Reverse Discrimination?

[Ozone]

Let me start by saying that I DO NOT want this to turn into a racial battle, and I in NO means want to portray a prejudice attitude, but I want to know what others think of this.

The other day, as I sat watching television, I saw a commercial that said "Give to the United Negro College Fund" (I've also seen "Give to the United Asian College Fund). Now that's fine and good, but I'm wondering what would happen if someone started a college fund in which the money ONLY went to white people, and then advertised "Give to the United Caucasian College Fund". Would other races accuse them of racial discrimination? Are whites the ones being discriminated against in some cases?

Again: Please, no racial slurs or prejudice remarks in this thread, and Slythe, please feel free to close this thread if it gets out of hand. This is just a question of curiosity.

[lswote]

I think it probably would be perceived as racial discrimination. Also many things which are considered Politically Incorrect if referred to women are not considered so when referred to men.

The playing field is not level and I guess minorities and women have been on the short end for a long time and Political Correctness and reverse discrimination are ways to level things out.

[Gazoo]

I know that there is a group called the NAAWP. I have no idea what their mission is or what their beliefs may be, but I'm sure that they are viewed as racist by many people.

[Saint Zero]

If I recall correctly, the NAAWP is founded by David Duke, failed Congressional/Senatorial/Gubernatorial canadiate and ex grand wizard of the KKK. He's toned down his retoric in recent years, but he's still faithful to his little cause. most people just ignore him.

[Needs2know]

I think we've tried to go over this before in another thread. I know we have because I posted to it. You know why they have a United Negro College Fund yet you ask this question anyway. If you are looking for someone to agree with your "reverse discrimination" views then you will find a few here at the SDMB that agree with you. However, just because you do does not necessarily make the idea of reverse discrimination right. I personally think it's a crock! If white men hadn't dominated the world for so many centuries then the point would be moot. If black people in this country were actually given a fair chance since they were given their freedom from slavery then we wouldn't even need to discuss this subject. As far as I'm concerned there is no such thing as "reverse discrimination". White people are not discriminated against in this country, period.

Need2know

[Dumbguy]

White people are not discriminated against in this country, period.

I love it when people say 'period' at the end of their posts, because it means I don't have to think about that issue anymore. Problem is, it totally screws me up when someone makes a subsequent post that expresses a different view. Didn't they see the period? Is it a bug of some kind in the message board?

Note: This post is unrelated in content and therefore respects the 'period'.

[manhattan]

For the record, the United Negro College Fund does not, as it's primary mission, give scholarships to black people. It gives scholarships to people attending a consortium of 39 historically black colleges. It also gives operating money directly to the colleges.

An example of a fund that gives support to the students and operations of an historically white college is called the Yale endowment fund.

[Ozone]

manhattan - can always count on you. That makes sense, but I only used the UNCF as one example. I know a man who was refused a job because he was white. The company he was applying to had to meet it's "quota" of minority employees. They ended up hiring a lesser qualified minority simply because they needed one. Although, I'd dare say that it was white people who caused this "quota" to be installed in the first place.

Needs2know - I'm not looking for someone to agree with me, I really am interested in other's opinions on this subject. It's also not my fault that some of my forefathers were assholes. Hell, look what our sorry asses did to the Native Americans...

[Czarcasm]

I think that this thread is more suited for the Great Debates.
Up we go!

[Kimstu]

Welcome Ozone! You must be quite new here in GD if you missed the three pages of heated discussion in the Racist Scholarships debate a short while ago. We went over pretty much all of this ground fairly thoroughly and even ended harmoniously (wow).

Kimstu

[mangeorge]

As manhattan mentioned, some UNCF funds benefit whites, especially in recent years.
I've heard the "I have a friend" story a thousand times, but have never been a witness to a less qualified minority getting preference over a white because of race. I've worked in the construction trades for most of my life. With pretty much all races. And I like it that way.
"Reverse Discrimination" to me would mean to give advantage to someone because they are of a minority. I hope I got it right.
I skipped most of those other posts because I tend to get all worked up when I hear white people whining about "reverse discrimination". Minorities have a long way to go yet before we can justify complaints about discrimination against us white people. Take a look at the top of most corporate ladders.
Peace,
mangeorge (Gonna catch hell)

[evilbeth]

Well, I still want to know who the hell came up with the term "reverse discrimination" anyway. Does that mean that there isn't any discrimination? It was probably invented by the same idiot who started using the word, "irregardless." Discrimination is discrimination--no matter which direction it is pointing!

[Typo Negative]

manhattan - can always count on you. That makes sense, but I only used the UNCF as one example. I know a man who was refused a job because he was white. The company he was applying to had to meet it's "quota" of minority employees. They ended up hiring a lesser qualified minority simply because they needed one. Although, I'd dare say that it was white people who caused this "quota" to be installed in the first place.

Do you know the 'lesser qualified minority' or are you simpy taking your friends word? Sounds a little like sour grapes. Maybe the guy they hired was better qualified. Maybe your friend, well......someone who does not interview well.

[loser]

Um, I don't think anyone could make much of a case that reverse discrimination is the greater of two evils after reading Black Like Me, in which a white journalist and writer with a very solid resume tried to get a job with any number of newspapers while pretending he was black. They seemed to genuinely regret that they couldn't offer him anything, although he must surely have been a bigger fish than had ever applied to them.
My advice to white people is to count your blessings and live with it, really....

[Mr.Zambezi]

Loser, wasn't Black Like Me written like 30 years ago?

What we got down to in the other thread was that, yes, the scholarships are discriminatory. By definition a scholarship that exclude a certain race is discriminatory. However, we disagreed strongly on whether or not the discrimination was justified.

I think it is not. Many of my left leaning SDMB brethren believe that it is justified because of the supposed unlevel playing field.

I would bristle if anyone told me that I was disadvantaghed and neede special help in order to succeed. Kind of like being put in special ed.

[Jman]

There's a great amount of reverse discrimination as far as college acceptance goes. I understand that Affirmative Action is intended to get those who would not be able to get a chance to go to good schools/get hired by good employers to be able to do these things, but it's done wrongly. A white, poor inner-city teenager has just as hard a time getting out of there and getting a great education as a black, poor, inner-city teenager. What irks me, is that if you have pretty good grades, decent SATs, and have done some activities in HS, and you're black, or especially Native American, you will, in all likelyhood get accepted to Harvard, Yale, etc.. If you're white, you've got to be at the absolute top of your class, have outstanding SATs and be involved in everything. Even then, you will have a hard time getting in. It's not really fair. I'm not asking for a white advocacy rule...what needs to happen is a COLOR-BLIND ADMISSION POLICY. No quotas, and applicants have no opportunity to check a race on their apps...base them solely on academic and extra-curricular performance. That's fair. Some people will say names are a problem, since there are many names that are only used by blacks, or asians, or other races....so just make your app your soc. security number. They find out your race after you're accepted. It's nuts.

Jman

[Needs2know]

Reverse discrimination is a favorite whine of bigots. No matter how much they protest in this "politically correct" climate, no matter how many seemingly rational arguments that can be made for "reverse discrimination"...It's comes from a sad little place in the hearts of people who can't stand the idea that giving someone else a hand up is denying them access to something....snivel, snivel, whine, burp.

Needs2know...leans to the left so badly she almost falls right over!

[gobear]

It's interesting how White guys complain about reverse discrimination and ask why we can't have color-blind hiring and admissions policies. Why didn't White guys complain about discrimination when Black people couldn't get decent jobs or go to good schools thirty years ago?
In addition, why is it that when a Black man or a woman of any color is hired instead of a White man, the White guy complains that the successful candidate is less qualified? Isn't it possible that the other person is more qualified?
A company that hires stupid employees won't last long in a competitive business environment, so I tend to believe that the HR departments are going for the brightest candidates of any color.
I suspect that the biggest whiners are the mediocre White guys who long for the days when having a penis and a White skin were automatic admission tickets to success.

[Steve-o]

So two wrongs make a right? Is that what I am to understand from some of you? I agree with evilbeth. Discrimination is discrimination is discrimination. What’s the cut-off point, and who gets to say when we’ve reached it? If we institutionalize discrimination, who’s to say that it won’t get out of control and turned around later on down the road? It could be decided that it went too far, and to make up for it, we are now going to discriminate against the group that the institutionalized discrimination was originally intended to benefit. If the government says that it’s acceptable to discriminate against one group, why couldn’t it turn around and say that it’s acceptable to discriminate against another group? Hmmm… seems like we’ve seen that somewhere before.

When I applied to the Houston Police Department (HPD), they had two standards for applicants. One for white males, and one for everyone else. I don’t remember all of the differences, but the one that stood out like a sore thumb and consequently made me remember it was that a white male couldn’t have EVER used an illegal drug. Everyone else… as long as they hadn’t used within the last 2 (IIRC) years. That is wrong no matter how you slice it, and I don’t understand how anyone could argue otherwise with a straight face. A court order (I think from Judge William Wayne Justice (cool name for a judge huh?)) mandating that the HPD have its employees race and sex profile match that of the community is what brought these two different standards about. The problem was not that HPD was simply not hiring the non-white-male applicants. The problem was that non-white-male people were not applying to become HPD officers in the first place. The standards had to be lowered for the non-white-male applicants to ensure that a larger percentage of the ones that applied were accepted.

I understand that in some areas white males still have a social advantage over “minorities”, but I still maintain that two wrongs do NOT make a right. (I don’t think that Judge William Wayne Justice was very just (if he was, indeed, the judge involved).) I think that the solution is to fervently prosecute violators of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 / 1991.

BTW, in case someone thinks that there may be some “sour grapes” involved with me here, that is not the case. I withdrew my candidacy on my own after finding out about a congenital spinal deformity that could potentially be dangerous in police work. I’ve never used an illegal drug (not that I’m against it, it’s just that they never interested me before), so the differing standard that I mentioned had no bearing on me.

Reverse discrimination is a favorite whine of bigots.

And by the way Needs2know, are you just posting a little factoid, or are you suggesting that the people who may disagree with you here are bigots? It's fine with me (in fact, I applaud it) if an individual or an organization wants to give someone a "hand up". The problem I have is when the government MANDATES discrimination. That is WRONG, WRONG, WRONG, WRONG... I don't know if I can say that enough. The only hand the government should have in dealing with discrimination is to punish it when it breaks a law.

Period. (That's for you, Dumbguy)

[Mr.Zambezi]

Reverse discrimination is a favorite whine of bigots. No matter how much they protest in this "politically correct" climate, no matter how many seemingly rational arguments that can be made for "reverse discrimination

In one sentence you close the debate on political correctness and dismiss all rational [sounding] arguments.

I guess all that leaves is ranting, rhetoric and anecdote.

What I love is people who will deny one an opportunity based on the color of one's skin in the name of fairness.

" If nedds2Know and I walked down the street holding hands, we would balance perfectly"

[Steve-o]

Why didn't White guys complain about discrimination when Black people couldn't get decent jobs or go to good schools thirty years ago?

Don't lump all of us "White guys" together and hold us up as a monolithic group. Those were different white guys. Don’t hold me responsible for the actions of other people. What you have described about black people not being able to get into certain schools or get certain jobs still happens today (though on a MUCH smaller scale), and I think it is reprehensible. Personally, what I think should be outlawed is having any question on application forms that have anything to do with race or sex (as Jman touched on). These two pieces of information should be irrelevant. Interviews should be given in person, face to face, but with a twist. Have a second "blind" interviewer that is behind a curtain and cannot see the applicant. Depending on the position, the surface of a person DOES matter. You wouldn't want your receptionist to shower only every 2 months, brush their teeth twice that often, and wear garbage bags to work.

[Mr.Zambezi]

A company that hires stupid employees won't last long in a competitive business environment, so I tend to believe that the HR departments are going for the brightest candidates of any color.

I have worked for a company that forbid a manager to hire another white male, regardless of the fact that no minorities bothered to apply. They actually had a point system for hiring. Every protected class a person belonged to counted as a point. Managers want to hire the brightest, but they also like to avoid discrimination lawsuits, so they compromise.

I suspect that the biggest whiners are the mediocre White guys who long for the days when having a penis and a White skin were automatic admission tickets to success.

White skin was never a gurantee of success. YOu can say that all successful people were white men, but you can't say that all white men were successful.

[sailor]

A- To say *all* whites are or were racist is an insult to all those that fought for the rights of blacks. The civil war was fought by whites to free the blacks. Those on the PC side would have you believe this is a white versus black issue and it is not. Whites have done more to help blacks than many blacks have done for their own people.

B- I cannot stand it when the PC crowd declare the purity of their motivations and the evilness and selfishness of anyone who sees things a different way.

C- So it was OK for blacks to whine when they were discriminated against and it is not OK for whites to whine when they are discriminated against?

D- In any case, does anyone think "positive discrimination" is making race relations better? As long as you have discrimination of any kind you are going to have bad relations between those groups.

E- Does saying "period" when you finish really make you right? I wish I had learnt that before!

[Dumbguy]

A- The civil war was fought by whites to free the blacks.

Some people have said whites were actually fighting to preserve the union. Lincoln for one.

C- So it was OK for blacks to whine when they were discriminated against and it is not OK for whites to whine when they are discriminated against?

There's a difference between having a harder time getting a scholarship and not being allowed to attend a university at all. There's a difference between not being offered a job you're qualified for and being dragged to your death behind a truck. Calling both of these things 'discrimination' and acting as if there's no difference is hardly a fair representation of the issue.

[Mr.Zambezi]

There's a difference between having a harder time getting a scholarship and not being allowed to attend a university at all.

At which universities are blacks not allowed to attend?

There's a difference between not being offered a job you're qualified for and being dragged to your death behind a truck. Calling both of these things 'discrimination' and acting as if there's no difference is hardly a fair representation of the issue.

Well, next time I am competing with a minority for a job, I will just thank my lucky stars that I am not getting dragged to death behind a truck like all of these minorities are on a daily basis.

My God, Dumbguy! Could you please crank up the melodramatic rhetoric a few notches? I want to see if my head actually explodes....

[Dumbguy]

At which universities are blacks not allowed to attend?

I love it when people read every fourth word of something and then get in a snit. Sailor said "So it was OK for blacks to whine when they were discriminated against and it is not OK for whites to whine when they are discriminated against?" The use of tense was his. He was comparing discrimination against blacks in the past to that against whites in the present. And I was responding to him.
[/quote][/b]

Could you please crank up the melodramatic rhetoric a few notches?

I was using extreme examples to indicate that there is a huge range of degrees in what we're casually lumping under 'discrimination.' Sure, the point was dramatic, because the differences are dramatic. I'll take the 'melo' prefix to mean you don't agree with me.

Well, next time I am competing with a minority for a job, I will just thank my lucky stars that I am not getting dragged to death behind a truck like all of these minorities are on a daily basis.

Who said anything about a daily basis? Strikes me as a little melodramatic to exaggerate my point like that. For the record, how often does it have to happen before it's not just rhetoric?

[sailor]

What I want to know now is why my sig has disappeared and when did that happen. It still shows in my profile... hmmm... I hate these conspiracies...

[Dumbguy]

I took your sig sailor. I won't tolerate posters who don't agree with me.

[mangeorge]

Mr.Zambezi offers;
" If nedds2Know and I walked down the street holding hands, we would balance perfectly"
------
No, Mr.Zambezi, I think it more likely that you would both spontaneously combust.
Peace,
mangeorge

[ruadh]

When I applied to the Houston Police Department (HPD), they had two standards for applicants. One for white males, and one for everyone else.

I think there are situations in which affirmative action is inappropriate, but a city police department is not one of them. The police force needs to be as racially representative as it can be of the community it's serving. I believe history provides enough adequate examples of the alternative.

(That said, I agree it's stupid to exclude white males solely on the basis of ANY previous drug use.)

[madd1]

Earlier I had started this thread asking if a White Entertainment Network would be considered racist based only on its name. There were some extremely interesting points brought up, mostly about perceived reverse racism in the form of scholarships and other areas. This topic, "Reverse discrimination", already exists in http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/...hreadid=27265. in the Great Debates area.

I, for one, find that asking anyone about race, sex, religion, or political beliefs, on any type of application, is wrong.

A persons race, sex, or, religion should have no bearing on employment or education and the reasons are self-explanatory. But here is my 2 cents…

It is IMHO, that Federal, state, county and local governments would serve us better if its hiring practice followed these guidelines, rather than trying to make itself reflect the population make up.
As a school administrator, I would like to see that everyone has an equal chance for an education. Eliminating the race, or sex, quotas that exist in the system can do this. A student who strives and achieves an academic proficiency should not be passed over because a law mandates a quota.

As an employer, I would only want the best person for the job, based on experience and/or education alone. There are laws protecting people against discrimination.

[Needs2know]

I know...I must be stupid...I just don't understand how anyone can even ask these kinds of questions. Perhaps for a young white male just graduating from high school, not having actually seen what blacks used to be like then maybe...

But I lived through it. I can remember the civil rights movement. People were killed, white and black just so black people could vote! Vote for God's sake, something that is so basic to who we are as Americans. I can remember "whites only" bathrooms and fountains, especially here in the South. I can remember being in 3rd grade and there were only 4 black kids in my elementary school. I can remember how silent and miserable they looked. I can remember their hand me down clothes. They weren't getting an education, they were terrified, fish out of water.

Even today, black farmers are still engaged in a law suit with the United States government. Why? Because they were not considered for farm loans the same as whites. Most of these farm families have been struggling on their land for generations! Did the government do this to them? No, individuals working for the government did this, but the government should now rectify this problem. That is how quotas are started.

It would be fine with me if all of this were not necessary but it is. Even asking these kinds of questions, white scholarships, white TV, reverse discrimination, shows me that the person has absolutely no sensitivity to the still ongoing hardships of minorities in this country. These people have been living side by side with us for generations. They helped build this country, literally. Yet for over a hundred years they were not afforded the same liberties or opportunities as the rest of us. Do we owe them something now, generations later, I say a big damned yes! We as a society owe each other, we owe it to each other to do our best to see that every American has the opportunity to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. If some of us need to be protected in order to achieve this then it is the right thing to do. IMHO a society is only as good as the compassion it shows for it's most needy.

Need2know

[Jman]

I don't see how a color-blind admissions policy to colleges hurts anyone. It lets the most qualified applicant get accepted. It puts no priority on color at all. The way things are at the top universities in the country, a white person has a large disadvantage in the application process. That's that facts...it USED to be the other way around, and AA served its purpose, allowing minorites into the universities. But now, the opposite is happening, and we should try to get it to be EQUAL..not just good for minorities, or whites.

I have a close friend, who is Native American. She had good grades in HS (3.8), decent SATs, but not outstanding, and a couple clubs, but no major activities. She was accepted to Harvard with a FULL RIDE SCHOLARSHIP. While she's a very bright person, there are a LOT of people who were not accepted to Harvard that had better qualifications, and were white. She ended up not going there...(Went to Cornell...how I met her), but she was accepted just the same.

In high school, I applied to Princeton. A person I know also applied to Princeton. I had a 4.5 GPA and was valedictorian of my class. He had a 3.6 and was 42nd in his class. I was a 4 year varsity letterman. He didn't do sports. I had a 1340 on my SATs. He had a 1300. I was in the band, German club, did 2 years of flood relief in St. Louis, Oddessy of the Mind, etc. He was in the Spanish club and his church youth group. I was rejected. He was accepted. I am white; he is black. Tell me...is he more qualified than me? You may think this is just sour grapes, but it's not. I'm extremely glad I didn't go to Princeton. BUT...the point is, it's not really fair. Can I say definitively that he got in because he was a minority? No...but from looking at the facts, it seems to be the only thing possible.

I'm not saying that there's anything wrong with having a diverse campus. I'm an electrical engineering major, and in my major, I am a minority...by a lot. I think it's great...but I also think that the color of your skin, your ancestry, your sex, and your beliefs should have NO bearing on your acceptance to college or your hiring at a job. It just doesn't belong.

Jman

[Mr.Zambezi]

Need said

We as a society owe each other, we owe it to each other to do our best to see that every American has the opportunity to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Yes, equality of opportunity is a great goal. But what you are talking about is equality of outcome forced through staed enforced programs. THat is a very different animal.

If some of us need to be protected in order to achieve this then it is the right thing to do. IMHO a society is only as good as the compassion it shows for it's most needy.

Compassion is different than money, is different than a loan, is different than free tuition. I can have compassion for a minority applicant who is woefully underqualified. But I don't have to give him a job to be compassionate.

IMHO, the problem with the financial disparity that we see is the result of certain minority groups simply not showing up. I can't hire blacks if none apply. THere has to be some level of personal motivation. Or should I be required to go out and pull resume's out of their ears?

Dumbguy: you used the word "allowed" when talking about blacks going to college. Saying that they aren't "allowed" is different than saying it is difficult for them to get in.

And the dragging death of that black man was indeed one incident.And it wasn't discrimination, it was racially motivated murder.

People who want to created federal laws based on one incident scare me.

[gobear]

Steve-o wrote:

When I applied to the Houston Police Department (HPD), they had two standards for applicants. One for white
males, and one for everyone else. I don’t remember all of the differences, but the one that stood out like a sore thumb and consequently made me remember it was that a white male couldn’t have EVER used an illegal drug. Everyone else… as long as they hadn’t used within the last 2 (IIRC) years.

That's appalling. That truly is an unacceptable example of
reverse discrimination. There is a big difference between expanding opportunity for everyone and closing the door to majority applicants in the name of 'fairness.'

Mr.Zambezi wrote:

I have worked for a company that forbid a manager to hire another white male, regardless of the fact that no minorities bothered to apply. They actually had a point system for hiring. Every protected class a person belonged to counted as a point. Managers want to hire the brightest, but they also like to avoid discrimination lawsuits, so they
compromise.

Again, that's an asinine decision by the HR department who don't comprehend what affirmative action is all about.
Quots and affirmative action make me uncomfortable, too, but we all know that without AA, educated black guys could not get good jobs because white guys would only hire white guys. As you pointed out, Mr. Zambezi, not all white men were successful, but all successful people were white men.
I'm a white guy, too. For six years I lived and worked in South Korea. In Korea, there were bars and restaurants I was barred entry to because I was white; every white guy I knew who had a Korean girlfriend got into fights with Korean guys for screwing their women. I know in a small way what it's like to be discriminated against, to be cheated by merchants and abused by an employer and the police don't help, because non-Koreans are always wrong in Korea.
That's the situation black folks faced in the US until the very recent past.
Mr. Zambezi, do you really feel that white guys are being discriminated against? When was the last time you saw a white man being lynched by a crowd of black men? How many more black CEO's are there than white CEO's? How much richer are black people than white people? Where are the prosperous black suburbs and the poor white ghettos? I suspect that Mr. Zambezi and his friends resent any successful blacks in America.

[Mr.Zambezi]

Mr. Zambezi, do you really feel that white guys are being discriminated against?

What do you call it when a white guy has to have higher credential than a black man to get the same job. Wasn;t that what blacks faced not too long ago?

When was the last time you saw a white man being lynched by a crowd of black men?

Well, I haven't seen black men lynched by white men either. I have seen more whites killed by blacks than vice versa. Don't bring up acts from 80 years ago to justify current actions.

How many more black CEO's are there than white CEO's?

first of all, current CEO, for the most part, started their careers 30-40 years ago, so current CEO makeup reflects that time. THere are currently more women enrolled in college than men. I predict in 20-30 years you will see sexual parity at the CEO level, but you will probably not see black/white parity. I will get to that in a minute.

How much richer are black people than white people? Where are the prosperous black suburbs and the poor white ghettos?

Well, I live next to a poor white ghetto. I bet that there are more poor whites than poor blacks. ANd the wealth of blacks as a whole may have more to do with their own culture than it has to do with discrimination. Do you remember that 60 minutes episode about how Recen black immigrants from Africa and the Caribean are far more successful than American blacks? How can that be if it is purely a matter of discrimination based on color?

I suspect that Mr. Zambezi and his friends resent any successful blacks in America.

to the contratry, I want more parity so that I don't have to be lambasted and discredited for being white. I didn't get where I am simply because I am white.

As I said before, the black community has not been showing up. If they don't apply for jobs tehy can't get jobs.

Come to think of it, if they don't apply, they can't be discriminated against.

[Steve-o]

I think there are situations in which affirmative action is inappropriate, but a city police department is not one of them. The police force needs to be as racially representative as it can be of the community it's serving. I believe history provides enough adequate examples of the alternative.

First off, let me say (write) that I do think that the police force should be (at least somewhat) representative of the community it polices (this goal should not supercede the goal of hiring quality police officers). The problem is, when they use a program that makes it easier for people with the desired skin color or genitalia to get hired, what do you sacrifice? If you reduce the hiring standards for any group, the police officers that are represented by that group will be sub-par, while the police officers representing the group with higher hiring standards will most likely be better officers. Most of the original standards were set for a work related reason. They were set to help ensure that the police officers that were hired to protect our community were ABLE to do their job in a proper manner.

Another thing that I remember was that they had made the reading, writing and math tests easier (for everyone, not just “minorities”). These tests were a joke. I guarantee I could have passed them when I was in the third grade. Going into it, I figured they would be on the sophomore-or-junior-in-high-school level, and was shocked when I began the tests. The math test consisted of problems such as:

12+32=?
28-17=?
5X3=?
21/7=?
10+A=17 A=?

They were all multiple choice, and there were only two of these problems that involved solving for a variable, so even if you missed all (read both) of them, you could still easily pass the test. The reading and writing testes ( ... I liked the typo so much, I kept it) were just as absurd. It is important for police officers to be able to do these basic functions very well, as reading and writing constitute over half of the time spent on their job. It is also important for another reason. Getting convictions. If proper, coherent documentation of any crime is not recorded by the responding police officer, it is going to be tough if not impossible to get a conviction.

I would assume that part of the goal of having the police force match (racially and sexually) the community it polices would involve having the “higher ups” in the force also be as racially and sexually diverse as the community. If “minorities” are brought into the police force via reduced standards, who do you think will perform better on the advancement tests (should we have different standards for the advancement tests?)? The higher up you go, the more reading and writing you will do. What about those “minority” individuals that could have met the original hiring standards? They are going to be stigmatized by the lower hiring standards for whatever “minority” group to which they belong.

My suggestion? Remember, the problem was not that HPD was passing over qualified “minority” applicants. The problem was that there were very few “minority” applicants in the first place. Instead of lowering standards to accommodate the small pool of “minority” applicants, increase the size of the pool of “minority” applicants, and keep the standards the same for everyone. Advertise heavily in areas with high concentrations of whatever the desired skin color or genitalia is. Start a PR campaign that involves going to schools (especially elementary schools) on “just for fun” visits. Bring a police dog, and invite kids to come pet the dog. Tell the kids about what a police officer does, and give a staged demonstration of what the dog does. There are all kinds of things that could be done in this vein that would not violate the Civil Rights Act of 1964 / 1991, and would help to increase the “minority” applicant pool.

[sailor]

One of the principles of our culture is individual responsibility. You do not punish people for what others may have done. This is not Cuba or China where if you defect they will punish your family.

Needs2know, discrimination is already illegal but you seem to find it acceptable to punish a certain group of people (whites) for the discrimination (which may or may not exist, but let us accept it for the sake of argument)of some of those people. I do not find that acceptable, but let me assume, again for the same of argument, that it would be acceptable. Then, if you are consistent the following should be acceptable:

In Washington DC most street crime against whites is done by blacks. These acts are already illegal and if the perpetrator is caught he will suffer the weight of the law. But now we extend your reasoning and we pass a law that restricts the freedom of black males (age 15 - 35 if you like) by setting a curfew, or restricting them from certain neighborhoods or whatever.

Is this acceptable to you?

[gobear]

Mr. Zambezi wrote:

to the contrary, I want more parity so that I don't have to be lambasted and discredited for being white.
I didn't get where I am simply because I am white.

I would never dream of lambasting you for being white. I'm a white guy, too. I also know that we live in a sea of privilege that we take for granted. I grant that attempts to make America a fairer place have been clumsily applied and it's certainly unfair to discriminate against qualified white applicants. Racist hiring is wrong, no matter who does it.
But think about this, without affirmative action, do you think that a white employer would give a black applicant the time of day, let alone a job, no matter how qualified the applicant may be?
As much as I hate to agree with you, you do have a point about the collective lack of success of American blacks as opposed to West Indian immigrants, but that properly belongs in another thread.
In addition, you can't say lynchings only happened 80 years ago. Wasn't James Byrd, Jr. dragged to death by white men? Was that not a lynching?
Sailor, Needs2know was not advocating class discrimination against whites, so your analogy is illogical.
I am very far from the PC crowd, but I also see that white men as a class still retain power and wealth in this country and are far from being a persecuted class.

[Steve-o]

Racist hiring is wrong but affirmative action is ok? I read this as: racist hiring is wrong, but government sponsored racist hiring is ok. Maybe I misunderstand, but I thought that affirmative action WAS racist hiring. As for a white employer giving a black applicant a job... The goal of any business owner is to make money and stay in business. The best way to do that is to hire the person who could do the job the best. Anyone who would not do so is a fool (and a criminal who should be punished), and will most likely not be in business very long if they are prone to making such irrational decisions. We don’t need affirmative action. What we need is for the government to ONLY get involved when an employer violates the Civil Rights Act of 1964 / 1991.

[Mr.Zambezi]

[quote][b]
Mr. Zambezi wrote:

I grant that attempts to make America a fairer place have been clumsily applied and it's certainly unfair to discriminate against qualified white applicants

It will be tough to make a fair country through legislation when life itself is not fair. Can we vote on outlawing luck?

. But think about this, without affirmative action, do you think that a white employer would give a black applicant the time of day, let alone a job, <snip>As much as I hate to agree with you, you do have a point about the collective lack of success of American blacks as opposed to West Indian immigrants,

First of all I am talking about today, not 20 years ago. Secondly, my point about African immigrants (black) vs. American blacks is that the color of one's skin can't be the sole cause of failure if groups of the same color have different rates of success. How can someone from the West Indies succeed if all dark skinned opeople are discriminated against? And the African's and West Indians are doing it often without being native English speakers.

In addition, you can't say lynchings only happened 80 years ago. Wasn't James Byrd, Jr. dragged to death by white men? Was that not a lynching?

One lynching. One bizzare hate filled case. It is not as if this happens daily. I wonder, do blacks kill more whites, or whites more blacks? If it is the former, is that proof of black racism against whites.

[LateComer]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't "quota's" illegal? Or is this just in Federal Institutions? That would certainly put any anectdotal story involving quotas clearly into the "urban legend" category. I believe that most of what is called "Affrimative Action" is giving minorities some extra points on tests, the way they do for vererans.

Since when has any college admissions policy been based on merit? It's all "who you know" and "who's daddy went there".

Even if admission is based on some abstract thing like QPA or SAT scores there are a few things that tend to tilt the playing field. Blacks tend to be poorer than whites (and many whites have spent a lot of money making sure that things stay that way) and tend to attend poorer schools which tend to teach more poorly and therefore tend to score lower on standardized tests. So why not give a little bit of a break? Colleges have always had an affirmative action program, it was just for whites though.

Perhaps we should use affirmative action for as long as the US Government stepped on the rights of blacks. That seems fair. Affirmative Action for another 150 years. By then Hispanics will be the majority and maybe WASPs will have to fight for their rights.

Have none of you ever been in the south? Conservatives will openly tell you that they oppose welfare because they don't want their tax money going to "those blacks." South Carolina still elects Strom Thurmond to Congress, a man who ran for President what was basically the "keep the blacks down" party. There are still big problems in this area and I don't see any other way around them for the time being.

[Lamia]

First of all I am talking about today, not 20 years ago. Secondly, my point about African immigrants (black) vs. American blacks is that the color of one's skin can't be the sole cause of failure if groups of the same color have different rates of success. How can someone from the West Indies succeed if all dark skinned opeople are discriminated against? And the African's and West Indians are doing it often without being native English speakers.

Black immigrants from Africa and the West Indies have had the advantage of growing up in countries where they are not in the minority. They often have better educations and class backgrounds than most African-Americans. Why? Because for the most part they didn't have to struggle against racism from birth in their home countries.

That is a point that I think some people in this thread have forgotten -- racism is hurting black babies and children long before they are old enough to start applying to colleges or looking for jobs. It's all fine and good to say that admissions and hiring policies should be color blind, but that's only really fair if the entire country is color blind. If racism is preventing black children from getting the same quality of education at the pre-college level as white children then they are going to be at a disadvantage when it comes to getting into college even if the college admissions policy does not take race into consideration.

[Jman]

Fine...take CLASS into consideration...income...availability of good education, not RACE. In my examples above...both myself and the other student went to very nice, top notch suburban high schools. There are lots of poor whites too. Maybe not as high a percentage, but there are...they get the raw end of the deal too. If you want to give people a hand up based on their living conditions, that's still not quite right, but it's a lot more right than doing it based on color. Discrimination is not a good thing, but going the other way doesn't help things.

Jman

[Mr.Zambezi]

I agree. Class has more to do with the issues of getting a good education. The poor rural whites that I went to college with had to take a lot of remedial classes. I was stunned that a highschool grad hadn't taken algebra yet. But I think that that problem was endemic in parts of the south east.

I don't see a big difference between the white denizens of the trailer park down my street and the black and hispanic residents of the projects near where I used to live.

However, The highschool to which the project kids go is the same one that my best friends (rich whites) attended. THey went on to college and are professionals. I know it is anecdotal, but if one actually goes to school and actually studies, then they can indeed make it to college. Colleges rarely know how good a particular high school is. THey look at grades extra curriculars and SAT scores. ANd if you don't have an interview, they don't know your race.

I think the problem is that many of the minority kids can't get it together when they have a single mom who started having her family of 5 at age 14. It is doubly difficult when Mom dropped out of school at 13. There is a culture problem in certain minority communities. A problem of commonly held values. If you can figure out how to fix that, write a book. You'll be a star.

[AWB]

Loser, wasn't Black Like Me written like 30 years ago?

More like 40. The movie was produced in 1964, and Griffin did his little social experiment in 1959.

[avalongod]

quote:

~~~Why didn't White guys complain about discrimination when Black people couldn't get decent jobs or go to good schools thirty years ago?

You mean to tell me that white people were not part of the equal rights movement? Wow, congress must REALLY be a bunch of bumbling idiots if they were 1.) all white men (probably close to true) and 2.) still managed to let legistlature pass if they were not in support of it. Perhaps I see the world through rosy glasses, but I feel most people are in support of equal rights for everyone. But no one likes to be discriminated against...white, black or otherwise.

Does discrimination against white males happen: sure. Discrimination against every group happens these days, welcome to the US. Is the current discrimination against white males as bad as 200 years of slavery? Of course not,that is ridiculous. However, no form of discrimination is right. I figure a good percentage of minorities (if not most) are against racial quotas, and would like an "even playing field"

[Surgoshan]

How do we correct racial hatred? How do we right the wrongs that it brings about?

Whites currently are three quarters of the American population. If all was evenly distributed they would hold three quarters of the jobs that determine advancement and acceptance.

That means that white-against-black discrimination would overwhelm any other, and very soon whites would hold MORE than three quarters of those jobs.

Affirmative action is an attempt to forestall this, to level the playing field, to insure that the game isn't played with weighted dice.

I feel that it may lead to injustice. It is perfectly possible that a lesser-qualified man MUST be highered because of race.

However, laws and precedent are in place to try and prevent that. In New Jersey, two applicants of entirely equal qualifications were applying for the same teaching position. One was white, the other black. In order to maintain racial equity, the school chose the black teacher. The white teacher sued on the grounds of racial discrimination, claiming that race should not and could not be used as a determining factor, and won.

So does that mean AA will fall? I think not, but the struggle will go on, and AA will stay in place, with the struggle insuring that injustice will remain at a minimum. In the meantime, blacks will gain the equal footing they need, they will get the jobs that will help pay for their childrens' education, and they will soon be on a level playing field, with the dice no longer shaved. At that time in the indefinite future, AA may still be necessary, but I hope not.