaller. let's put it this way. There are 18,000,000 Asian Americans today. 70 years ago, there were less than 500,000. Since the 70's, the number of Asian Americans has increased 1800%.
Basically, Asians missed out on all the racist fun. They were such a miniscule minority, no one ever talked about them. Ever. They didn't become a demographic of note until after we started to end overt racism in America, so there are far fewer negative assumptions made about them, and as Cindy points out, the stereotypes we associate with Asians suit typical American attitudes. They started off pretty well overall, so they're social position is much stronger than that of Hispanics and Blacks. Add in that historically Blacks have had a major role in US politics and society, and we attach to them and Native Americans a lot of extra baggage.
cincydooley wrote: Is that at all similar to the "if you have a penis you can't comment on abortion" theory that's so popular these days?
Also, feth white guilt.
I guess you could say it's similar to your abortion argument as they're both about dismissiveness but it also depends on the specifics of what's being said like if the person's reasoning is faulty. Yeah, I don't like the term "white guilt" either, the reason I'm concerned about the lives of certain
minorities has nothing to do with guilt (you shouldn't do things out of guilt instead you should do it because that's what you believe in) but to do with me being convinced that they have been disenfranchised by society and that I don't feel that's fair or a good thing. Man, I feel I'm sounding a
yeah our distaste for Asians has historically been rather selective At some times we probably treated certain whites worse than we treated Asians... the poor Polish...
Or the Irish. Or the Italians..... You've got a pretty selective history book.
]
Basically, Asians missed out on all the racist fun. They were such a miniscule minority, no one ever talked about them. Ever. They didn't become a demographic of note until after we started to end overt racism in America, so there are far fewer negative assumptions made about them, and as Cindy points out, the stereotypes we associate with Asians suit typical American attitudes. They started off pretty well overall, so they're social position is much stronger than that of Hispanics and Blacks.
As both Seward and I pointed out, that just isn't true.
Additionally, it's ignorant to ignore the cultural attitude of the Asian American as a pretty deciding factor in their success in the United States. Asian Americans still believe in and value familial shame. If you ask me, we could use a little more of that in the United States as a whole.
That's true today. It definitely wasn't true when we were building the railroads.
yeah our distaste for Asians has historically been rather selective At some times we probably treated certain whites worse than we treated Asians... the poor Polish...
I dunno, asians were the more recently interned in prison camps, there are also plenty of negative stereotypes akin to small penis size, shortness, lack of muscles and athletic ability, and so on and on (all untrue OFC)
I would say its very very much in SPITE of all the racism against them that most asian cultures do so well no matter where in the world they are. That has more to do with actual productive qualities in the different cultures then any kind of "privilege"
yeah our distaste for Asians has historically been rather selective At some times we probably treated certain whites worse than we treated Asians... the poor Polish...
Or the Irish. Or the Italians..... You've got a pretty selective history book.
You just said the same thing as LoH notice the "certain whites" part in his quote he probably was just using Polish people as one example of "certain whites" not meaning that they're the only group belonging to "certain whites".
Or the Irish. Or the Italians..... You've got a pretty selective history book.
For a long time the trick a lot of industrialists played, mostly in the North, was to play the new incoming ethnic group against the old one (that way they kept labor cheap). It' happened to pretty much every white ethnic group that came to the US, but the Slavic ones by far had it the worse, because they were the whites that no one considered properly white (also why the Nazi's hated them, Godwined). Namely for the US, these were Poles and Czechs and during the 1890's, they had it really really bad. Some coal mining companies in PA paid blacks more than they paid Poles for the same work.
You know gak is real when the black guy is getting more money than you in 19th century America.
] Asian Americans still believe in and value familial shame. If you ask me, we could use a little more of that in the United States as a whole.
You're just proving my point. We don't discriminate against Asians as much as others because we view them more positively. Baring certain events like Japanese Interment and the Yellow Scare, racial tensions between whites and other groups have always overshadowed any with Asians. Add in that the big Asian influx didn't start until the 70's and we have a minority group that has mostly avoided the worst ends of what American racism can do.
LordofHats wrote: You're just proving my point. We don't discriminate against Asians as much as others because we view them more positively. Baring certain events like Japanese Interment and the Yellow Scare, racial tensions between whites and other groups have always overshadowed any with Asians. Add in that the big Asian influx didn't start until the 70's and we have a minority group that has mostly avoided the worst ends of what American racism can do.
Do you think we view them more positively because we rolled the dice and that's what the chart told us to do, or do you think there's some other reason?
whembly wrote: I'm all for social programs, tax money being used to help the poor and such. Just not on the basis of race.
I don't think you mean what you're actually saying there - of course various programs can and should be used to target specific racial problems.
Now, just to absolutely clear in what I'm saying, I think ending affirmative action for college entrance is a good thing*, as any effect it might have had is long since passed, and probably wasn't much to begin with. At this point dealing with lower scores among the poor needs to be handled by increasing equality and increasing the standards in schools in poor areas.
But with that out of the way, there's a million and one other places where a basic acceptance of race is part of every day policy. When a specific ethnic group is having a problem with over-representation in crime or even in specific types of crime police commonly reach out to that community and work with them to reduce that crime. When health issues plague a certain community more than others (alcoholism in Native American tribes, diabetes in African Americans, obesity in Hawaiin people) then moves are made to target those communities specifically.
Simply pretending there's no such thing as race is a really impractical way of setting policy.
*And even if it weren't a good thing, it's certainly up to the general population to decide whether they want it as it isn't mandated in any constitutional law, so the Supreme Court is doubly right in its ruling, by my reading of this.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jihadin wrote: If you expand the Social Programs all one is doing is digging the hole deeper. For if I am getting a crap ton of benefits with no effort then why would I make the effort to improve my standards and lose those benefits?
Yeah, the golden hammock story, recently a big part of Paul Ryan's big story. It's basically bs, with zero scholarship behind. I can link to the academic work if you're interested, but the basic reality is that very, very few people are lazy bottom feeders who'll happily accept the meager standard of living offered by welfare and not look for anything better.
Most people on welfare are in fact on it for a fairly short period of time, a few months, with welfare playing an important part in those people getting back on their feet. That's why strong welfare systems are strongly correlated to strong levels of economic mobility.
You're just proving my point. We don't discriminate against Asians as much as others because we view them more positively. Baring certain events like Japanese Interment and the Yellow Scare, racial tensions between whites and other groups have always overshadowed any with Asians. Add in that the big Asian influx didn't start until the 70's and we have a minority group that has mostly avoided the worst ends of what American racism can do.
easysauce wrote: White privilidge is nothing more then asserting that all white people are racist, inherently and unchangably so.
No, it isn't. It is nothing of the sort.
It is acknowledging that there are basic advantages given to people by virtue of being born in to a society where most powerful people share similar traits and cultural upbringing.
Being raised in a white, middle class family I was raised with an understanding of how the majority white, middle class world expects me to think and act - how to write assignments and reports, how to present in interviews, how to socialise around the office.
Now, this doesn't mean that a person of any other culture can't pick up that understanding, or that all white people have it, but to pretend it doesn't exist is just wrong.
Do you think we view them more positively because we rolled the dice and that's what the chart told us to do, or do you think there's some other reason?
I'm not sure how you can characterize any of that as rolling dice. Luck is certainly a historical factor (an often overlooked one) but human actors are hard to characterize so easily.
The one thing I can't account for at all is the shift in Asian stereotypes; attitudes about Asians in the 19th century characterized them as backwards, uneducated, and bad workers. Pretty much the exact opposite of the modern stereotype. How did that happen and when? I have no idea. If I were to hazard a guess it would be in the same time the Asian influx started in the 70's, but it could have happened as a result of WWII/Korea/Vietnam as well. I don't know enough to give a solid answer for that.
Being raised in a white, middle class family I was raised with an understanding of how the majority white, middle class world expects me to think and act - how to write assignments and reports, how to present in interviews, how to socialise around the office.
Now, this doesn't mean that a person of any other culture can't pick up that understanding, or that all white people have it, but to pretend it doesn't exist is just wrong.
But you do agreed that it is learned and not simply inherent, yes?
LordofHats wrote: You're just proving my point. We don't discriminate against Asians as much as others because we view them more positively. Baring certain events like Japanese Interment and the Yellow Scare, racial tensions between whites and other groups have always overshadowed any with Asians. Add in that the big Asian influx didn't start until the 70's and we have a minority group that has mostly avoided the worst ends of what American racism can do.
When it comes to the state of poverty among black people today there is also an issue of just plain bad luck. Over the 20th century as formal, accepted white racism was being slowly pulled back, large black populations were way over-represented in two areas - the inner city areas and the south. And guess what two areas suffered large scale job losses for economic reasons entirely unrelated to the colour of the people living in those areas?
A few years later as we observed the social impacts rolling through those areas and their now high unemployment... and people decided there was a black culture problem.
It would probably be a waste of time, then, to point out that Asian "stereotypes" are all predicated on hard work, discipline, and self reliance...attributes that are wholly "Traditional America".
LordofHats wrote: I'm not sure how you can characterize any of that as rolling dice. Luck is certainly a historical factor (an often overlooked one) but human actors are hard to characterize so easily.
The one thing I can't account for at all is the shift in Asian stereotypes; attitudes about Asians in the 19th century characterized them as backwards, uneducated, and bad workers. Pretty much the exact opposite of the modern stereotype. How did that happen and when? I have no idea. If I were to hazard a guess it would be in the same time the Asian influx started in the 70's, but it could have happened as a result of WWII/Korea/Vietnam as well. I don't know enough to give a solid answer for that.
So you wouldn't think it has anything to do with Asians, if considered as a group, doing extremely well, succeeding and overachieving in America, and the stereotype changing as a result?
It would probably be a waste of time, then, to point out that Asian "stereotypes" are all predicated on hard work, discipline, and self reliance...attributes that are wholly "Traditional America".
So would it stand to reason that "we'd" view other races more positively if they embodies those attributes as well?
So you wouldn't think it has anything to do with Asians, if considered as a group, doing extremely well, succeeding and overachieving in America, and the stereotype changing as a result?
Probable. That goes to explaining changing cultural perceptions of Asians, and why we continue to perceive other minorities more negatively. As a population, their influx came later, and the influx was made of predominantly well educated people and skilled laborers who came in in a post Civil Right's Act America. All the social and historical problems that have entrenched Blacks and Native Americans on the bottom never hit that group so hard. They've succeeded compared to others, and that blinds us the larger reality of why other minorities have not.
cincydooley wrote: Would you also agree that this factor isn't available to white trash?
Sure, I even alluded to that very thing in my earlier post 'this doesn't mean that a person of any other culture can't pick up that understanding, or that all white people have it'.
cincydooley wrote: Would you also agree that this factor isn't available to white trash?
Sure, I even alluded to that very thing in my earlier post 'this doesn't mean that a person of any other culture can't pick up that understanding, or that all white people have it'.
so wouldn't it be better to say its middle class privilege, unless your trying to say that all white people are middle class or? You kinda contradicted yourself in your initial post honestly.
Ahtman wrote: White Privilege isn't about having nice things, or being wealthy, nor has it ever meant those things. It has to do with unearned, systematic, institutional things that are often overlooked or unnoticed when you are white, which also makes it difficult to explain to some people.
The fact that it's hilarious pixie dust bs also plays a role in making it hard to explain, I think.
Yeah, im still waiting for the list of specific things granted to whites to make them so privileged.
Especially the institutionalized benefits written into our law granting special things.
The reason why people like D-usa cannot provide a list or answer simple yes/no questions with a yes/no, is because they are talking out of their butts on this one.
Well, instead of big picture one, lets try a small one.
You ever hear of being pulled over for DWB? It's pretty common in the highly (de facto) segregated suburbs of bigger cities like Cleveland or Detroit. Basically, local cops are far, far more likley to pull over a black driver then a white driver. Hence, "Driving While Black." It's not really reproted or the sort of thing stats are kept on, but it's a common enough phenomenon that most (white) people I know are aware of it.
It's the sort of thing white people simply never have to deal with, not matter how broke they are.
cincydooley wrote: Would you also agree that this factor isn't available to white trash?
Sure, I even alluded to that very thing in my earlier post 'this doesn't mean that a person of any other culture can't pick up that understanding, or that all white people have it'.
so wouldn't it be better to say its middle class privilege, unless your trying to say that all white people are middle class or? You kinda contradicted yourself in your initial post honestly.
I'd argue no. There is still an inherent advantage to being white that's not learned, and that's in the criminal justice system. Everything from stops, to arrests, to prosecutions, to sentencing has a pretty decent "better off white" bias.
You ever hear of being pulled over for DWB? It's pretty common in the highly (de facto) segregated suburbs of bigger cities like Cleveland or Detroit. Basically, local cops are far, far more likley to pull over a black driver then a white driver. Hence, "Driving While Black." It's not really reproted or the sort of thing stats are kept on, but it's a common enough phenomenon that most (white) people I know are aware of it.
It's the sort of thing white people simply never have to deal with, not matter how broke they are.
I'd like to think I've never been pulled over because I've never given an officer any reason to pull me over.
Anyway, I have yet to see any real data that this phenomenon is remotely true.
You ever hear of being pulled over for DWB? It's pretty common in the highly (de facto) segregated suburbs of bigger cities like Cleveland or Detroit. Basically, local cops are far, far more likley to pull over a black driver then a white driver. Hence, "Driving While Black." It's not really reproted or the sort of thing stats are kept on, but it's a common enough phenomenon that most (white) people I know are aware of it.
It's the sort of thing white people simply never have to deal with, not matter how broke they are.
I'd like to think I've never been pulled over because I've never given an officer any reason to pull me over.
Anyway, I have yet to see any real data that this phenomenon is remotely true.
First off, you've never once sped, changed lanes without signaling, or rolled a stop sign? I call BS.
Second: here's a law review article showing blacks are at least twice as likely to be pulled over as white.
I have never sped, ran a stop sign, or done anything else shady in the presence of an officer. And I almost never do those things at any other time either. I'm kinda anal about not speeding and coming to complete stops. I'm that jerk going the exact speed limit in the fast lane.
Grey Templar wrote: I have never sped, ran a stop sign, or done anything else shady in the presence of an officer. And I almost never do those things at any other time either. I'm kinda anal about not speeding and coming to complete stops. I'm that jerk going the exact speed limit in the fast lane.
Happy
Man, why don't you go like 5 or 10 above like everyone else.
soundwave591 wrote: so wouldn't it be better to say its middle class privilege, unless your trying to say that all white people are middle class or? You kinda contradicted yourself in your initial post honestly.
It isn't that all white people are middle class, or that no black people are, but that black people are much less represented in the middle class. Which leads to the flow on effect I described.
soundwave591 wrote: so wouldn't it be better to say its middle class privilege, unless your trying to say that all white people are middle class or? You kinda contradicted yourself in your initial post honestly.
It isn't that all white people are middle class, or that no black people are, but that black people are much less represented in the middle class. Which leads to the flow on effect I described.
That statement still insinuates its much more of a middle class than skin color kinda deal, at least that's how I read it
soundwave591 wrote: That statement still insinuates its much more of a middle class than skin color kinda deal, at least that's how I read it
At this stage I think it is pretty much all about economics, and not about colour. While in the past racist policies and practices led to a lot of black poverty, these days black poverty is largely inherited from parents, who inherited it from parents who were poor, who inherited it from parents who were victims of the old racist policies and practices (the exact number of generations varying, but the effect remaining the same).
Note that simply because it is no longer mostly about colour doesn't mean we get to ignore it. It just means that the solutions become about general solutions to poverty, not about specific racial allowances.
I heard about that one. What's really confusing, is that if you don't want any black folk at your games, wtf do you own a basketball team, let alone any sports team @_@
LordofHats wrote: I heard about that one. What's really confusing, is that if you don't want any black folk at your games, wtf do you own a basketball team, let alone any sports team @_@
Racist doesn't have a problem owning black athletes? Do we need to explain that one?
LordofHats wrote: I heard about that one. What's really confusing, is that if you don't want any black folk at your games, wtf do you own a basketball team, let alone any sports team @_@
Racist doesn't have a problem owning black athletes? Do we need to explain that one?
LordofHats wrote: I heard about that one. What's really confusing, is that if you don't want any black folk at your games, wtf do you own a basketball team, let alone any sports team @_@
Racist doesn't have a problem owning black athletes? Do we need to explain that one?
No he isn't. He's going to come out a winner in this no matter what.
He's either going to get to keep the team, or he's going to be "encouraged" to sell the team for what many people project, based on what the bucks and kings just sold for, for somewhere in the neighborhood of $1B. Considering he paid around $12.5MM for the team and he's 80 and likely doesn't give two feths about his public perception, I'd say the outcome for him will be just fine.
The best part about it is that he's been a pretty public racist for at least 10 years now, or at least since he was sued by the fed for discriminating against minorities in his slum lord dealings. Actually, no. The best part is that the NAACP was slated to give him an award this year.
cincydooley wrote: There's about to be a huge huge lawsuit in the Sterling case. Huge.
Wow... basically a lifetime ban... for something he privately said.
EDIT: /tinfoil hat on....
What's the likelyhood that he's being setup so that Magic Johnson & Crew can buy the Clippers on the cheap? /tinfoil hat off...
cincydooley wrote: There's about to be a huge huge lawsuit in the Sterling case. Huge.
Wow... basically a lifetime ban... for something he privately said.
It wasn't so private once it became a global story, and this isn't the first instance of him acting in such a way. It also isn't basically a lifetime ban, it is an actual lifetime ban and a $2.5 million fine.
The NBA has banned Los Angeles Clippers owner Donald Sterling for life and fined him $2.5 million for racial comments he made to his reported girlfriend. The NBA will immediately begin working to try to force him to sell the team.
"The hateful opinions voiced by that of the man [on the tape] are those of Donald Sterling," NBA commissioner Adam Silver said. "…I'm personally distraught the views expressed by Mr. Sterling came from within an institution that has historically taken such a leadership role in matters of race relations."
As part of the ban, Sterling is not allowed "to attend any NBA games or practices, be present at any Clippers office or facility, or participate in any business or player personnel decisions involving the team." Sterling also will be barred from attending any Board of Governors meetings and participating in any other league activity.
The fine is the maximum the NBA can issue under the NBA constitution, Silver said. Seventy-five percent of the NBA's owners must vote to oust Sterling to force him to sell.
"I fully expect to get the support needed," Silver said.
Several groups hoping to purchase the Clippers are already stepping forward with a bidding war expected to exceed $1 billion for the franchise, league sources told Yahoo Sports. Among those groups, Magic Johnson and Guggenheim Partners will be front and center in pursuit of the Clippers.
. I really think we should just go towards universal schooling. Or at the very least, improve student loans.
At some times we probably treated certain whites worse than we treated Asians... the poor Polish...
