Ok well I think there are 3 categories of people in this situation:
1- People who are outright racist and dishonest in their responses
2- People who are racist but not aware of their own racism
3- People who are not racist at all but believe in some ideal or principle
I think that most people are either 1 or 2. Probably more than people are 2 than 1.
I kind of understand what you mean but not really. Can you clarify?
“If you disgree with me, you are a racist.”
Boy howdy, that sure invites participation, especially at this board.
I mean, if talented Slobbovian kids see lots of successful Slobbovian lawyers in their community, they’re more likely to think that being a lawyer is a good possible career choice. If they don’t see any Slobbovian lawyers, they are much less likely to consider that career path.
Thats not what I said. Though I think it is often true. But not allways true.
ummm… ok. How does that relate to the validity of AA and people support or object to it?
One thing that I keep asking myself is that even though calling someone a racist is about the worst thing you can say, but despite that we still seems to have racists. Apparently being racist is working for those people at least to some degree. What’s behind that?
Also, how much “racism” is discrimination based on race? Obviously skin color is completely irrelevant for almost anything. But cultural differences (which may or may not correlate with ethnicity and/or race) aren’t always irrelevant.
Last but not least, someone of the majority race can’t know what it is like to be someone of a minority race and will therefore underestimate the issues someone of a minority race will encounter. But I believe it also works the other way around: people of the majority race and culture are also often subject to unpleasantness. Someone of a minority race who encounters the exact same thing would probably attribute it to racism while it was just general-purpose nastiness.
As for affirmative action: if you don’t get the job because you’re a man of European descent, how is that better than if you don’t get the job because you’re a woman of African descent? In both cases you didn’t get the job for a reason that has nothing to do with how well you would be able to do that job compared to others. Being unfair to group A today doesn’t make up for being unfair to group B in the past. We don’t do group-fairness. If you want to repair unfairness, calculate the amount of money that needs to be paid to members of that group to make up for what they encountered in the past and pay them that sum.
If I may be somewhat politically incorrect; imagine that you are part of a culture that idolizes basketball players, professional rappers, drug dealers, and pimps above all else.
Would it surprise you that statistically fewer of your peers within that culture grow up to become lawyers, doctors, policemen, and firefighters than members of a culture within the same society which idolizes those professions?
Which is why people who are racist pretend like they are objecting on “other” grounds. Not that all people who object are racist, I am stating that unless you have enough discussion to evaluate where people are coming from you can’t tell what they mean. Not if their response is one sentence and that is all they say (in most cases).
Not sure I exactly understand
Yes, this is very important to note
this is also very important and also very accurate
So you are talking about some form of reparations?
You make a good point. But if you are not, and I am not, a statistician trained to an expert knowledge in issues that effect racism and economics, how can you reject AA as being ineffective or unwarranted?
Yes. You can’t turn the discrimination dial in the other direction for a while to make up for mistakes in the past, the only reasonable thing to do is eradicate it. But that doesn’t help people who have less money today because they were discriminated against in the past, so that needs to be made right. But where do you draw the line?
What about individual members of a minority that are successful, vocationally or otherwise. Do they deserve reparations?
I agree with the second part - unfortunately, at least in California, as long as a considerable chunk of an elementary or high school district’s money comes from local property taxes, there will always be a correlation between wealth and education, which leads to “poor (which tends to be treated as a synonym for “black and Latino”) people can’t get jobs because their education isn’t good enough, because their poor neighborhoods can’t afford it.” And have fun trying to get people to have some of their property taxes go to schools where someone other than their own kids go.
However, I look at the first part like this: “Just changing bandages won’t solve all medical problems; you need to invest in improving medicine as a whole. Of course, until that is accomplished, you still need to change the bandages.” This is also how I felt about “giving money to support AIDS victims” versus “giving money to help find a cure for AIDS.” And no one is saying that “underqualified” people have to be hired - just “not the most qualified”. (Well, I shouldn’t say “no one”; I vaguely remember a California Supreme Court case where the court said that somebody was required to lower its qualification standards because it included a strength test that, by definition, was unfair to women.)
I don’t follow you.
Isn’t your position that, at present, employers are told to (a) judge the applicants on their merits – unless you’re doing affirmative action, in which case, yeah, (b) by all means, pick the somewhat-less-qualified guy if he’s black or brown, okay?
If employers obey Part B, why wouldn’t they obey Part A after Part B gets dropped?
I will admit that sometimes/often less qualified candidates are hired due to AA. But there is also the case, quite often, where blacks/latinos are are not considered qualified even if they are. I don’t claim AA is the perfect solution but I think it is better to have it, even if it is flawed than not to have it, which will result in even bigger flaws.
Have you ever had to work with the boss’ relatives?
Who had to be hired, even though they were not as qualified as you?
Who would never be fired, even if they screwed up worse than you would ever be allowed to?
In my opinion, that generally creates more contempt than respect.
In race and gender issues, I think that is likely to make the underlying problem worse, not better.
Well, that may happen a lot/some but haven’t you ever heard the term “a black man has to work twice as hard just to look like he is working as hard as his coworkers”, in other words, due to (often unintended) bias minorities are viewed as being not as competent even when they are competent?
I’d like you to clarify your position, Robert163.
Do you believe it is acceptable to grant an advantage to an individual based solely on his or her race?
mmm
I will do my best to answer your question. Should a (minority) student be accepted to the engineering department at the University of Ohio if they can’t do basic mathematics? No. If two students apply for the same position, lets say there are 10 slots open, and all students have equal skill, if it comes down to the last spot and two students, one white and one black, apply, should they accept the black student over the white if all other accepted students were white. Yes, in that case they should pick the black student.
I tried to give simplified answers to describe my basic view on the topic…
Don’t penalize them.