Affirmative Action

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='dUSt' timestamp='1304698739' post='2237969']
Sorta. I guess what I'm saying is, assuming the country is not racist because we elected a black president is like saying that white people can't be racist just because they have black friends. I don't know how many times I've heard people say, "I'm not racist. I have a lot of black friends." Yet, if you ask those same people if they'd allow their daughter date a black man, they hesitate.

And also, yes, Obama is 1/2 white. So, technically, he's only 1/2 black enough.
[/quote]

Well Dust that really isn't fair, couldn't someone be hesitant about lettingtheir daughter date a back man becuase of hte cultural aspects of black culture in America? Does Culturism equate to Racism?

Personally Icould care less about someones race. am I more likely to object to a black man than a white or hispanic man? Yes, becuase they are less likely to be a Catholic, but the fact that black men are less likely to be Catholic proportionally and so i am more likely to object doesn't make me a racist. That is true even though black men would be dispropotionately discriminated against.

Racism is a cause, not an effect. That Races might be disproportionatly effected by a poplicy does not make that policy racist.

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='infinitelord1' timestamp='1304719323' post='2238090']
How do you see racism? Do you actually see people denied of promotions because of their race? Do you see people use inappropriate words that are intended to inflict pain on a certain group of people? Do you see people not hanging around certain groups of people because they are a different race?
[/quote]

Yes i have been denied jobs and promotions because I am white, ever when I was vastly more qualified than those that got the job. I have also been discriminated because I am a man in a female dominated profession?


I keep hearing about all these people who only want to hire white men, but me and my 3 unemployed white male friends would love to meet them.

Edited May 9, 2011 by Don John of Austria

[MithLuin]

Well, I'm glad we have an all-male priesthood, and I'm female.

I'm not sure why it's being suggested that black people can't be racist. I realize it would seem unlikely that a black man would be racist against blacks, but anyone can be racist and his research is as much about Sri Lanka as it is about the US. Nothing about his comments sounded racist to me; he's clearly an academic looking for evidence. I don't necessarily agree with his conclusions, but that's the problem with research in the social sciences - it's all correlation, not causation.

I actually agree that the affirmative action laws (as written, and in practice) are not the best solution to the current problems. What I object to are people denying that there is any problem at all, or suggesting that affirmative action [i]is[/i] the problem. The problem is endemic racism. Making people do the right thing is always a precarious path to take, but preventing people from doing system-wide unjust things is of some importance.

Encouraging a culture of dependence does not help anyone. Affirmative action is meant to be a crutch to help compensate for a situation in which some people are not given much of a chance to get a job (even with the credentials). As long as it encourages people to view themselves as having 'immunity', it's not going to help people take their place in the work force. And addressing the work force without addressing education would be meaningless.

Remember the Jesuit initiatives I brought up earlier in the thread? In the 70s, they thought that just getting kids into college was the issue. They soon realized that without proper preparation, that wasn't very helpful. So, now, the all boys inner city Jesuit middle school in Baltimore funnels students into good college prep high schools. And the network of Jesuit high schools that started in Chicago send the majority of their graduates on to college...some of whom are accepted at Jesuit colleges like Georgetown. With proper preparation, these poor inner city kids (many of whom are racial minorities) can succeed in college.

I am more interested in programs that make a real difference and improve the situation. With enough of those, no more disparity will exist...and the problem will be solved.

When I was a college student 10 years ago, the majority of the biology majors, professors and professional researchers were women. If any 'quotas' were put on the field, hiring practices would have to favor males . Obviously, it was not always like that. Prior to 1950, almost all biology research was done by males. In my own college experience, most science and engineering courses were an even split. So, chemistry, mechanical and chemical engineering, civil engineering...guys and girls. The fields that were still predominantly male (ie, noticeably so) were computer engineering, electrical engineering and physics.

My chemistry professor, who had been teaching for 30 years, saw the transition in its entirety. When he began teaching, his classes were 100% male. When girls started taking chemistry (as chemistry majors, not nursing students), they were a cut above the other students. So, if he did guys vs girls trivia contests...the girls won, hands down. He was happy the first year the boys won, because it meant that finally, the girls didn't have to be better than the guys to get into the program. Taking chemistry as a female was becoming as normal as taking chemistry as a male.

I realize that females are roughly 50% of the college-age population...and yet most colleges have a 60/40 split in favor of female attendees. Minorities are, by definition, minorities. But it would be a reasonable goal to have some decent representation of minority groups on college campuses, reflecting (roughly) the actual population. Historically black colleges have their place in our society...but certainly other racial groups can (and do) attend them now....and blacks can attend historically white colleges. The longer this goes on, the sooner we will get to the point where there is no disparity and none of it matters.

[MithLuin]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' timestamp='1304972427' post='2239228']
Well Dust that really isn't fair, couldn't someone be hesitant about lettingtheir daughter date a back man becuase of hte cultural aspects of black culture in America? Does Culturism equate to Racism?

Personally Icould care less about someones race. am I more likely to object to a black man than a white or hispanic man? Yes, becuase they are less likely to be a Catholic, but the fact that black men are less likely to be Catholic proportionally and so i am more likely to object doesn't make me a racist. That is true even though black men would be dispropotionately discriminated against.

Racism is a cause, not an effect. That Races might be disproportionatly effected by a poplicy does not make that policy racist.
[/quote]

In my city, there are lots of black Catholics. Same with New Orleans. If your daughter were to meet one of these young men, would you object?

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='MithLuin' timestamp='1304975442' post='2239246']
Well, I'm glad we have an all-male priesthood, and I'm female.

I'm not sure why it's being suggested that black people can't be racist. I realize it would seem unlikely that a black man would be racist against blacks, but anyone can be racist and his research is as much about Sri Lanka as it is about the US. Nothing about his comments sounded racist to me; he's clearly an academic looking for evidence. I don't necessarily agree with his conclusions, but that's the problem with research in the social sciences - it's all correlation, not causation.

I actually agree that the affirmative action laws (as written, and in practice) are not the best solution to the current problems. What I object to are people denying that there is any problem at all, or suggesting that affirmative action [i]is[/i] the problem. The problem is endemic racism. Making people do the right thing is always a precarious path to take, but preventing people from doing system-wide unjust things is of some importance.

Encouraging a culture of dependence does not help anyone. Affirmative action is meant to be a crutch to help compensate for a situation in which some people are not given much of a chance to get a job (even with the credentials). As long as it encourages people to view themselves as having 'immunity', it's not going to help people take their place in the work force. And addressing the work force without addressing education would be meaningless.

Remember the Jesuit initiatives I brought up earlier in the thread? In the 70s, they thought that just getting kids into college was the issue. They soon realized that without proper preparation, that wasn't very helpful. So, now, the all boys inner city Jesuit middle school in Baltimore funnels students into good college prep high schools. And the network of Jesuit high schools that started in Chicago send the majority of their graduates on to college...some of whom are accepted at Jesuit colleges like Georgetown. With proper preparation, these poor inner city kids (many of whom are racial minorities) can succeed in college.

I am more interested in programs that make a real difference and improve the situation. With enough of those, no more disparity will exist...and the problem will be solved.

When I was a college student 10 years ago, the majority of the biology majors, professors and professional researchers were women. If any 'quotas' were put on the field, hiring practices would have to favor males . Obviously, it was not always like that. Prior to 1950, almost all biology research was done by males. In my own college experience, most science and engineering courses were an even split. So, chemistry, mechanical and chemical engineering, civil engineering...guys and girls. The fields that were still predominantly male (ie, noticeably so) were computer engineering, electrical engineering and physics.

My chemistry professor, who had been teaching for 30 years, saw the transition in its entirety. When he began teaching, his classes were 100% male. When girls started taking chemistry (as chemistry majors, not nursing students), they were a cut above the other students. So, if he did guys vs girls trivia contests...the girls won, hands down. He was happy the first year the boys won, because it meant that finally, the girls didn't have to be better than the guys to get into the program. Taking chemistry as a female was becoming as normal as taking chemistry as a male.

I realize that females are roughly 50% of the college-age population...and yet most colleges have a 60/40 split in favor of female attendees. Minorities are, by definition, minorities. But it would be a reasonable goal to have some decent representation of minority groups on college campuses, reflecting (roughly) the actual population. Historically black colleges have their place in our society...but certainly other racial groups can (and do) attend them now....and blacks can attend historically white colleges. The longer this goes on, the sooner we will get to the point where there is no disparity and none of it matters.
[/quote]


So you believe in equality of outcome, and in government interferance to achieve equality of outcome?


THis is what I get from your post, that if disparity exist ( or is percieved to exist, for example when taking into account time onthe job, senority and such there is not evidence of a pay gap beween men and women) then the government should attempt to fix it. Isn'tthis simple socialism at best and absolute tyranny at worst?

Where does free will come in to all of this? Don't individual owners have the right to be racist, sexist, cltureist, religionist, or anything else they want to be? Why is it the violation of anyones rights to hire who you will? I was pased over for several positions for being white... when it was at the Catholic School I was upset, when it was at the private black solcdier meusem... well they have teh right to be racist.

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='MithLuin' timestamp='1304975627' post='2239248']
In my city, there are lots of black Catholics. Same with New Orleans. If your daughter were to meet one of these young men, would you object?
[/quote]

Not at all. However, as proportionally speaking fewer black men are Catholic, I ould be more likely to object to them, according to affirmative action logic that would make me a racist, becuase statisticly speaking I amless likely to approve of a black man, even though my prejudice has[i] NOTHING[/i] to do with race.

[MithLuin]

No, not equality of outcome. Simply eliminating some of the unspoken lines that you can't cross because that isn't done here. Why is it, do you think, that 40 years ago, there were no female chemistry students? And that 10 years ago, about half of the chemistry students were female? At no point did anyone 'lower the bar' (if anything, the groundbreaking female chemistry students were more stellar academically than the average of their male counterparts). So...what changed? Did women suddenly get an interest in chemistry that hadn't been there before? Or did colleges finally start admitting females into chemistry classes?


Proportions aren't really all that significant when you're talking about who your daughter dates. After all, even if there's only one black guy in her high school class, if she goes to a dance with him...then he's the one that counts. If you object to him on religious grounds or because you don't like his music or because he brought your daughter home after curfew or he wasn't respectful towards you when you met...these are reasons fathers could have for disliking any guy their daughter dates. The 'I wouldn't want my daughter to date one of them' criteria is if your knee-jerk reaction [i]before even meeting the guy[/i] when you find out he's black (or whatever other criteria we're considering) is 'oh [i]no[/i] - not one of them!' If she says 'He's black, but don't worry, Dad, he's Catholic and goes to mass!' and your reaction is to feel relieved, then...it's not about race.

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='MithLuin' timestamp='1304977804' post='2239266']
No, not equality of outcome. Simply eliminating some of the unspoken lines that you can't cross because that isn't done here. Why is it, do you think, that 40 years ago, there were no female chemistry students? And that 10 years ago, about half of the chemistry students were female? At no point did anyone 'lower the bar' (if anything, the groundbreaking female chemistry students were more stellar academically than the average of their male counterparts). So...what changed? Did women suddenly get an interest in chemistry that hadn't been there before? Or did colleges finally start admitting females into chemistry classes?


Proportions aren't really all that significant when you're talking about who your daughter dates. After all, even if there's only one black guy in her high school class, if she goes to a dance with him...then he's the one that counts. If you object to him on religious grounds or because you don't like his music or because he brought your daughter home after curfew or he wasn't respectful towards you when you met...these are reasons fathers could have for disliking any guy their daughter dates. The 'I wouldn't want my daughter to date one of them' criteria is if your knee-jerk reaction [i]before even meeting the guy[/i] when you find out he's black (or whatever other criteria we're considering) is 'oh [i]no[/i] - not one of them!' If she says 'He's black, but don't worry, Dad, he's Catholic and goes to mass!' and your reaction is to feel relieved, then...it's not about race.
[/quote]


Well I would dispute your conclusions about chemistry, based a great deal of research on american science achienvment. The bar was lowered in many ways in many places to make everything equal. And yes Ithink that women did get an interest in chemestry that was not their before, becuase as women became their own bread winners pay became more important than other reasons to study a field. Chem pays a lot better than Lit.

[Don John of Austria]

oh an if you knew where i lived you would know that it is more likely that my daughter bring home a black man than a white one.

[MithLuin]

I was limiting my comments to my own university, which had a top 10 chemistry program. They didn't lower the bar, and the professor vouched for that. My experience was that the people who went into engineering (or science) for the paycheck didn't stick it out. You had to really like the field, be good at it, and put in tons of hours to keep your head above water.

I wasn't in it for the money; I'm now a Catholic school teacher .

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='MithLuin' timestamp='1304979348' post='2239301']
I was limiting my comments to my own university, which had a top 10 chemistry program. They didn't lower the bar, and the professor vouched for that. My experience was that the people who went into engineering (or science) for the paycheck didn't stick it out. You had to really like the field, be good at it, and put in tons of hours to keep your head above water.

I wasn't in it for the money; I'm now a Catholic school teacher .
[/quote]


You experiance accepting slave wages nowithstanding, I live in one of the Chem centers of the world, and a paycheck is the motivation for most of the people in Chemistry here.

[Don John of Austria]

regardless, there is no evidence in your story that women need or ever needed an advantage, only that they needed an equal shot. Why shoudl a women get extra points on the civil service exam just because of her sex organs? THe civil service exam is an exam.... why should people get extra points becuase of their race or gender? How exactly is that different than only hiring white people, except for those you are discriminating against?

[Amppax]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' timestamp='1304980573' post='2239306']
regardless, there is no evidence in your story that women need or ever needed an advantage, only that they needed an equal shot. Why shoudl a women get extra points on the civil service exam just because of her sex organs? THe civil service exam is an exam.... why should people get extra points becuase of their race or gender? [/quote]

because some schools really smell of elderberries (and these schools happen to be predominantly minority) and its not really the fault of students who are subjected to awful teaching that they don't do as well as the students who come from much better schools. Now how does this justify Affirmative Action? it doesn't really, but i'm still waiting for someone to propose something that will help address the problems. Affirmative Action seems to me to at least do something. I feel it is better then nothing.

Edited May 9, 2011 by Amppax

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='Amppax' timestamp='1304985059' post='2239335']
because some schools really smell of elderberries (and these schools happen to be predominantly minority) and its not really the fault of students who are subjected to awful teaching that they don't do as well as the students who come from much better schools. Now how does this justify Affirmative Action? it doesn't really, but i'm still waiting for someone to propose something that will help address the problems. Affirmative Action seems to me to at least do something. I feel it is better then nothing.
[/quote]


If I hadn' spent myworking life teaching in poor minority schools and consistantly getting test scores that out scored all the all white, rich schools in the city I might be offended by that awful teaching remark.


this completly ignores the corralation between economics, and of course of the education of students parents and performance. Of course most of the poor people in the United States are white, but that doesn't really matter does it becuase this is about proportion... wait, maybe its not, maybe its about vengence.

I think AA is about venegence against the mean white man who oppressed everyone for so long, now people want a little payback, I would have more respect if people just called it what it was, payback.

Edited May 10, 2011 by Don John of Austria

[Amppax]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' timestamp='1304986850' post='2239353']
If I hadn' spent myworking life teaching in poor minority schools and consistantly getting test scores that out scored all the all white, rich schools in the city I might be offended by that awful teaching remark.


this completly ignores the corralation between economics, and of course of the education of students parents and performance. Of course most of the poor people in the United States are white, but that doesn't really matter does it becuase this is about proportion... wait, maybe its not, maybe its about vengence.

I think AA is about venegence against the mean white man who oppressed everyone for so long, now people want a little payback, I would have more respect if people just called it what it was, payback.
[/quote]

Sorry didn't mean to offend.

Yes there is a correlation with economics, i would probably argue that it is more important. and yes there are more poor white people. But look at the percentage in poverty per race (i don't remember the figures, i think dUSt posted them earlier). A much greater number of minorities are poor (espec. african american and latino), and a lot of the poverty is related back to education (an unfortunate cycle)...which affirmative action tries to rectify. I agree, its not perfect, and when i hear a better solution, i'm going to be all for it.

Edited May 10, 2011 by Amppax