Rand Paul thinks segregation is a 1st Amendment right

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**sexiest_hero**

If you're just waking up to Rachel Maddow's interview with Rand Paul yesterday, welcome to epic. Rand Paul, son of libertarian icon Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX), is Kentucky's new Republican nominee for Senate.

The younger Paul is a Tea Party Republican, and he set the stage for last night's interview by telling NPR about his views on the Civil Rights Act of 1964 earlier in the day. In sum, Paul said he opposes discrimination but has problems with the Civil Rights Act of 1964 because it bans businesses from discriminating against customers.

On the show last night, Paul sounded uncomfortable expressing his views about whether private business owners can hang out a "Black People Not Served Here" sign. He left behind the practical question of African-Americans trying to patronize a store or restaurant for the more theoretical turf of the First Amendment.

MADDOW: Do you think that a private business has the right to say we don't serve black people?

PAUL: I'm not in favor of any discrimination of any form. I would never belong to any club that excluded anybody for race. We still do have private clubs in America that can discriminate based on race.

But I think what's important about this debate is not written into any specific "gotcha" on this, but asking the question: what about freedom of speech? Should we limit speech from people we find abhorrent? Should we limit racists from speaking? I don't want to be associated with those people, but I also don't want to limit their speech in any way in the sense that we tolerate boorish and uncivilized behavior because that's one of the things freedom requires is that we allow people to be boorish and uncivilized, but that doesn't mean we approve of it. I think the problem with this debate is by getting muddled down into it, the implication is somehow that I would approve of
any racism or discrimination, and I don't in any form or fashion.

Maddow predicted on the show that Paul would face questions about this for the rest of his campaign. And indeed, it started overnight. The lefty Boston Phoenix wrote "GOP Leaders Must Call For Rand Paul To Withdraw" and a Kansas City Star columnist asked, "Do they have truth serum at Tea Parties?"

[The full interview]

After the jump, a couple of key Rand Paul quotes.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rand Paul tells us he supports nine out of 10 parts, or titles, of the Civil Rights Act. Paul objects to the tenth because it deals with private businesses.

PAUL: I do defend and believe that the government should not be involved with institutional racism or discrimination or segregation in schools, busing, all those things. But had I been there, there would have been some discussion over one of the titles of the civil rights.

And I think that's a valid point, and still a valid discussion, because the thing is, is if we want to harbor in on private businesses and their policies, then you have to have the discussion about: do you want to abridge the First Amendment as well. Do you want to say that because people say abhorrent things -- you know, we still have this. We're having all this debate over hate speech and this and that. Can you have a newspaper and say abhorrent things? Can you march in a parade and believe in abhorrent things, you know?. . .

I really think that discrimination and racism is a horrible thing. And I don't want any form of it in our government, in our public sphere.

Paul goes on to say that there's "nothing right now to prevent a lot of re-segregating" and that he's proud of the public desegregation -- think roads, transportation, schools, drinking fountains -- that happened over the past 30 or 40 years. He closed by saying that he's not especially interested in the debate:

Paul: Well, I think what you've done is you bring up something that really is not an issue, nothing I've ever spoken about or have any indication that I'm interested in any legislation concerning. So, what you bring up is sort of a red herring. . . . It's a political ploy. I mean, it's brought up as an attack weapon from the other side, and that's the way it will be used.

But, you know, I think a lot of times these attacks fall back on themselves, and I don't think it will have any effect because the thing is, is that every fiber of my being doesn't believe in discrimination, doesn't believe that we should have that in our society. And to imply otherwise is just dishonest.

Same old "I wouldn't do it, but I don't think there is anything wrong with it." Some things you don't have the right to do even on your own property. "No minorities welcome"
isn't free speech, it's just Jim Crowe 2.0.

Edit. He also made a comment about government should have stayed out of school de-segregation as well

**Wrexasaur**

I thought about posting this yesterday... but I feel like Mr. Paul is just trying to get more coverage.

He basically used the entire conversation to establish himself as some sort of realist... but fell on his face while falling and standing at the same time.

It was an odd conversation, I still don't completely get his angle... Him and his pop are pretty fringe IMO.

**sexiest_hero**

MADDOW: Do you think that a private business has the right to say we don't serve black people?

PAUL: Yes. I'm not in favor of any discrimination of any form. I would never belong to any club that excluded anybody for race. We still do have private clubs in America that can discriminate based on race

he also said that he would have voted aginst the Americans with disabilities act.

**Albatross**

What I don't get is the whole 'we should let racist scumbags say whatever they want, discriminate against whoever they want, because that's what freedom is all about' guff.

Why? Why should you let them? You could get together as a society and decide that you don't want that sort of thing to take place in your country. The U.S. Constitution seems to be increasingly being treated as holy scripture by certain sections of American society. It wasn't carved out the living rock by lightning bolts - it was constructed by a group of wealthy merchants, academics and such.

I believe in pragmatism.

**Golden Eyed Scout**

**efarrer**

sexiest_hero wrote:
If you're just waking up to Rachel Maddow's interview with Rand Paul yesterday, welcome to epic. Rand Paul, son of libertarian icon Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX), is Kentucky's new Republican nominee for Senate.

Same old "I wouldn't do it, but I don't think there is anything wrong with it." Some things you don't have the right to do even on your own property. "No minorities welcome"
isn't free speech, it's just Jim Crowe 2.0.

Edit. He also made a comment about government should have stayed out of school de-segregation as well

Did you really expect more? Honestly?

**garret**

Wait. I didnt get thrown back in time to 1960 did I?
But really? wow. makes me said to say im a republican.

**dogma**

sexiest_hero wrote:
Same old "I wouldn't do it, but I don't think there is anything wrong with it." Some things you don't have the right to do even on your own property. "No minorities welcome"
isn't free speech, it's just Jim Crowe 2.0.

I don't think he's saying that he doesn't see anything wrong with racism. On the contrary, it seems like he's saying exactly the opposite of that. As I read it, Rand Paul believes that discrimination, in the categorical sense, is wrong, and that allowing the state to discriminate is particularly odious; including those instances in which legislation marginalizes those who choose to discriminate. That being said, I don't believe that 'those who discriminate' is categorical in the same sense as 'those who are black' due to the fact that discrimination represents a choice, whereas blackness does not. Additionally, singling someone out for their discriminatory habits is a direct criticism of his habits, rather than those of a group to which he is perceived to be affiliated with.

That being said, I think he's being awfully cavalier in his interpretation of speech, but then I think that's been a trend in US politics for a long time. Just look at the recent decision regarding campaign contributions by corporations.

**Mr. Self Destruct**

So wait...
If i say something racist at school I could get arrested for offensive conduct.
If i say something racist when I'm 18 and NOT at school it's my first amendment right?
what...the....feth...
I consider myself a conservative libertarian but I AM SO SICK of hearing these people say 'well, you know, everyone needs their right to speak, so lets let the neo-Nazi's and klansmen say whatever the feth they want!'
Yeah I don't think this guy should get elected.
Giving his $.02 always,
Mr. Self Destruct

**avantgarde**

Here's the link to the full interview: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/ns/msnbc_tv-rachel_maddow_show/#37244354

What I got from Rand Paul is that it's not up to the government to decide whether private businesses can discriminate or not but up to people if they want to go to establishments that discriminate.

**sebster**

avantgarde wrote:Here's the link to the full interview: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/ns/msnbc_tv-rachel_maddow_show/#37244354

What I got from Rand Paul is that it's not up to the government to decide whether private businesses can discriminate or not but up to people if they want to go to establishments that discriminate.

Yeah, which is the kind of conclusion people are likely to reach when people confuse the silly mind game that is libertarianism for an actual, real world political view.

Ron Paul has been producing this kind of nonsense for years now, and from what I’ve seen of his son it looks like we’re going to get a lot more of it.

**sexiest_hero**

I could say calling my wife a stnking whore is free speech, it's still verbal abuse.

What if a company chooses not to pay black workers. It's private property. What if every establishment had a no blacks sign? No irish? Where would people shop or work.you could create whole bubbles of cities minorities cound't go. Here in America, the land of equality? This isn't what the Tea Party stands for. Vet your canidates.

**Manchu**

I wonder how Ron named his son.

**Stormrider**

Albatross wrote:What I don't get is the whole 'we should let racist scumbags say whatever they want, discriminate against whoever they want, because that's what freedom is all about' guff.

Why? Why should you let them? You could get together as a society and decide that you don't want that sort of thing to take place in your country. The U.S. Constitution seems to be increasingly being treated as holy scripture by certain sections of American society. It wasn't carved out the living rock by lightning bolts - it was constructed by a group of wealthy merchants, academics and such.

I believe in pragmatism.

What happens when you set a political precedent by censoring speech? You get total censorship on anything somewhat offensive. I get real tired of people complaining that someone offended them, there's no right to not be offended. And with our current Supreme Court and potential member Kagan, censorship isn't too far off if the right case shows up for them to decide.

I don't like it that there are rascist donkey-caves here in America, but the 1st Amendment guarantees their right to say whatever they like (as long as it doesn't encite a riot), and not not face any form of legal ramifications. Yes it's not pretty, but it was never intended to be. Back when it was written, people duelled over their honor, so loudmouths tended to hold their tounge.

Paul is right in the context of the 1st Amendment, he is simply saying that the government should have no role in determining whether a private organization or club should accept people that differ from their standards (however racist or sexist they may be). It's not the Government's job. I can't join the Congressional Black Caucus, I'm offended that there even needs to be one.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
It's not segregation since it isn't a state or federal law. I can't join NOW or CODE PINK. Should I be offended?

**sebster**

Manchu wrote:I wonder how Ron named his son.

I'm surprised he wasn't called John Galt Paul.

**cygnnus**

Manchu wrote:I wonder how Ron named his son.

I'd imagine it was for Ayn Rand, no?

Valete,

JohnS

**Manchu**

sebster wrote:
Manchu wrote:I wonder how Ron named his son.

I'm surprised he wasn't called John Galt Paul.

I saw a billboard while driving through FL this past weekend with the "who is John Galt?" logo . . . alas, America . . .

**sebster**

Stormrider wrote:What happens when you set a political precedent by censoring speech? You get total censorship on anything somewhat offensive. I get real tired of people complaining that someone offended them, there's no right to not be offended. And with our current Supreme Court and potential member Kagan, censorship isn't too far off if the right case shows up for them to decide.

Who said anything about banning something because it was offensive? The point was banning it because it is racist. Now, I don’t agree with an outright ban on racist speech or racist policy, because what is racism and what is targeted policy is too vague a line, but it’s whole different thing to what you thought Albatross said. This is a complicated subject, you have to be really careful about what people are actually saying.

Paul is right in the context of the 1st Amendment, he is simply saying that the government should have no role in determining whether a private organization or club should accept people that differ from their standards (however racist or sexist they may be). It's not the Government's job. I can't join the Congressional Black Caucus, I'm offended that there even needs to be one.

It’s only relevant to the extant that you ignore the public function and public space of many private organisations. There is a fundamental difference between a private club and barber’s shop, and so the level of discrimination allowed in each is fundamentally different.

It's not segregation since it isn't a state or federal law. I can't join NOW or CODE PINK. Should I be offended?

No, but you should take a minute or two to consider the differences between being a part of majority and being a part of a minority.

A minority group that forms an organisation to recognise it’s own heritage, such as an Irish Club, is a very different thing to a majority group that is nominally recognising its heritage but ultimately just excluding a minority – such as a White’s only club.

Then there’s a second issue of the purpose of the club. A club dedicated towards recognising French ancestry isn’t stopping anyone from recognising their French ancestry when it excludes people that don’t actually have French ancestry. On the other hand if a Barber’s shop excludes black people, well then black people can’t get a haircut in town.

**Stormrider**

sebster wrote:
Stormrider wrote:What happens when you set a political precedent by censoring speech? You get total censorship on anything somewhat offensive. I get real tired of people complaining that someone offended them, there's no right to not be offended. And with our current Supreme Court and potential member Kagan, censorship isn't too far off if the right case shows up for them to decide.

Who said anything about banning something because it was offensive? The point was banning it because it is racist. Now, I don’t agree with an outright ban on racist speech or racist policy, because what is racism and what is targeted policy is too vague a line, but it’s whole different thing to what you thought Albatross said. This is a complicated subject, you have to be really careful about what people are actually saying.

Paul is right in the context of the 1st Amendment, he is simply saying that the government should have no role in determining whether a private organization or club should accept people that differ from their standards (however racist or sexist they may be). It's not the Government's job. I can't join the Congressional Black Caucus, I'm offended that there even needs to be one.

It’s only relevant to the extant that you ignore the public function and public space of many private organisations. There is a fundamental difference between a private club and barber’s shop, and so the level of discrimination allowed in each is fundamentally different.

It's not segregation since it isn't a state or federal law. I can't join NOW or CODE PINK. Should I be offended?

No, but you should take a minute or two to consider the differences between being a part of majority and being a part of a minority.

A minority group that forms an organisation to recognise it’s own heritage, such as an Irish Club, is a very different thing to a majority group that is nominally recognising its heritage but ultimately just excluding a minority – such as a White’s only club.

Then there’s a second issue of the purpose of the club. A club dedicated towards recognising French ancestry isn’t stopping anyone from recognising their French ancestry when it excludes people that don’t actually have French ancestry. On the other hand if a Barber’s shop excludes black people, well then black people can’t get a haircut in town.

I wasn't attacking Albatross at all, his post kinda segwayed into my thought very well.

While I don't agree with a White or Blacks only club, they have the right to do it. There are black only fraternities at my College. I personally don't think there should be any race specific fraternities, but they are nationally accepted as a organization.

As for minority organizations like the NAACP, NARAL, La Raza, LULAC and the like. All they seem to do is Balkanize the US. Just splitting people apart when we should unite as one people.

I know of zero "whites only" barber shops in the US, Al Sharpton would be out front of it everyday until he helped integrate it. However, the inner city barbershops I have seen (NO, Dallas and KC) had zero white people in them. There was no sign on them saying black people only.

As a member of the white community, I have to watch my speech, have less opportunities to get College Scholarships or addmissions, less job opportunities and my voice is quieter becasue there aren't any groups that aren't already horribly racist (like the KKK or Aryan Brotherhood) to represent my voice. All I can do is vote.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
I'm part of the majority, but for what? To be hamstrung in everything I do to help a minority get ahead. Arbitrarily limiting someone, regardless of their genetic makeup is completely wrong in a legal standpoint. If I were a minority, I would be offended because I would prefer to earn said scholarships or achievements based on my own merits, not because someone else was held back.

**dogma**

Stormrider wrote:
What happens when you set a political precedent by censoring speech? You get total censorship on anything somewhat offensive.

No, not necessarily. We censor a lot of things in the US, and no one in their right mind would claim we censor everything that is remotely offensive.

You also have to consider what constitutes speech. Talking, obviously, but what about writing something in a book? Drawing a picture? Giving someone money?

Stormrider wrote:
Paul is right in the context of the 1st Amendment, he is simply saying that the government should have no role in determining whether a private organization or club should accept people that differ from their standards (however racist or sexist they may be). It's not the Government's job. I can't join the Congressional Black Caucus, I'm offended that there even needs to be one.

So permitting someone to patronize your establishment is speech?

Stormrider wrote:
It's not segregation since it isn't a state or federal law. I can't join NOW or CODE PINK. Should I be offended?

Actually, you can join Code Pink. It has male members. You can also join NOW, feminist does not mean 'women only'.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Stormrider wrote:
As for minority organizations like the NAACP, NARAL, La Raza, LULAC and the like. All they seem to do is Balkanize the US. Just splitting people apart when we should unite as one people.

The NAACP isn't exclusive with respect to white people. NARAL isn't an organization based on categorical membership. La Raza is not exclusive with respect to non-Hispanics. LULAC is based on helping Hispanic citizens assimilate into American culture, its literally the exact opposite of what you're describing.

Stormrider wrote:
As a member of the white community, I have to watch my speech, have less opportunities to get College Scholarships or addmissions, less job opportunities...

The college scholarship thing is a myth. There are literally hundreds of scholarships available to people of European descent. Its also a myth that you'll have lesser opportunity to gain employment, or admission to college. Seriously, look at the relative demography percentages at any American university, or the racial unemployment statistics; the fact that this idea continues in perpetuity boggles my mind.

Stormrider wrote:
and my voice is quieter becasue there aren't any groups that aren't already horribly racist (like the KKK or Aryan Brotherhood) to represent my voice.All I can do is vote.

You mean besides all the white members of the federal and state governments?

**sebster**

Stormrider wrote: I wasn't attacking Albatross at all, his post kinda segwayed into my thought very well.

Why did you start a post talking about banning speech over it’s possible offense at all? Oh, and it’s ‘segue’.

While I don't agree with a White or Blacks only club, they have the right to do it. There are black only fraternities at my College. I personally don't think there should be any race specific fraternities, but they are nationally accepted as a organization.

There is, again, a fundamental difference between a club formed to share group experiences of being a minority, and a club formed by the majority, which in effect serves to just exclude the minority. And again, one can form an Irish club, or a German club, as these would be minority clubs that share . I think you’re making the mistake of assuming there is no difference between being part of the majority as compared to being part of the minority.

As for minority organizations like the NAACP, NARAL, La Raza, LULAC and the like. All they seem to do is Balkanize the US. Just splitting people apart when we should unite as one people.

Some of the rhetoric coming out of these groups is not useful, but they play a very important part in reducing the fundamental inequality in income and political power in the US.

Thinking everyone should just get together and not be separate is a nice solution when you don’t realise how disparate economic conditions are for different ethnic groups in the US.

I know of zero "whites only" barber shops in the US, Al Sharpton would be out front of it everyday until he helped integrate it. However, the inner city barbershops I have seen (NO, Dallas and KC) had zero white people in them. There was no sign on them saying black people only.

Yes, unofficial policies which make certain ethnic groups unwelcome can be hard to identify and prosecute. And yes, inner city areas will tend to form ghettoes, and this can have both good features and poor ones.

But you might have taken my barber shop example too literally. It isn’t actually about barber shops, it could be about gyms, swimming pools, bars or anything else. The point is that if you want to be part of club that gets together to talk about their common experiences as Chinese immigrants, then restricting membership to people of Chinese heritage is sensible, and doesn’t restrict anyone (as a person can’t be of non-Chinese heritage and wanting to talk about their Chinese heritage). On the other hand, a person can be White, and want to go into a bar

As a member of the white community, I have to watch my speech, have less opportunities to get College Scholarships or addmissions, less job opportunities and my voice is quieter becasue there aren't any groups that aren't already horribly racist (like the KKK or Aryan Brotherhood) to represent my voice. All I can do is vote.

Claiming that white people have less opportunities to go to college is ridiculously wrong. It’s the product of focussing entirely on affirmative action, and ignoring the extremely advantageous starting position white people get from basic social and economic factors. Are you actually going to argue that black people are over-represented in college admissions?

**Stormrider**

I am basing these observations from my perspective.

At my school ( the University of Arkansas), the Engineering department hands out free scholarships to minorities (Black, Asian, Indo-American) if they get a 3.0 in HS and pick Engineering as a field. I got a 3.8 and I got out of state tuition waived (about $12,000 a year). I'm not saying that I had it really rough grwoing up, but the idea that just because someone is a certain color entitles them to special treatment is wrong. I don't expect special treatment, why should anyone else (regardless of skin color)?

And making up for the past is not justice, it's a pittance.

**Fateweaver**

Affirmative action is the most reverse racist set of ideal ever invented.

I would myself be insulted if I was minority and got stuff just because I am of a different color.

**sebster**

Stormrider wrote:I am basing these observations from my perspective.

At my school ( the University of Arkansas), the Engineering department hands out free scholarships to minorities (Black, Asian, Indo-American) if they get a 3.0 in HS and pick Engineering as a field. I got a 3.8 and I got out of state tuition waived (about $12,000 a year). I'm not saying that I had it really rough grwoing up, but the idea that just because someone is a certain color entitles them to special treatment is wrong. I don't expect special treatment, why should anyone else (regardless of skin color)?

And making up for the past is not justice, it's a pittance.

I don’t think that affirmative action is a great solution. I think a similar program aimed at all people from economically disadvantaged backgrounds would be a much better program.

But I do think it is a huge mistake to look purely at affirmative action, ignore all the other areas of privilege that white people get, and then moan about how much easier minorities get it. Go look at the average incomes for different ethnic groups. Go look at the proportions of entry into college.

And no program should ever be about making up for the past. It should be about recognising economic and social disadvantage, and realising that kids who did well in spite of that should get access to college. It should about recognising that while the US prides itself on being a society where hard work and talent will be rewarded, the US is the most socially stagnant country in the developed world – and that that is a bad thing.

**Stormrider**

sebster wrote:
Stormrider wrote:I am basing these observations from my perspective.

At my school ( the University of Arkansas), the Engineering department hands out free scholarships to minorities (Black, Asian, Indo-American) if they get a 3.0 in HS and pick Engineering as a field. I got a 3.8 and I got out of state tuition waived (about $12,000 a year). I'm not saying that I had it really rough grwoing up, but the idea that just because someone is a certain color entitles them to special treatment is wrong. I don't expect special treatment, why should anyone else (regardless of skin color)?

And making up for the past is not justice, it's a pittance.

I don’t think that affirmative action is a great solution. I think a similar program aimed at all people from economically disadvantaged backgrounds would be a much better program.

But I do think it is a huge mistake to look purely at affirmative action, ignore all the other areas of privilege that white people get, and then moan about how much easier minorities get it. Go look at the average incomes for different ethnic groups. Go look at the proportions of entry into college.

And no program should ever be about making up for the past. It should be about recognising economic and social disadvantage, and realising that kids who did well in spite of that should get access to college. It should about recognising that while the US prides itself on being a society where hard work and talent will be rewarded, the US is the most socially stagnant country in the developed world – and that that is a bad thing.

I honestly couldn't tell you why that is the case. I don't know if it's the Government doing too much (my opinion) or too little.

It's so maddening when they try and fix something and it ends up costing trillions of dollars more than expected and they wonder why their ratings are so low.

**focusedfire**

dogma wrote:No, not necessarily. We censor a lot of things in the US, and no one in their right mind would claim we censor everything that is remotely offensive.

You also have to consider what constitutes speech. Talking, obviously, but what about writing something in a book? Drawing a picture? Giving someone money?

You forgot to add which friends you pick. Should the covernment have a say in whom you choose to associate?

dogma wrote:So permitting someone to patronize your establishment is speech?

Just a basic part of liberty. There are samaritan laws to make sure people are not denied aid when in need. So as long as no one is injured, you should have a right to decide with whom you do business with and to whom you want as your clientele. It is not a smart business plan, but if you make being stupid against the law then there wouldn't be any posters on dakka or anywhere else. Everyone has there stupid moments.

dogma wrote:Actually, you can join Code Pink. It has male members. You can also join NOW, feminist does not mean 'women only'.

To what benefit? It is not that such groups are exclusive in membership. It is the double standard of it being ok to be able to create an orginization that caters to one group but not ok to create an organization that caters to another.

dogma wrote:The NAACP isn't exclusive with respect to white people. NARAL isn't an organization based on categorical membership. La Raza is not exclusive with respect to non-Hispanics. LULAC is based on helping Hispanic citizens assimilate into American culture, its literally the exact opposite of what you're describing.

I refer to the double standard above with the added statement that these organizations actively discriminate against caucasians. There is no NAAWP because it woulb violate federal law.

dogma wrote:The college scholarship thing is a myth. There are literally hundreds of scholarships available to people of European descent. Its also a myth that you'll have lesser opportunity to gain employment, or admission to college. Seriously, look at the relative demography percentages at any American university, or the racial unemployment statistics; the fact that this idea continues in perpetuity boggles my mind.

Maybe you should go back and re-read those statistics, there are some very interesting corraltions that can be made between the governments intervention in this process and enrollment ratios. Hint look at the one group that has steadily declined in both enrollment and in retention until graduation.

There is a massive difference in regards to the availability of scholarships. You say literally hundreds of scholarships available for people of european decent, thing is "european descent"does not and cannot preclude someone who is black.
Also, the hundreds would be more impressive if it weren't for the sheer number of total scholarships. BTW, How many scholaeships does the NAACP have available.

As far as employment goes, tell ya what. Go to school. Graduate. Go through the police academy. Graduate. Go take your civil service exam where 5 extra point are awarded for being non-caucasian, 5 extra points for being a woman, the points stack if you are multi-racial & female. There are eight jobs open during a time when most departments were under a hiring freeze. You make the second highest score on the test. You are then told that you will not be hired because of the colour of your skin(affirmative action). Happened to me back in 1989.

dogma wrote:You mean besides all the white members of the federal and state governments?

You mean the governmental agencies that currently exceed the population percentages?

**dogma**

focusedfire wrote:
Just a basic part of liberty. There are samaritan laws to make sure people are not denied aid when in need. So as long as no one is injured, you should have a right to decide with whom you do business with and to whom you want as your clientele. It is not a smart business plan, but if you make being stupid against the law then there wouldn't be any posters on dakka or anywhere else. Everyone has there stupid moments.

Liberty is not tacit to speech. You can have a right to free speech without having a more general right to liberty. In fact, you have no legal right to liberty, as you can be legally imprisoned. Unless we're only considering liberty in a strict sense.

focusedfire wrote:
To what benefit? It is not that such groups are exclusive in membership. It is the double standard of it being ok to be able to create an orginization that caters to one group but not ok to create an organization that caters to another.

That only holds insofar as you think all groups are equivalent.

focusedfire wrote:
I refer to the double standard above with the added statement that these organizations actively discriminate against caucasians.

How can NARAL, a reproductive rights group, discriminate against Caucasians?

But, no, they don't discriminate against Caucasians. Advocating the rights of a minority group is not to discriminate against Caucasians. Power may be a zero sum game, but rights are not.

focusedfire wrote:
There is no NAAWP because it woulb violate federal law.

Actually, it probably wouldn't, not according to precedent as set.

focusedfire wrote:
Maybe you should go back and re-read those statistics, there are some very interesting corraltions that can be made between the governments intervention in this process and enrollment ratios. Hint look at the one group that has steadily declined in both enrollment and in retention until graduation.

Yes, but the level of representation is not disproportional, which would be the natural consequence of stating that its harder for white people to get into college than black people.

focusedfire wrote:
There is a massive difference in regards to the availability of scholarships. You say literally hundreds of scholarships available for people of european decent, thing is "european descent"does not and cannot preclude someone who is black.

Neither does being of African descent, or even 'of color', preclude someone who is 'white'. Hell, we've had debates in this very forum about the 'whiteness' of certain ethnic groups.

focusedfire wrote:
Also, the hundreds would be more impressive if it weren't for the sheer number of total scholarships. BTW, How many scholaeships does the NAACP have available.

Six separate programs, none of which are restricted to people of color. I've gotten money from the NAACP, because of membership in the organization, and I'm as white as white can be.

focusedfire wrote:
As far as employment goes, tell ya what. Go to school. Graduate. Go through the police academy. Graduate. Go take your civil service exam where 5 extra point are awarded for being non-caucasian, 5 extra points for being a woman, the points stack if you are multi-racial & female.

Point systems which factor racial characteristics into the process are unconstitutional, and have been since 2003. Either way, your response still does not explain the massive difference in employment rates between racial groups. If its so much easier for black people to get jobs, why are so many more unemployed when compared to white people?

focusedfire wrote:
There are eight jobs open during a time when most departments were under a hiring freeze. You make the second highest score on the test. You are then told that you will not be hired because of the colour of your skin(affirmative action). Happened to me back in 1989.

Its 2010.

focusedfire wrote:
You mean the governmental agencies that currently exceed the population percentages?

Where I live they don't, but we haven't seen the 2010 census data yet.

**focusedfire**

dogma wrote:Liberty is not tacit to speech. You can have a right to free speech without having a more general right to liberty. In fact, you have no legal right to liberty, as you can be legally imprisoned. Unless we're only considering liberty in a strict sense.

Very debatable in that they have to write lawd and go through the legal process in order to deny the individual of his/her rights.

dogma wrote:That only holds insofar as you think all groups are equivalent.

Not the groups, Just their rights.

dogma wrote:How can NARAL, a reproductive rights group, discriminate against Caucasians?

Sorry about that, I went to the concept of discrimination as a general concept. Naral can be seen as a group that disriminates males and their right to parenthood. Not saying I agree, just that I understand the basis of the arguement.

dogma wrote:Actually, it probably wouldn't, not according to precedent as set.

Good to hear that maybe somethings have changed, but if this is the case then why doesn't such exist?

dogma wrote:Yes, but the level of representation is not disproportional, which would be the natural consequence of stating that its harder for white people to get into college than black people.

Your saying that a continual decline in caucasian male enrollment accompanied by a corresponding increase in minority enrollment is not an indication of such?
Look at the current population percentages and compare to enrollment. The group with the majority number is taking a nose dive. What is truly disturbing is what seems to be an anti-male bias against both blacks and whites within our educational system as both groups of males are falling way behind the societal persentages.

dogma wrote:Six separate programs, none of which are restricted to people of color. I've gotten money from the NAACP, because of membership in the organization, and I'm as white as white can be.

There is adifference between a program and the number of actual scholarships available. The Six programs are pretty much the same six listed everywhere else, they tend to be the Merit based, Need based, Carreer based, Student Specific,ect, ect..... . It is in which programs the majority of the money/scholarships lie that you can find a bias.

Funny, that you were required to become a member. Scholarships are offered to those who have never joined. Did they require a membership fee?
Just joking, Sounds like they are cleaning up their act and moving away from their earlier almost militant mentality.

dogma wrote:If its so much easier for black people to get jobs, why are so many more unemployed when compared to white people?

There is an answer for this that has little to do with a "whitey keepin' a brother down" answer and more to do with unfortunate timing during a groups rise out of poverty.

It goes back to the almost endemic poverty levels within the black populace a few decades back. Yes at that time, discrimination played a roll.

Now, when a group is elevating itself out of poverty it is not a single generation process but goes through stages of increasing properity and education. It goes from homeless, uneducated, and out of work to working a low paying menial job, living in a poor housing area, and maybe the kids finishing high school. The kids of the menial laborers generally don't make it to/through college because of lack of financial support from home. These kids are educated enough to get into trade schools or get hired into entry level manufacturing jobs. They go on to buy middle class houses and to back there kids financially for college.
The blacks in this country were disproportionately employed in our trades and manufacturing jobs because of this process.
This just happened to be the sector of our economy that we set up to leave for china. The jobs were set to leave around 2002 but the trade agreements that set this in motion happened under Clintons administration.

**Orkeosaurus**

While I agree with Rand Paul on anti-discrimination policy, I don't think he's right in relating it to the first amendment. Freedom of speech doesn't protect you from fraud in business transactions, and to say that blacks are not welcome in your store when you are legally required to serve them is deceiving them about their ability to do business with you. Unless your sign were to say "blacks are served here, even though we hate you" or something strange like that.

Ultimately it comes down to freedom of trade, or association, or something along those lines; good concepts, I think, but not constitutionally binding ones.

**dogma**

focusedfire wrote:
Very debatable in that they have to write lawd and go through the legal process in order to deny the individual of his/her rights.

I would regard due process of law as an abrogation of the right to liberty; noting also that I do not consider something to be a right if it can be alienated, or at least I haven't done so for the purposes of this conversation. In my view it is essentially a sanctioned control on those circumstances in which liberty must be curtailed in order to ensure of generally free, and peaceful society.

focusedfire wrote:
Good to hear that maybe somethings have changed, but if this is the case then why doesn't such exist?

They do, they're just not very popular because the entire notion is commonly associated with the KKK, and Neo-Nazisim.

focusedfire wrote:
Your saying that a continual decline in caucasian male enrollment accompanied by a corresponding increase in minority enrollment is not an indication of such?Look at the current population percentages and compare to enrollment. The group with the majority number is taking a nose dive.

It depends on the extent to which we consider the data in light of total enrollment. More people attend college than ever before and, based on the data I've seen, the percentage of minority enrollment is increasing faster than the percentage of white enrollment, but total white enrollment is not falling, or even stagnating. If total white enrollment were falling, while total minority enrollment were rising, in gross terms, then the claim would obviously be that it is more difficult for whites to get into college.

This fact sheet is from 2007, and it states that minority enrollment in degree granting institutions is 32%. Noticeably higher than the estimated 25% percent of US citizens of minority descent, but consistent with the age distribution of minority populations (more younger people).

focusedfire wrote:
What is truly disturbing is what seems to be an anti-male bias against both blacks and whites within our educational system as both groups of males are falling way behind the societal persentages.

I'm not sure its a bias, so much a difference in academic persistence. The high school drop out rates among men are also far higher than those among women. Though, yes, women are over-represented by a rate of 10%.

focusedfire wrote:
There is adifference between a program and the number of actual scholarships available. The Six programs are pretty much the same six listed everywhere else, they tend to be the Merit based, Need based, Carreer based, Student Specific,ect, ect..... . It is in which programs the majority of the money/scholarships lie that you can find a bias.

Obviously there's a difference, but I have no idea how many scholarships the NAACP grants on a yearly basis. I do know that the largest program, in terms of sheer number of grants, is for freshman only. I also know that the largest program, in terms of monetary value, for business majors only, and sponsored by Citigroup.

focusedfire wrote:
Funny, that you were required to become a member. Scholarships are offered to those who have never joined. Did they require a membership fee?

The scholarships they offer to those who have never joined only apply to those in specific majors. But yeah, they required a membership fee ($30).