View Full Version : White People's Frustration with Racism
Poole
07-12-2008, 08:00 PM
someone calling you 'white girl' or 'cracker' ain't racist-- just prejudiced, because you can basically have them arrested for doing so at the drop of a hat, as a white woman. that's power they haven't got access to.
What country do you live in? Can you cite even a single instance in the last 20 years where a black person in the United States has been arrested for calling a white person by a racial slur?
Tauries
07-12-2008, 08:37 PM
this is atypical in america and means that poor little mcwhitey you might experience some localised prejudice from blackfolk.
someone calling you 'white girl' or 'cracker' ain't racist-- just prejudiced, because you can basically have them arrested for doing so at the drop of a hat, as a white woman. that's power they haven't got access to.
What color is the sky in your world??
fancygirl
07-13-2008, 01:39 AM
1) Actually, at Kentucky State University, an HBCU (historically black college/university) they have scholarships for minority representation of the school ie. whites, asian, hispanic. May I mention that KSU is like 55% white eventhough it's an HBCU.
2) I don't believe affirmative action is racist. They do more than give a handup to people of different races. Did you know that WHITE WOMEN are the biggest recipiants of Affirmative Action? I'm just saying..
Affirmative action is intended for minorities, women, handicap, and veterans.
I stand corrected, and I'm glad to be given that information. I wish Affirmative Action was given a real shot honestly, and not because I'm a white woman.
as far as white only scholarships, I'm sure there's enough that are literally white only, just not technically white only.
xdamage
07-13-2008, 08:57 AM
I don't see AA as racism. I see it as a social attempt to correct past imbalances, but I have to admit I am still debating if it is permanent necessity or should be a temporary corrective tool.
I think many people are reactive to victim mentality.
Our human tendency as children is to want to only own the positives in our lives, and to selectively choose responsibility as it suits us. It's a wonderful tool, when we succeed "we did it", and when we fail "they did it". One can twist reality into amazing pretzels with this tool.
As responsible adults, we are sensitive to individuals who seem to lay all blaim for their failures in life on other races, or sexes, or any group for that matter.
It's not that it can't happen that way, but that most of us see that racism and sexism aside, it is not the only factor in why some people fail (or succeed) in life. People have a lot of freedoms in this country, and some choose poorly, repeatedly.
bem401
07-13-2008, 01:43 PM
Affirmative action is intended for minorities, women, handicap, and veterans.
Its for everybody but the white boys.
And if it gives a handupto everyone but the white boys, isn't that the same as hurting them?
The playing field should be fair. AA is not fair. The solution, in principle, is to give exactly the same opportunity from day one and let the chips fall where they may.
Just sayin'.
miabella
07-13-2008, 01:50 PM
the white boys have been giving preferential treatment to other white boys for, well, the entire history of the USA (and for much of great britain's history as well, and france's, and germany's, etc).
it's not fair to pick less-qualified white guys (cf. our current c-student president, legacy affirmative action all the way there), so when that type of pro-white-male affirmative action stops, there won't be a need for other affirmative action for other groups.
the myth among white guys is that they get picked on merit and everyone else is picked to fill a quota. considering how many incompetent CEOs and bank presidents and managers there are out there who are white males, this is clearly a false belief. but nevertheless it persists that incompetent white males are anomalies, but incompetent white women, or black men, or black women, etc reflect on the group as a whole and are not individual exceptions.
Jenny
07-13-2008, 01:55 PM
Its for everybody but the white boys.
And if it gives a handupto everyone but the white boys, isn't that the same as hurting them?
The playing field should be fair. AA is not fair. The solution, in principle, is to give exactly the same opportunity from day one and let the chips fall where they may.
Just sayin'.
No. Because affirmative action was meant to correct the simple fact that the playing field was not level in the first place, and it is simply not possible to simply "wipe the slate clean". White boys who want to go back to the "good old days" of a "level playing field" are just so used to their class privilege that they can't see it. Water - Fish. Imagine a scholarship given on the basis of financial need to working class or poor students, and then having the upper middle class or wealthy students complain that it is an unfair playing field, and they would prefer it if the playing field from before - e.g. the one that implicitly and practically excluded everyone but them - reigned supreme because it was more fair. It's kind of a ridiculous and self-serving argument on its face.
bem401
07-13-2008, 02:01 PM
I'm not really disagreeing with you, only pointing out that AA is really nothing more than discrimination against white boys. Now I'm not about to start a protest march about it or anything, but it is what it is. I perfectly understand that white boys have had an advantage for time immemorium, but if things have been unfair to non-white boys for a long time , is the optimal solution to decide to now be unfair to white boys?
I would argue that the best solution is to give everyone the same opportunity from the beginning and then let the chips fall where they may. Probably unrealistic, granted, but still better than decideng to discriminate one way or the other.
Jenny
07-13-2008, 02:06 PM
^^
I think you misunderstand what systemic discrimination means, much less what "unfairness" means. It is not unfair to correct social imbalances. That is superlatively fair. Of course white men want the chips to "fall where they may" after founding North America on the premise that white men are the only humans in it, and the subsequent social and business system which assures their dominance. Because the chips are pretty well arranged to fall in certain places. And that seems fair to you, because you feel pretty entitled to those chips.
Poole
07-13-2008, 04:31 PM
^^
I think you misunderstand what systemic discrimination means, much less what "unfairness" means. It is not unfair to correct social imbalances. That is superlatively fair. Of course white men want the chips to "fall where they may" after founding North America on the premise that white men are the only humans in it, and the subsequent social and business system which assures their dominance. Because the chips are pretty well arranged to fall in certain places. And that seems fair to you, because you feel pretty entitled to those chips.
You mean there were multiracial countries back then where everyone, including women, were "equal"? The U.S. was no different in that respect than any other country up till very recently. Should white people be retroactively punished because some had ancestors that lived in a country where the norms of the time were much different than today?
It's amazing that so many people argue that because the most powerful people in the U.S. are white men that somehow all white men are advantaged by that. We're talking about a few thousand people out of a hundred million or so. It's analogous to saying that because blacks dominate the NBA and NFL, all blacks somehow benefit. Further, the whites at the top of the power structure have no white racial consciousness. The surest way for a white person with status to lose that status is to say anything that can be construed as anti-minority or pro-white. Affirmative action, non-white oriented immigration, the wholesale exporting of middle class jobs out of the country, the way white men are routinely portrayed as wimps, criminals and idiots in the media, how is any of that to the benefit of white men?
The majority of poor people in the U.S. are white. What advantages do they have that they deserve to be discriminated against? And further, who decides if and when affirmative action has worked? Is there going to come a day when the average black family earns exactly as much as the average white family? And even if that happened does anyone seriously believe the current array of racial set-asides would end? It won't end anymore than the demonization of whites will end the day they officially become a numerical minority in the U.S.
This country is a racial tinderbox thanks to the non-stop playing to racial groups. Not on the surface of day-to-day life yet, but in the prisons and in cities like Los Angeles where blacks and hispanics are in a virtual state of war. If the economy continues to sink, much of the surface harmony in America will disappear.
hockeybobby
07-13-2008, 05:04 PM
Gen, I don't agree or sympathize with that email chain letter. As a middle-aged white male, I can't say I feel discriminated against by such concepts as pay equity, affirmative action, multiculturalism, or what have you. When all evidence suggests that there are inequities and unfairness, I'm in aggreement with measures to correct that. If it means for instance, inter alia, giving hiring preference to indigenous people, women, visible minorities, or disabled people so that the public service better represents the public they serve...so be it.
As a general rule, I support coercive government. I don't trust the unfettered free market to deliver the type of society I would find worth living in. Just one man's opinion.
Jenny
07-13-2008, 05:23 PM
You mean there were multiracial countries back then where everyone, including women, were "equal"? The U.S. was no different in that respect than any other country up till very recently. Should white people be retroactively punished because some had ancestors that lived in a country where the norms of the time were much different than today?
Are you one of those people who argue that slavery was okay because there was war in Africa before Europeans even got there? It's not the point, and white people aren't being punished. It is the correction of a system of inequality that has created advantage. White men are not disadvantaged by Affirmative Action, minority scholarships, or human rights codes relative to other races (or sexes); only compared to what they had before. It is the loss of an advantage - not even that, the loss of a fairly small element of an advantage - not a disadvantage.
xdamage
07-13-2008, 05:42 PM
You mean there were multiracial countries back then where everyone, including women, were "equal"? The U.S. was no different in that respect than any other country up till very recently. Should white people be retroactively punished because some had ancestors that lived in a country where the norms of the time were much different than today?
Sure, I mean like there are no issues with sexism or racism in Europe (oh wait, that is not true).. I mean the Middle East (ooops)... Africa is all fair and ... hmm I guess not... Asia yes, we all know that anyone no matter what race or sex has an equal chance in the political or corporate field in Japan and China .. or maybe not... hmmm... South America then... I mean the political offices and working demographics are fair and even right??? Wait, I am seeing a LOT (majority) of names are of politicians are of majority races in those countries.... hmmm
Hmmm... maybe this isn't an American problem after all, but a human nature thing at play.
Still the point of AA is not to "punish" white people for having more advantage in the past, but force society to correct the preferences of the past going forward in the future. It is not a punishment for past, but a forced way of changing the future. You can argue if it is for the better or worse independently.
mr_punk
07-13-2008, 05:44 PM
Its for everybody but the white boys.IIRC, AA wasn't intended to be for everyone. it was actually meant to be (1) temporary. (2) for AA only, not latinos, asians, etc. ironically, women were also included by the conservative southern democrats (ie: white, male, segregationist). the cynical strategy being such additions would help to defeat or cripple the bill.
Poole
07-13-2008, 09:07 PM
It is the correction of a system of inequality that has created advantage. White men are not disadvantaged by Affirmative Action, minority scholarships, or human rights codes relative to other races (or sexes); only compared to what they had before. It is the loss of an advantage - not even that, the loss of a fairly small element of an advantage - not a disadvantage.
Again the argument is made that all white men somehow benefit from the very few at the top being white. The majority of the poor in America are white. And all through American history many if not most whites have been lower middle class or poor. Many whites came to America as indentured servants. No one (other than a select few) was given a free ride simply because they were white.
Giving someone a job, promotion or scholarship not because they're the best qualified but because of their race is, at best, trying to correct a wrong by inflicting the same wrong on another group of innocent people. Affirmative action and its ilk mainly affect working class whites and rural whites, not upper class whites, which does indeed make it collective punishment of a group of people. But that's how it works in America isn't it? Ruling class whites enact social and economic policies that are meant for the peasants not themselves.
xdamage
07-14-2008, 03:19 PM
Giving someone a job, promotion or scholarship not because they're the best qualified but because of their race is, at best, trying to correct a wrong by inflicting the same wrong on another group of innocent people.
Well, there is the matter of perspective.
Let me give an analogy to show how perspective plays as maybe this an analogy where you would be a beneficiary.
Suppose that the courts, looking back on divorce cases in this country, realized that people weren't being treated "equally". That in fact there was a major gender bias at play resulting in the vast majority of divorce cases ending with child custody being granted to females over males. That in the interest of fairness, and to balance out the "single parent households" of the future, that a new law is in place. Henceforth, and until it is not longer needed to balance our society, assuming all things are equal, the courts MUST grant child custody to the fathers.
So is this is "punishing" the mothers? I can bet you some will see it that way and argue why they are better equipped to raise children, maybe even pull the evolution card out for this one since there is good evidence that women are more inclined to have a strong maternal instinct vs a man's paternal instance. People have a way of doing that... agreeing with arguments that benefit them.
Or is this correcting an in-equality that fathers have long been subjected too?
Or is the truth a complex one? Maybe it is a mix of women have long been given preferential treatment in court, but OTHO maybe the fathers as a whole also need to change some of their own behaviors if equality is to really work?
Maddie
07-15-2008, 02:24 AM
I agree with the concept.
There are "minority" educational grants and scholarships (from both private and public funds, is my understanding) here in Texas, exclusively for Texas.
TX recently became over 51% Hispanic OFFICIALLY.
So, when I applied for the minority scholarship, I was called into a meeting with Financial Aid and accused of lying on my application. 1st I asked how they knew I wasn't a minority. Many people of a certain background don't always look "white", "black", "yellow", "orange" or whatever. Second, I told them I was a minority, so they said "then why is white, non Hispanic marked on your application?" I told them because I am white, non Hispanic. This basic discussion went round and round, and I pointed out that these are TX specific scholarships & grants, that I met all the other non disputed eligibility criteria, and finally, that TX is 51%+ Hispanic, and thus, I am officially a "minority". They agreed I would be eligible for the $$ if I were a minority, but said that I am not, so I cannot get it.
In the end, it was a waste of my time and not fair.
Sometime down the road, there will be very few "white non Hispanic" (or even any other specific type of person) people left in the world. Everyone will be a diluted mix. What then of the "minorities" who are left? Will they be left to suffer due to years of "oppressing" the "minorities"? When I am 90 and in a retirement home, will I be treated poorly because finally I'M the minority in the USA? Because, finally, others have the opportunity to "turn the tables", so to speak, and oppress me? Then, years later after I am dead an gone, will there be a small group of white, non Hispanics vying for equal rights?
I hope not. I can only hope that people can stop this vicious cycle and move on.. but admittedly, it is difficult to do knowing that being born a certain color gives you either on paper privileges (such as certain grants and scholarships), or unspoken privileges (as has traditionally happened in the past with white, non Hispanic people).
All in all, I don't think ANY funding should be based off your heritage, ethnicity, etc. And I don't think people who are not "Caucasian" should be allowed to do the whole "reverse racism" thing. Racism is racism, no matter how you put it.
(Note: Sorry if I didn't use the proper terms to explain this.. I'm trying my best to remember what I learned in Sociology about race vs ethnicity, etc. Just know I tried! :) )
miabella
07-15-2008, 02:34 PM
that oppression still occurs and is real.
incidentally, you were perfectly eligible if you had decent grades for academic scholarships. i got those scholarships on basis of grades only, race/ethnicity not relevant.
there's plenty of that kind of thing available, rather than trying to make some goofy technical argument that white people are not able to access plenty of scholarship money. 99.4% of all scholarship money is available to whites, period.
you are whining about ONE scholarship when you presumably had the same access to many, many other scholarships that were 'color-blind' as such and relied on grades/essays/etc.
'hispanic' is not a majority in texas, as there are several ethnicities that fall under that label, including what americans would consider white people and black people. it's not really a useful term in that regard, honestly, because it leads whites like yourself to make some dumb assumptions in order to fulfill their senses of entitlement. you felt entitled to free money, not because you understood the history of that scholarship, but because you don't want anyone but other white people to have scholarships.
instead of spending all that time on one lousy scholarship, you could have gone and gotten plenty of others, and yet you didn't. that's entitlement, and it's mighty white of ya.
you didn't learn much in sociology, since you didn't know the details of hispanic as a classification term. 51% 'hispanic' is meaningless in term of race and ethnicity. at best, it means 'spanish is my first language', and not always that.
i love your paranoid fantasies about omg the death of whitey. those are pretty hilarious, as is your belief that everyone will be one perfect shade of caramel 'in the future' (people have been saying racial prejudice can be sex0red away since whites raped black and indian slave women).
you sound like one of those white whiners who thinks 'minorities' (heh) wake up each day and go out to their 'minority benefits' tree and pluck money and jobs that 'deserving whites' should have. because there's no 'driving while black' stops. there's no disproportionate jailing. there's no housing prejudice, where middle-class blacks and brown hispanic people aren't even allowed to buy houses in neighborhoods with well-funded school districts. and there's no redlining. and there's no nooses being hung in the workplace. and any time a white person is hired, it's always based on objective, scientifically analysable merit. no hooking up friends/lovers/school chums/etc. there's no throwing resumes in the trash if they have an 'ethnic' name (ethnic meaning not a western or even eastern european ethnic-sounding name).
no, it's all black people saying 'honky' and 'mexicans' saying 'gringo'. that's the *only* racism left in america today, yep.
Maddie
07-15-2008, 07:53 PM
You, my dear, sound racist.
You made a lot of assumptions in your rebuttal (which shouldn't have been a rebuttal to begin with).
The point is - according to the govt., I'm no longer the "majority" in Texas...
And really, I'll save my breath for someone who will actually listen instead of puff up and use their emotional side as a response. This isn't a strip club - emotional responses aren't expected, logical ones are.
miabella
07-18-2008, 11:55 AM
you were the one expecting to be feted for you racial prejudice (racism, since you're white and can marshall institutional forces to make it the norm, which is what happens in america).
again, racism is prejudice with power backing it. no power, no racism. simple and true. no emotion needed to restate reality.
xdamage
07-18-2008, 03:41 PM
since you're white and can marshall institutional forces to make it the norm, which is what happens in america).
So if the Japanese marshall forces favoring Japanese in Japan, are they being racist?
If the Chinese marshall forces favoring Chinese in China, are they being racist?
If Egyptians marshall forces favoring Egyptians in Egypt, are they being racist?
If French people marshall forces favoring the French in France, are they being racist?
See I have this theory that half of America's problem is we are dim-wits who fail to realize that as much as there is wrong in this country, we are actually quite far ahead of the curve, and furthermore, part of the problem is white people keeping going on the defensive for something that they don't need to be on the defensive for.
Let me put it another way...
I don't believe any people on this planet are fundamentally better at heart. It's as likely that black people can treat minorities in racist ways if due to random events the tables were turned.
Could be that if white people in America stopped feeling attacked for being human there would be greater progress. That is to say, attack human nature great. Attacking white people for being white, or attacking America, probably is doing more harm then good.
Just a thought.
miabella
07-18-2008, 04:46 PM
http://www.timwise.org/
he's white, maybe all the mcwhiteys who have a personal issue with losing access to unearned power can read his stuff.
the 'everyone's a little bit racist' copout is, well, a copout. japan is racist-- they have practiced genocide there, as have the Han Chinese in China.
this doesn't mean that in america white people magically have no power because they don't run China or Japan.
i am sick of this whole 'be nice to whitey and they'll throw you some crumbs'. being nice didn't work for, well, ever. why do they have all the crumbs? it's centuries of theft.
is burning down black towns 'nice'? white people did that.
is dragging a black man behind a truck 'nice'? white people did that.
is shooting a man who was pulling out his ID 'nice'? again, white people did that.
there are certainly folks being attacked in america for being human and wanting their humanity acknowledged. but they aren't white, though they are just as much americans as white people, who are the first to ask them 'no, where are you REALLY from?'
when white americans stop asking everyone else where they are 'really' from, then they can start crying about how omg meen 'minorities' are to them.
white defensiveness at having to treat not-white people like humans is bitterly hilarious-- look at this thread, a whole bunch of 'how dare YOU PEOPLE ask to be treated equally or have access to resources equally, and how dare YOU PEOPLE ask to be considered just as human as anyone white!'
it was not random events that created the situation in america-- it was theft, rape and general treachery on the part of white people. hardly 'random events'.
but i digress and i need to undress...
xdamage
07-18-2008, 06:32 PM
he's white, maybe all the mcwhiteys who have a personal issue with losing access to unearned power can read his stuff.
I don't know what humans did before you were born mia.
I mean somehow mcwhiteys who control everything managed to pass into law the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and AA laws. Laws that aren't simply mcwhitey oriented.
Not that you were an adult or even necessarily born when those laws were passed let alone had anything to do with writing them, other then you happen to have black genes, somehow people including mcwhiteys managed to figure out that the country needs to treat people fairly.
The point about America is you might want to look at some other multi-racial nations and see how they are doing on the curb of treating it's minorities fairly. You may be surprised, even learn a few positive things about America.
However I don't for a second think mcblackys (TM miabelle) are any better humans at heart. I don't think any other race is. As far as I can tell they are just as me-me oriented, just as likely to be racist, just as likely not to give a shit about anything but themselves.
Painting a picture of evil mcwhiteys, good mcblackys is just more typical human racism to me. The good old child like mind. ME GOOD, THEM BAD.
As humans I am in favor of people being treated fairly, but individually, they often times suck, including mcblackys and mcwhiteys and any other race you care to think of.
p.s. also as a thought, you might want to look at some other non-white countries too. You might be surprised to learn that people with darker skin, who are the majorities in those countries, still manage to be the same greedy ass hats, and treat each other like shit. Apparently one doesn't need to be white, just a majority to act like a human. It's also kind of interesting to look at things like how women are treated in those countries, and the laws pertaining to that, because it's kind of enlightening with regards to where America is on the human rights curve world wide.
lestat1
07-21-2008, 10:45 PM
I just thought of something. When I filled out my college applications, and my requests for financial aide, I declined to answer the race section. I believed that it could only hurt me, and not help me, to be caucasian.
Later during freshman year when the costs sank in a bit more, I quickly left a financial aide office when I encountered bookshelves of binders of financial aide applications I was not eligible for on account of race and gender, and a *single* binder for which I was elligible. It all worked out in the end, so really how much can I complain? It was an example, though, of a time I felt "lesser" on account of race and gender. Does anyone have an argument for why it's appropriate for a person should feel that way? Probably not.
BrodieLux
07-22-2008, 01:07 AM
HEY! Did any of you see the cover story in the August 2008 Esquire magazine? I saw it and thought of this thread immediately.
"Stephen Colbert’s Guide to White Male Oppression: I am a martyr. (And so can you!)" by Stephen Colbert. Go here: www.esquire.com for a truncated version....or go see it in print for the good stuff!
Poole
07-22-2008, 03:49 AM
Yeah, white men can't possibly have a legitimate beef, it's all great fun. Persecute white men for establishing the greatest, fairest country ever, as it's taken over lock, stock and barrel by totalitarian anti-white forces.
Casual Observer
07-22-2008, 05:01 AM
I think you misunderstand what systemic discrimination means, much less what "unfairness" means. It is not unfair to correct social imbalances. That is superlatively fair.
Hardly; it's a convenient and obvious violation of the 14th Amendment. Equal protection under the law should mean something, but Sandra Day O'Connor decided recently that it only means something when it's convenient for social engineering purposes.
Jenny
07-22-2008, 05:14 AM
Dude, the entire free world recognizes that programs with a purpose to ameliorate social injustice is a reasonable and legal exception to "equal treatment under the law". The U.S. just has a kind of unsophisticated constitution, not mention one that was not exactly designed to be inclusive or to enact a contemporary social justice, much less correct past ones. As I said - setting up a "white's only" (or "white's mainly") world and then saying: "Okay - let's all just move forward from here" is not equality - or it is the worst kind of formal equality that has no reflection in the world.
Up here in the early days of the gay marriage movement a judge argued that there was no discrimination against homosexuals because they couldn't get married; they could absolutely get married. If they chose not to get married because they couldn't marry the exact person they wanted to, that was up to them. Is this equal? Perhaps, in a formalistic way, but not in a way that shows any actual relationship with the world.
Lestat - would you feel "lesser" if you were an upper middle class person or a wealthy person and there was a row of binders for financial aid you weren't eligible for based on need? (I'm assuming that you were a working class person). If such a person did feel "lesser" based on his (or her) more secure financial status, would you call that a... rational feeling? Like one based on a reasonably interpretation of facts?
Tauries
07-22-2008, 06:08 AM
Dude, the entire free world recognizes that programs with a purpose to ameliorate social injustice is a reasonable and legal exception to "equal treatment under the law".
Do you breathe oxygen on this planet? Where exactly is your world located? It just amazes me that certain people and groups can't see what they are doing is gonna bring the very things they whine about to fruition by poisoning the seeds of the upcoming generations....me thinks they are gonna learn a very harsh lesson in the not too distant future.
lestat1
07-22-2008, 06:08 AM
Lestat - would you feel "lesser" if you were an upper middle class person or a wealthy person and there was a row of binders for financial aid you weren't eligible for based on need? (I'm assuming that you were a working class person). If such a person did feel "lesser" based on his (or her) more secure financial status, would you call that a... rational feeling? Like one based on a reasonably interpretation of facts?
Nope, I wouldn't feel lesser in that case. I think financial aide should be based on need (and to a lesser extent, academic aptitude), and since there are more poor whites in the country than poor ____*, the entire setup was a false assumption.
My family was neither upper class nor working class. Right in the middle with two kids in college at the same time. It worked out because we prioritized and put education first, and I lived at home until 26.
*For those confused: I'm talking raw numbers, I do understand that minorities have a disproportionately high percentage and that's the social injustice being addressed here. The majority demographic simply has more people in most categories on account of being the majority demographic.
Jenny
07-22-2008, 06:23 AM
Nope, I wouldn't feel lesser in that case. I think financial aide should be based on need (and to a lesser extent, academic aptitude), and since there are more poor whites in the country than poor ____*, the entire setup was a false assumption.
So you think programs set up to facilitate the access of some traditionally excluded people (the poor or comparatively poor into institutions traditionally reserved for the wealthy) is good and doesn't victimize anyone, but facilitating the inclusion of people based on other criteria that has traditionally excluded them is bad and does victimize people? Like a person who feels "lesser" as a result of the first scenario is just crazy while feeling personally victimized because of the second is perfectly normal? Like you wouldn't think it was a particularly legitimate complaint if a bunch of wealthy legacies from whatever school you went to were sitting around complaining that people were getting preferential treatment because they were poor? And they think everyone should be treated equally, including equal costs?
Personally I also think it is possible to overestimate the number of scholarships you are excluded from because you are a white male.
Tauries - I have no idea what you are talking about right now. Maybe you could clarify?
xdamage
07-22-2008, 09:25 AM
I'm in favor of idea of AA, making a social correction, but I have doubts about its long term successfulness because of the following:
As several people have pointed out, our subjective sense of who has the wealth is that we are very cognizant of the wealthy few, and more or less oblivious to the vast numbers of those who are not. Our minds are essentially driven by "I want more" and seeing others who have more leads us to feel the world is unfair to us.
Here is the problem -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_States#Race_and_ethnici ty
* Total population: 299 million
* White alone (including White Hispanic): 74% or 221.3 million
* Black or African American alone: 13.4% or 40.9 million
* American Indian or Alaska Native alone: 0.68% or 2.0 million
* Asian alone: 4.4% or 13.1 million
* Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander alone: 0.14% or 0.43 million
* Some other race alone: 6.5% or 19 million
* Two or more races: 2.0% or 6.1 million
Therefore even if AA succeeds in it's goals perfectly, Black people will continue see that the vast majority of wealth is owned by others, outnumbering them by a large factor of almost 8 to 1 (given that 13% of the population is black).
Two problems then... first AA is time limited, but without a measurable goal the time limit is kind of arbitrary. Second problem is I don't yet believe that the civil unrest of sense of fairness will have changed much. I think people still subjectively see that whites have more then blacks and their brains won't account for the fact that is because that in this country this is expected. In a country where darker skinned people are the majority, a fair distribution would mean that light skinned people have less apparent wealth. On a world-wide basis it works out fine, but if you look at the U.S.A. only, blacks in this country will still see that the vast majority of wealth is owned by the majority race.
The Snark
07-22-2008, 08:08 PM
if it actually did turn out that white people are actually bowling over people world wide, then it really is time to start asking, is there some genetic reason why? I don't know that there is, but if it really was true then we have to start looking deeper, because there really is no "man" behind the scenes pulling the strings of all of history.
Why would you look for a genetic explanation for this when there's a historical explanation that's as plain as the nose on my face? It's called colonialism.
I think people still subjectively see that whites have more then blacks and their brains won't account for the fact that is because that in this country this is expected. In a country where darker skinned people are the majority, a fair distribution would mean that light skinned people have less apparent wealth. On a world-wide basis it works out fine, but if you look at the U.S.A. only, blacks in this country will still see that the vast majority of wealth is owned by the majority race.
Except that the disparity between blacks and whites is not merely in terms of aggregate wealth, but also per capita wealth. As I mentioned in an earlier post, the median white family is ten times wealthier than the median black family--and the disparity is growing, not closing. (Look at the work of Dalton Conley if you don't believe me.)
Again, the explanation for this gap is plain to anyone with with any sense of history. Four centuries of enslavement, segregation, disenfranchisement, and discrimination--these things do tend to leave their mark.
xdamage
07-22-2008, 09:12 PM
Why would you look for a genetic explanation for this when there's a historical explanation that's as plain as the nose on my face? It's called colonialism.
Well I said maybe, and we have had this discussion before. You have a blind spot in your brain, a common one, but a blind spot nevertheless. There is nobody else here but us people. History is made by us people. Blaiming it on colonialism is not an explanation. It is the result of the choices people make. It is not the cause. People make decisions that result in "colonialism". You have to go deeper and ask why did they make the decisions they did. What is behind it.
Except that the disparity between blacks and whites is not merely in terms of aggregate wealth, but also per capita wealth. As I mentioned in an earlier post, the median white family is ten times wealthier than the median black family--and the disparity is growing, not closing. (Look at the work of Dalton Conley if you don't believe me.)
You missed the point entirely. 100% off. But perhaps I wasn't clear, so I will try it differently.
What you said is true, but it is not news.
And had you read closer, you would see I said I was in favor of AA to correct social inequalities.
But the problem is this. There is no clear objective. No objective point in which we can announce to society that the goal of AA has been met. People's sense of the inequality is some mixture of truth and some mix of their personal sense. My point was that if even if the inequality was righted, their subjective sense would still be that blacks own only a very small percentage of the total wealth and power, and they would be right! Because they would still be a significant minority.
The point is for AA to succeed, it needs a clearly defined goal (not an arbitrary time frame) and we need to teach people early on in life to see the goal as met objectively, not depend on their subjective sense of it because I'd bet that their subjective sense will throw them off.
xdamage
07-22-2008, 09:42 PM
Except that the disparity between blacks and whites is not merely in terms of aggregate wealth, but also per capita wealth. As I mentioned in an earlier post, the median white family is ten times wealthier than the median black family--and the disparity is growing, not closing. (Look at the work of Dalton Conley if you don't believe me.)
I'd be careful because it wouldn't surprise me to learn that most of that wealth is artificial wealth measured when the stock market was high, and housing inflation at a high level (probably a lot of it). That wealth can crash and burn over night.
But I really despise shock value simple statistics like the ones you are stating. They take a hugely complex topic and reduce it to a sentence even a child could understand it. That appeases to the simple minded and emotional, but we don't need child like minds. We need to educate people to dig deeper. Here is a better explanation of what the situation is:
http://multinationalmonitor.org/mm2003/03may/may03interviewswolff.html
But it is also a perfect example of why I fear AA will fail. I don't really even trust people to be objective. Nobody is laying out a goal for AA. Subjectively people will go on believing whatever statistics align with what they want to believe. And to minorities, even if we meet a goal to more closely align per family income, they are still going to see 8 white men in higher level positions for every 1 black man because that is about what the racial profile is of the overall country. It is too easy to create statistics showing that white men have 8x the power. How do we address that? Because it appears nobody is.
lestat1
07-22-2008, 10:10 PM
So you think programs set up to facilitate the access of some traditionally excluded people (the poor or comparatively poor into institutions traditionally reserved for the wealthy) is good and doesn't victimize anyone, but facilitating the inclusion of people based on other criteria that has traditionally excluded them is bad and does victimize people? Like a person who feels "lesser" as a result of the first scenario is just crazy while feeling personally victimized because of the second is perfectly normal? Like you wouldn't think it was a particularly legitimate complaint if a bunch of wealthy legacies from whatever school you went to were sitting around complaining that people were getting preferential treatment because they were poor? And they think everyone should be treated equally, including equal costs?
Personally I also think it is possible to overestimate the number of scholarships you are excluded from because you are a white male.
I understand the example, but I didn't completely follow the rest. I think what you're asking me is why is it fair to grant bias on one criteria (wealth) and not another (race)? The short answer: No, I consider both unfair. There are certain societal goals I personally place higher, at times and in certain situations, than absolute fairness. Also, I don't think all criteria carry equal weight. The long answer:
In the generality you gave (which put all criteria and all institutions on equal footing), I have trouble coming up with a universal rule. I don't think there is one that works in all situations. Do I think the government should hand out money to ensure the poor have equal access to expensive espresso drinks? No. Do I believe the government should hand out money to ensure the poor have equal access to education? Yes. Am I being inconsistent? Perhaps, but only if you take colleges and Starbucks as the same thing of equal value, benefit, and importance to me and to society. I see clear and solid benefit to me, and to everyone, to have a well-educated society. I don't see the same benefit to me or to everyone in having a well-caffienated society. lol
So I'm okay with someone of greater financial need getting financial aide over me, and I'm okay with efforts to help another group that typically doesn't go to college achieve college. People with poor pre-college education are one such group. Saying that many minorities have, under discrimination, faced disproportionate levels of poverty and poorer pre-college educational opportunities, is a valid statement to me. Saying that because one is a minority, they have faced disproportionate levels of poverty and poorer pre-college educational opportunities, is not a valid statement to me. Some wickets are widgets. Some widgets are wickets. The two groups overlap, but that does not mean that all widgets are wickets or vice versa. Saying "We'll set up these bookshelves of financial aide for poor minorities" covers a section of the groups we talked about, but not nearly all.
A much better system would (1) identify those who needed additional academic assistance due to poorer pre-college educational opportunities and offer them that sort of help, and (2) identify individuals who might not be able to attend due to pverty, and offer them financial aide.
I'm fine if I'm denied financial aide because I went to a great school system that prepared me well for college and my family can afford to send me there (that would place me in neither group identified as needing assistance). Is it fair? Technically no, but I'll accept it because I and everyone else benefit from a well-educated society. Where I feel "lesser" in this situation is when people can't keep their wickets and their widgets straight and I'm treated unfairly as a result of that logic error. It's a senseless unfairness that detracts from the goal which is the only reason I'm willing to accept the unfairness in the first place. So it doesn't sit well with me. Does that make any sense?
I've rambled enough...what is your view on college financial aide?
Jenny
07-22-2008, 10:43 PM
In the generality you gave (which put all criteria and all institutions on equal footing), I have trouble coming up with a universal rule.
I did this? Are you sure? Because I thought we were talking about financial aid in the context of higher education because that was your example. And I put two criteria on the same footing - not all criteria. Maybe I'm not being clear?
I don't think there is one that works in all situations. Do I think the government should hand out money to ensure the poor have equal access to expensive espresso drinks? No. Do I believe the government should hand out money to ensure the poor have equal access to education? Yes. Am I being inconsistent?
Well, okay. But I don't think the government should or is handing out money to people of other races to buy espresso drinks either. So I don't see your point. I mean the kind of activity we are talking about generally exists in schools and in the workplace, not a coffee bar. I mean, I think this discussion of coffee is a bit of a diversion.
Saying that many minorities have, under discrimination, faced disproportionate levels of poverty and poorer pre-college educational opportunities, is a valid statement to me. Saying that because one is a minority, they have faced disproportionate levels of poverty and poorer pre-college educational opportunities, is not a valid statement to me.
How about saying the very simple statement that "people of certain races and/or income brackets are under-represented at colleges and we feel that this is the result of something other than disinclination to achieve higher education or genetic inferiority"?
A much better system would (1) identify those who needed additional academic assistance due to poorer pre-college educational opportunities and offer them that sort of help, and (2) identify individuals who might not be able to attend due to pverty, and offer them financial aide.
But... this is just reaffirming a kind of "discrimination" that you are comfortable with, isn't it?
I'm fine if I'm denied financial aide because I went to a great school system that prepared me well for college and my family can afford to send me there (that would place me in neither group identified as needing assistance). Is it fair? Technically no, but I'll accept it because I and everyone else benefit from a well-educated society. Where I feel "lesser" in this situation is when people can't keep their wickets and their widgets straight and I'm treated unfairly as a result of that logic error.
I think you are just asserting this logic error, though. In a nutshell, you are comfortable with "unfair" assistance (and I think calling need based financial aid "unfair" is asinine) based poverty, and in order to make sense of other excluded groups you are just "translating" them into poor people and then arguing that your own translation is imperfect.
I hate it when people talk about "flawed logic". I suppose I do it - I'll have to stop. I mean, everyone always thinks that they are impeccably logical, and that their logic completely excludes any other conclusion.
I've rambled enough...what is your view on college financial aide?
Well college is cheaper here at the undergraduate level and our chief "financial aid" mechanism is OSAP. Cost is not the same exclusionary tool as at many American schools. At the school I just finished financial aid was given purely on a need based system (nearly) on the theory that everyone who was accepted should be able to go. Is this a problem? Maybe. While women and asians were well represented in my class there was a positive dearth of other races; is this honestly because no black/middle eastern people in Canada want to be lawyers or to go to my school?
Richard_Head
07-22-2008, 11:09 PM
As I mentioned in an earlier post, the median white family is ten times wealthier than the median black family--and the disparity is growing, not closing. Could this perhaps be a sign that AA is not working as it was intended to work? Just saying.
lestat1
07-23-2008, 12:03 AM
I did this? Are you sure? Because I thought we were talking about financial aid in the context of higher education because that was your example. And I put two criteria on the same footing - not all criteria. Maybe I'm not being clear?
Well I was but now I'm not sure. :P
I thought you were purposefully speaking generally to get to a root issue, and not specifically on the topic of college financial aide. So I guess no, not clear. It could be my fault though, as I tend to seek out root issues in problems so I have a bias there.
Well, okay. But I don't think the government should or is handing out money to people of other races to buy espresso drinks either. So I don't see your point. I mean the kind of activity we are talking about generally exists in schools and in the workplace, not a coffee bar. I mean, I think this discussion of coffee is a bit of a diversion.
Agreed, now that I understand the above better, it is a diversion. I thought you were truly speaking of all institutions, so I picked one that I felt was less important to me than college institutions to illustrate why I don't think they can all be treated equally. But since you weren't speaking of all institutions, it's a moot point.
How about saying the very simple statement that "people of certain races and/or income brackets are under-represented at colleges and we feel that this is the result of something other than disinclination to achieve higher education or genetic inferiority"?
No, I'd disagree with that. I think some people are simply disinclined to pursue higher education, and I wouldn't attempt to tie that to a particular race. I don't know about calling it a "genetic inferiority" though. My wild speculation is that a person can be born with a desire to pursue a lifestyle that doesn't include higher education, but I don't know that I'd go so far as to call it a "genetic inferiority." Lifestyle choice perhaps?
In this case though, since there is evidence to show under-representation by socio-economic class and race, I'd want to know why. It doesn't help me that much to know race XYZ is under-represented. It's much more helpful to find a root cause that explains why 70% of race XYZ are under-represented. Then we can address that issue for them, and races ABC and 123. I believe that is more effective than treating every member of a race the same. That's what I was getting at in my last post by referring to poverty and poorer pre-college education. Race can influence the presence of those root causes, but it does not define them.
But... this is just reaffirming a kind of "discrimination" that you are comfortable with, isn't it?
Sure...and? Society (and I include you and I here) support all kinds of discrimination, such as laws preventing a four-time child molestor from working as a pre-school teacher. In many US states, an ex-felon can't vote (I disagree with this one). Discrimination in various forms is quite common and in some forms is accepted by the vast majority. Financial assitance to the poor, in the pursuit of a well-educated society, is another form of discrimination. I'm not clear on your thoughts here - do you support this, or not? I support it.
I think you are just asserting this logic error, though. In a nutshell, you are comfortable with "unfair" assistance (and I think calling need based financial aid "unfair" is asinine) based poverty, and in order to make sense of other excluded groups you are just "translating" them into poor people and then arguing that your own translation is imperfect.
In your last post, I thought you were basically calling it asinine to suggest that it wasn't unfair. I think I definitely misunderstood you, and there's probably a question (or ten) I need to ask here, but I'm too lost. Can you elaborate?
I hate it when people talk about "flawed logic". I suppose I do it - I'll have to stop. I mean, everyone always thinks that they are impeccably logical, and that their logic completely excludes any other conclusion.
Hmm, my brother is an attorney, which means on rare occasion I actually win an argument. When I do, he discredits my entire argument rather quickly and dismissively without much detail. I'm not saying you're doing it here, but that same feeling kind of crept up for me. Could you constructively tell me where or how my logic is faulty, and what about my wickets/widgets reasoning in this situation you find invalid?
Well college is cheaper here at the undergraduate level and our chief "financial aid" mechanism is OSAP. Cost is not the same exclusionary tool as at many American schools. At the school I just finished financial aid was given purely on a need based system (nearly) on the theory that everyone who was accepted should be able to go. Is this a problem? Maybe. While women and asians were well represented in my class there was a positive dearth of other races; is this honestly because no black/middle eastern people in Canada want to be lawyers or to go to my school?
What's OSAP?
And a good question...I'd like to see the demographic breakdown on applications versus admissions.
Poole
07-23-2008, 01:37 AM
Why is it that the Vietnamese can come here and within one generation be pretty much on an equal footing with whites? They came here from a war-torn country, unable to speak English, yet are doing very well. That's also true of other Asian ethnicities. Hispanics are also, generally speaking, succeeding at moving up the economic ladder. But after 40 years of affirmative action, blacks seem to be as bad or worse off economically as before compared to whites, and their social structure has clearly deteriorated in a dramatic fashion since the U.S. government went full-bore into its paternalistic, socialist mode of supposedly trying to "equalize" income between different races.
When you get down to it, "affirmative action" isn't really about non-white racial groups, it's about blacks and their continuing dysfunction in America. How many more generations until they have to play and succeed by the same rules as everyone else?
Jenny
07-23-2008, 06:37 AM
Lestat - I do not think it is "unfair" to try to correct social inequalities. Like I do not think it would be fair to set up a school system only accessible to the rich and then 6 generations later say "okay, now we are eliminating formal discrimination; we will not actual examine your "gentleman pedigree" before letting you into our school, and we shall just move forward like none of this ever happened, although the structure we have set up still excludes you - just not formally." I don't think that is even possible. You evidently don't either - so I don't know why you've decided it should be the case for everything except finance.
I already said - I think your logic is faulty because you've constructed a reason that other races should be getting assistance (higher rates of poverty) and then arguing that it is not logical to give them that assistance based on race based on that construction. But that is all assertion. Like I said - you are comfortable with "finance based" assistance and you are just refusing to entertain that maybe some assistance should be required and given for other reasons. So your logic is flawed because your entire argument is predicated on a fact that is merely assumed. I'm sorry if that was unclear.
And if you are postulating that there is a racial tendency to not go to college and a corresponding racial tendency to not want to make money... I don't know, I would appreciate something backing that up. I think that is a pretty big claim to make.
Can I say again that I have a hard time believing that there is an actual shortage of financial aid for white guys? I personally also find that some white guys are prone to... exaggerating the sheer volume of opportunities that they are excluded from because it makes them feel good. I can say with absolute honesty that I have never ever felt I lacked an opportunity because I was Caucasian.
NickT
07-23-2008, 07:22 AM
Why is it that the Vietnamese can come here and within one generation be pretty much on an equal footing with whites?
First off, I would suppose that people who immigrate are more motivated to improve their situation once they arrive. And it's more correct to say that the Vietnamese can get on equal footing with the middle class rather than whites.
I'm not an expert on the Vietnamese, but I would have to guess it's because of a cultural difference rather than a genetic one. I know the Koreans will pool their money to lend to a new immigrant so he can start a business. Maybe the Vietnamese do that too.
Has anyone seen studies done along racial lines from the same poor community? Like, take a single neighborhood in a poor area that has a variety of races and see how the median income of those specific people change over time.
One problem is that people can have strongly negative, self-imposed limitations on their ability. So the poor people themselves put roadblocks in their way. For example, they may think college is only for rich people and not even look into the many programs which would be available to them. That's where AA comes into play. It tries to pull people out of the mental hole they put themselves in.
xdamage
07-23-2008, 08:02 AM
Why is it that the Vietnamese can come here and within one generation be pretty much on an equal footing with whites? They came here from a war-torn country, unable to speak English, yet are doing very well. That's also true of other Asian ethnicities. Hispanics are also, generally speaking, succeeding at moving up the economic ladder. But after 40 years of affirmative action, blacks seem to be as bad or worse off economically as before compared to whites, and their social structure has clearly deteriorated in a dramatic fashion since the U.S. government went full-bore into its paternalistic, socialist mode of supposedly trying to "equalize" income between different races.
When you get down to it, "affirmative action" isn't really about non-white racial groups, it's about blacks and their continuing dysfunction in America. How many more generations until they have to play and succeed by the same rules as everyone else?
I tend to agree with Nick. It seems doubtful it is a genetic problem, and rather there are cultural issues at play. But it is also true (I am guessing) that immigrants from Asian cultures brought a lot of wealth with them that Blacks in this country do not have as a starting point. I don't know what the status is of Hispanics in this country. I'll have to take your word that they are moving up.
But you do raise a very real concern that is very un-PC to talk about. To what degree are blacks their own worst enemies? Are the changes they need to make strictly the fault of others? Or are there cultural changes they need to make, that until they make, will prevent them from succeeding?
For example Snark brought up median family incomes of blacks vs whites. One of the first thoughts that went through my head is "How is family defined?" Does it include single parent homes? Does it include multi-generational families who pool resources? If so, what is the ratio of these of whites vs blacks?
See statistics can be so easily manipulated and this is why we really need an independent body of statistics, well backed and explained, available for ALL on the internet to examine, to measure AA against.
xdamage
07-23-2008, 10:38 AM
Another interesting take on AA:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0CE7DB143AF935A35756C0A9669582 60
Does Affirmative Action Work?
Starting with :
"It is amazing how people can look at the same data and come away with completely different conclusions."
and ending with
"Our country should stand for equality of opportunity. We cannot guarantee equality of results. "
Food for thought. That was almost 20 years. Here we are today, very same problem. Despite everyone having access to the same data, there is no agreement on how to interpret it or any objective measure of success (or failure). It's a free for all.
The Snark
07-23-2008, 10:45 AM
Could this perhaps be a sign that AA is not working as it was intended to work? Just saying.
Actually, I strongly agree with you here. I don't think affirmative action has been especially effective, except for a small percentage of middle-class blacks. The real problem is a growing economic inequality in the United States. By virtually every measure, the wealthiest 20% of Americans have increased their share of the nation's total wealth, while the poorest 20% have seen their share decline. Since blacks are overrepresented in the bottom quintile and underrepresented in the top quintile, it stands to reason that they have been disproportionately hurt by the growing wealth gap.
I think it would be far more effective to introduce policies that would reduce economic inequality--e.g., raising the minimum wage, re-introducing the estate tax, instituting universal health care--than to promote race-based affirmative action. This would benefit a larger number of blacks far more than fiddling with requirements for university admissions or funding.
It's important to remember the distinction between income and wealth--income is your yearly salary/wages, while wealth is your net worth. The race difference in terms of income is not that great, but in terms of wealth it's a little shocking. And levels of wealth have a huge effect on the life chances of a person--according to one estimate, about 50% to 80% of the wealth that a person accumulates over a lifetime comes from past generations of relatives (e.g., college tuition, inheritance, down payment on homes).
There's no appreciable difference between the graduation rates and career success of blacks and whites coming from families with similar levels of wealth.
So really if the United States developed social policies that were more in line with other Western democracies, this would do more to correct racial inequality than affirmative action.
The Snark
07-23-2008, 10:51 AM
"Our country should stand for equality of opportunity. We cannot guarantee equality of results. "
Because of the importance of inherited wealth to people's life chances, it's very hard to distinguish between equality of opportunity and equality of results. If you're born into a rich family, you're very likely to end of up rich yourself. If you're born into a poor family, the chances are that you will wind up poor.
Should you be punished because your parents were poor? Should you be rewarded because your parents are rich?
hockeybobby
07-23-2008, 01:01 PM
^^^ I like your idea about helping the bottom 20% economically as an alternative, but I have a feeling that sharing the wealth is an even more difficult pill to swallow for the establishment than affirmative action type policies. They likes their moneys.
xdamage
07-23-2008, 02:30 PM
Because of the importance of inherited wealth to people's life chances, it's very hard to distinguish between equality of opportunity and equality of results. If you're born into a rich family, you're very likely to end of up rich yourself. If you're born into a poor family, the chances are that you will wind up poor.
Should you be punished because your parents were poor? Should you be rewarded because your parents are rich?
This is a fair and valid question.
It could be argued that both the contributions of society's members and the expenses (e.g., criminal activity, the sick who cannot contribute much, the mentally ill, the developmentally disabled) are both fruits that society should bare and profit from. By which I mean, perhaps it is time to consider that while individuals can amass wealth while they live, that the wealth needs to go back into the common pool after they die. But how to practically implement that, I do not know. Still it is an interesting thought.
Still, even when we talk about things like "families", the statistics don't make it clear what is being compared. For example, the last time I looked at statistics regarding teenage pregnancies, and STDs that are indicators of how many teems are having unprotected sex, the figures were dramatically scary, Like several times higher for blacks.
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/2006/09/12/USTPstats.pdf
When you look at this report for example, there is a problem here. The rate of teenage pregnancy for whites is about half of what it is for blacks.
Let's look at another statistics:
http://www.fathersloveletter.com/Ministry/statistics.html
"Currently, 57.7 percent of all black children, 31.8 percent of all Hispanic children, and 20.9 percent of all white children are living in single-parent homes."
57.7 to 20.9 - that is nearly 3 to 1!!!
Now if those stats are true, comparing single parent families to dual parent families is misleading. It's damn hard to get ahead with two incomes, let alone one.
The point is until that is addressed, comparing family incomes is likely to remain skewed. There is a problem here that means poor people are perpetually harming the statistics at a rate faster than society correct.
So how we do we fix that?
It's like trying to fix a leaky bath tub by pouring more water into it. We can only pour water into it so fast. At some point we have to fix the leaks or it's just a never ending game of catch up.
Casual Observer
07-23-2008, 06:04 PM
How about saying the very simple statement that "people of certain races and/or income brackets are under-represented at colleges and we feel that this is the result of something other than disinclination to achieve higher education or genetic inferiority"?
No, but how about saying that cultural norms and attitudes of aforementioned demographics are largely indicative of representation in universities? Otherwise, you're basically saying that if blacks aren't 12% of the university population and whites aren't 67% of the population and Hispanics aren't 14% of the population--as per their relative numbers in the general population, then the university is engaging in racist practices. That's simply not the case as it presumes that there are equal numbers of people from each demographic that desire to attend universities.
Self-selection is a real phenomenon.
I think it would be far more effective to introduce policies that would reduce economic inequality--e.g., raising the minimum wage, re-introducing the estate tax, instituting universal health care--than to promote race-based affirmative action. This would benefit a larger number of blacks far more than fiddling with requirements for university admissions or funding.
Truth. And perhaps not ironically, it would benefit all those on the lower rungs of our socioeconomic ladder.
xdamage
07-24-2008, 08:07 AM
Self-selection is a real phenomenon.
True.
--
Side point. In general I think humans mostly want the ends, not the means;
They want the end result, wealth, but not the means to achieve it. We want to play, and avoid work by nature. We tend to avoid:
o The stress and time associated with many higher paying jobs.
o The stress and time associated with education leading to higher paying jobs.
o The stress and time associated with working the way up the ladder in a company.
o Savings or Investing (deferred benefits) vs Spending now (immediate benefits).
o Investing in one's children vs Oneself (e.g., so many men who want absolutely no responsibility for their children)..
And so on.
This to me is human nature (yep, I don't see people as being inherently all that great, so ...).
I fear that the biggest problem our society faces then, that more then wealth, what is handed down from generation to generation is social training from parents, training that encourages their own children to overcome their human tendencies, and to make choices that have long term benefits vs short term ones.