[Split]When are you white?

[Mycroft]

Indeed. Which is why I ask what it is you don't understand.

I keep asking you this, but you refuse to explain.

What is it you don't understand, Mycroft?

Let's start with your use of the word segregation.

It seems it wasn't really the word you wanted to use, would you agree with that now?

 

[slingblade]

Perhaps. If a black person is chosen before a white person, solely because he is black, how can this not be racism?

And if a white person is chosen before a black person solely because he is white, how can this not be racism?

http://www.inmotionmagazine.com/pkivel.html

Affirmative action is practiced in many areas of our society in addition to leveling the playing field for people of color. There are hiring and recruiting preferences for veterans, women, the children of alumni of many universities. There are special economic incentives for purchase of U.S.-made products, import quotas against foreign goods, and agricultural and textile subsidies. Over many decades these practices have led to a huge over-representation of white people, men and people of middle, upper middle and upper class backgrounds in our universities, in well-paid jobs, and in the professions. One indication that attacks on affirmative action are part of a white backlash against equality is that affirmative action in the form of preferences that primarily benefit white people are not being questioned.

Initially, affirmative action was a policy primarily aimed at correcting institutional discrimination where decisions, policies and procedures that are not necessarily explicitly discriminatory have had a negative impact on people of color. Affirmative action policies address and redress systematic economic and political discrimination against any group of people that are underrepresented or have a history of being discriminated against in particular institutions. Beneficiaries of these programs have included white men and women, people with disabilities, and poor and working class people, but their primary emphasis has been on addressing racial discrimination.

But how true is it that white male candidates are being discriminated against or are losing out because of affirmative action programs? If one looks at the composition of various professions such as law, medicine, architecture, academics and journalism, or at corporate management, or at higher-level government positions, or if one looks overall at the average income levels of white men one immediately notices that people of color are still significantly underrepresented and underpaid in every category. People of color don't make up the proportions of these jobs even remotely equal to their percentage of the population. They don't earn wages comparable to white men. White men are tremendously overrepresented in almost any category of work that is highly rewarded except for professional athletics. According to a 1995 government report, white males make up only 29 percent of the workforce, but they hold 95 percent of senior management positions. (3 ) Until there is both equal opportunity and fair distribution of education, training and advancement to all Americans, affirmative action for people of color will be necessary to counter the hundreds of years of affirmative action that has been directed at white males. It cannot reasonably be argued that white males are discriminated against as a group if they are overrepresented in most high status categories.

 

[CFLarsen]

What definition of racism are you using? Depending on the definition I may very well agree with you.

What definitions, other than dividing by race with the aim of giving one race advantages over another/shutting out one race but not another, is there?

Larsen baby, you're a dear

Thank you, baby dear.

, but you just showed that you were using, "segregation," incorrectly. "Discrimination," would be the word you wanted. Don't fight about that with Mycroft. It distracts from the issues at hand. It's not a bad thing if you use a bad word so long as you correct yourself.

No, no. When you keep someone of one race out from college by giving the grant to someone of another race, then you are not merely discriminating. You are also segregating: It isn't a question of who comes first and second, it's a question of who doesn't get to be in the race(!) at all.

You can segregate not just by barring people at the gate, but also barring them by economy.

Let's start with your use of the word segregation.

It seems it wasn't really the word you wanted to use, would you agree with that now?

I didn't ask what you thought I didn't understand. I asked what you didn't understand.

What is it you don't understand?

Second, in terms of things like Affirmative Action, society determines what ethnicity you are. Hypothetical to show my point: You've seen me. I'm as Irish as the driven snow. Say I wanted to go back to school. I want to get a scholarship or something so wherever I was asked what race I was I put "African-American". Would I get any scholarship? Of course not. The people who determine such things would take one look at me... and either bust out laughing, or get outraged that I would even dare to consider checking the African-American box.

But that's not what we are talking about here. We are not talking about the clear-cut cases (like you and Kofi Annan). We are talking about Tiger Woods. Or, of course, LostAngeles.

In a perfect world we would not need Affirmative Action. We don't live in such a world.

I don't live in a country with Affirmative Action...

Ethnicity gets in the way of things when it should not.
People who want to be fair sometimes have no other choice but to invent an imperfection to cancel out another imperfection. Yes, it's suboptimal... but sometimes the best you can come to a right really is two wrongs.

By lowering the scientific standards by admitting people who don't have the right grades, but have the right skin color? Yeah, that sounds like a really good idea...

Instead of lowering the scientific standards, you should fix the problem at the root instead: Make sure that everyone is educated so that those who do show academic prowess, also go to college. Base attendance on academic skills and not skin color.

And if a white person is chosen before a black person solely because he is white, how can this not be racism?

It is.

 

[HeyLeroy]

(snip)
Not so with skin colour. We have never been able to clearly define just who is "white" and who is "black". It is easy when it concerns me and Kofi Annan. It becomes far more fuzzy when we are talking about Tiger Woods.

(snip again)

A minor derail, but not really. If any of you have access to the Dave Chappelle show, watch the episode where they do the 'Racial Draft'. It's quite insightful into the folly of putting so much stock into the colour of one's skin.

Sorry, CF, you bringing up Tiger Woods made me think of this.

 

[Mycroft]

I didn't ask what you thought I didn't understand. I asked what you didn't understand.

What is it you don't understand?

It's unimportant. Clearly you can not be communicated with.

 

[CFLarsen]

It's unimportant. Clearly you can not be communicated with.

If you think it is unimportant, why do you make such a big fuss over it?

 

[CFLarsen]

A minor derail, but not really. If any of you have access to the Dave Chappelle show, watch the episode where they do the 'Racial Draft'. It's quite insightful into the folly of putting so much stock into the colour of one's skin.

Sorry, CF, you bringing up Tiger Woods made me think of this.

I can't get the show, but I can imagine how it goes. When you really look at how people define race and apply it in real life, the more ridiculous it gets.

 

[Beleth]

No, no. When you keep someone of one race out from college by giving the grant to someone of another race, then you are not merely discriminating. You are also segregating: It isn't a question of who comes first and second, it's a question of who doesn't get to be in the race(!) at all.

It's not segregation if the person you select is of a different race than the majority of the other people already in the gate; it is desegregation.

It's still discrimination, granted, but it's the opposite of segregation.

But that's not what we are talking about here. We are not talking about the clear-cut cases (like you and Kofi Annan). We are talking about Tiger Woods. Or, of course, LostAngeles.

My point still applies: the people to whom race matters, are the ones who decide what race you are.

I don't live in a country with Affirmative Action...

That's why I said "a world" and not "in Denmark". Besides, maybe Denmark should. How racially diverse is Denmark? Is the lower class made up of the exact same racial demographics as the middle and upper classes? How about Parliament?

By lowering the scientific standards by admitting people who don't have the right grades, but have the right skin color? Yeah, that sounds like a really good idea...

Why do you suppose they don't have the right grades?

Instead of lowering the scientific standards, you should fix the problem at the root instead: Make sure that everyone is educated so that those who do show academic prowess, also go to college. Base attendance on academic skills and not skin color.

How do you propose to make sure everyone is educated? Schools in the US are suported by tax dollars. Schools in lower-income neighborhoods receive proportionally less money than schools in higher-income neighborhoods. Competition to live in "good school districts" makes houses sell for higher prices, which in turn raises taxes to make the schools even better. It's a spiral on both ends - the rich get better educated and thus richer, while the poor don't. If this is to be fixed, a dampening agent has to be put in place somewhere. AA is one such dampening agent. What fairer one would you put in place?

 

[CFLarsen]

It's not segregation if the person you select is of a different race than the majority of the other people already in the gate; it is desegregation.

It's still discrimination, granted, but it's the opposite of segregation.

I am not talking about the guy you let in. I am talking about you don't let in. That's segregation.

My point still applies: the people to whom race matters, are the ones who decide what race you are.

Funny how that results in segregation as well as discrimination.

That's why I said "a world" and not "in Denmark".

Where else do you have Affirmative Action?

Besides, maybe Denmark should. How racially diverse is Denmark? Is the lower class made up of the exact same racial demographics as the middle and upper classes? How about Parliament?

It is illegal to distinguish between races. It is illegal to even register people based on race.

Why do you suppose they don't have the right grades?

Why else would they need special treatment to get in?

How do you propose to make sure everyone is educated? Schools in the US are suported by tax dollars. Schools in lower-income neighborhoods receive proportionally less money than schools in higher-income neighborhoods. Competition to live in "good school districts" makes houses sell for higher prices, which in turn raises taxes to make the schools even better. It's a spiral on both ends - the rich get better educated and thus richer, while the poor don't. If this is to be fixed, a dampening agent has to be put in place somewhere. AA is one such dampening agent. What fairer one would you put in place?

You only need one thing: Higher taxes.

I know this is sacrilegious to you, but what is more important to you? Solve the problem or maintain the size of your wallet?

 

[slingblade]

By lowering the scientific standards by admitting people who don't have the right grades, but have the right skin color? Yeah, that sounds like a really good idea...

Please enumerate (list) the specific scientific standards which are lowered, and please show evidence this happens by citing specific cases in which these standards were lowered.

What evidence can you show that AA means admitting to college "people who don't have the right grades?" Can you cite cases?

Are you aware that even white women are considered a minority under Affirmative Action?

Given the above, can you agree that Affirmative Action is not just race-based, but also gender-based?

Instead of lowering the scientific standards, you should fix the problem at the root instead: Make sure that everyone is educated so that those who do show academic prowess, also go to college. Base attendance on academic skills and not skin color.

Affirmative Action has been in place since the 1960s. In your opinion, what are the reasons why American schools have not yet been made equal, across the board, even though we've had 40-50 years to do so?

My school uses age-based standards: students over a certain age (I think it's 24 [edit]) do not need to take an ACT or SAT entrance exam, but younger students must, in order to be admitted. High school grades also are not taken into account for non-traditional students--our grades don't matter at all. As long as we graduated or have a GED, we will be admitted. Is this fair to the younger students who do have to show their transcripts?

Leaving school for the moment: are you aware of hiring preferences (an affirmative action) for military veterans? In order to work in the Postal Service, for example, you must take a pre-employment test. Military veterans are automatically awarded 5 to 10 bonus points solely because of their military service. This means that if you score 100% on the test, and a veteran scores 95% on the test, s/he could automatically score "higher" than you, based on those extra points, and will be hired before you will, even though you actually did better on the test. Is this fair? Is this segregation?

 

[CFLarsen]

Please enumerate (list) the specific scientific standards which are lowered, and please show evidence this happens by citing specific cases in which these standards were lowered.

What evidence can you show that AA means admitting to college "people who don't have the right grades?" Can you cite cases?

Isn't that what AA is supposed to "help"? People who may not have the right grades, but nevertheless go to college, based on other factors, one being the color of their skin?

Are you aware that even white women are considered a minority under Affirmative Action?

Given the above, can you agree that Affirmative Action is not just race-based, but also gender-based?

AA is a lot of things: At its core, it will discriminate and segregate to help those without the necessary academic skills to enter college.

If that isn't lowering the standards of science, I don't know what is.

Affirmative Action has been in place since the 1960s. In your opinion, what are the reasons why American schools have not yet been made equal, across the board, even though we've had 40-50 years to do so?

Poverty, bigotry, racism. And an unwillingness to solve these problems.

My school uses age-based standards: students over a certain age (I think it's 24 [edit]) do not need to take an ACT or SAT entrance exam, but younger students must, in order to be admitted. High school grades also are not taken into account for non-traditional students--our grades don't matter at all. As long as we graduated or have a GED, we will be admitted. Is this fair to the younger students who do have to show their transcripts?

No, it isn't. While you may accrue some experience after living longer, it does not mean you have accrued a better academic record.

Leaving school for the moment: are you aware of hiring preferences (an affirmative action) for military veterans? In order to work in the Postal Service, for example, you must take a pre-employment test. Military veterans are automatically awarded 5 to 10 bonus points solely because of their military service. This means that if you score 100% on the test, and a veteran scores 95% on the test, s/he could automatically score "higher" than you, based on those extra points, and will be hired before you will, even though you actually did better on the test. Is this fair? Is this segregation?

What are the requirements for having the job? Are we talking about life experience (maturity, etc), or academic knowledge?

If the former, then I don't see all that big a problem. But we cannot lower the bar when it comes to science.

 

[Dave1001]

Without getting into Larsen's usual silliness, how do scholarship bodies for ethnic minorities determine if someone is or is not a member of that minority? Ok so it will be very obvious in some cases, but do they have an appeals procedure for people who don't look black enough?

Good question (sorry I'm coming to this thread a bit late). I think it's entirely by self-identification. I don't think there's a legal mechanism that can stop anyone from choosing to identify as black/african american on all paperwork, including scholarship applications.

 

[Dave1001]

Second, in terms of things like Affirmative Action, society determines what ethnicity you are. Hypothetical to show my point: You've seen me. I'm as Irish as the driven snow. Say I wanted to go back to school. I want to get a scholarship or something so wherever I was asked what race I was I put "African-American". Would I get any scholarship? Of course not. The people who determine such things would take one look at me... and either bust out laughing, or get outraged that I would even dare to consider checking the African-American box.

Amazingly, a lot of admissions are blind, in the sense that they'll never actually see you until you enroll and show up. Most law schools, for example. And checking the black/african american box does not obligate you to attend any events or programs for black/african american students. So that confrontation may never happen. Further, more than a few people are phenotypically white but identify as black/african american and I presume check that box and apply for the requisite scholarships. For example, Nicole Richie identifies as black. Race based admissions and scholarships are weirder than a lot of us acknowledge.

 

[CFLarsen]

Good question (sorry I'm coming to this thread a bit late). I think it's entirely by self-identification. I don't think there's a legal mechanism that can stop anyone from choosing to identify as black/african american on all paperwork, including scholarship applications.

The question is, can you legally reject someone clearly not black, even though he identifies as black?

 

[slingblade]

Isn't that what AA is supposed to "help"? People who may not have the right grades, but nevertheless go to college, based on other factors, one being the color of their skin?

If that is your claim, you shouldn't have any problems finding evidence of it. Will you?

AA is a lot of things: At its core, it will discriminate and segregate to help those without the necessary academic skills to enter college.

Evidence?

If that isn't lowering the standards of science, I don't know what is.

Which standards, specifically? Evidence? Cases?

Poverty, bigotry, racism. And an unwillingness to solve these problems.

If you admit education isn't equal across the country, how do we remedy this for those already beyond public education (out of high school) who are intelligent enough and willing enough to go to college, but who received a sub-standard education through no fault of their own?

No, it isn't. While you may accrue some experience after living longer, it does not mean you have accrued a better academic record.

I am intelligent enough that I now possess a BA in English. But my HS grades were not stellar, because I had lost interest, and thought I would never attend college. Should my grades count for more than my actual intelligence, or not? According to your standards, I should not have been allowed into college, yet I earned high grades, made the Dean's List 8 times, and earned one of the highest scores in the NATION on my content skills test, the Praxis II. Should I have been kept out of college because of my high school grades?

Do grades always reflect intelligence? For instance, I earned a C in one college class because I was absent once, and the professor did not allow any absences. This had nothing to do with my work, which earned mostly A's. I did not, academically, deserve a C, but I still earned one. If you believe grades reflect intelligence, do you believe I did in fact earn a C, or an A?

What are the requirements for having the job? Are we talking about life experience (maturity, etc), or academic knowledge?

The requirements for the job include the test. If you cannot pass the test, no hire. If you do pass the test, those who scored higher than you are hired first. You may have to take the test numerous times before you score high enough to be considered. Still, if you and a veteran both take the test, and s/he scores a few points lower than you, s/he can still be hired before you by virtue of those bonus points that you cannot ever have. Is that fair?

If the former, then I don't see all that big a problem. But we cannot lower the bar when it comes to science.

So far, you have not proven we've lowered any bars. Can you?

 

[Dave1001]

The question is, can you legally reject someone clearly not black, even though he identifies as black?

I don't see how. I suppose one can now do a DNA test and see if the person has some dna heritage from the humans that didn't leave Africa tens of thousands of years ago or so. But given that I think 30% of white/caucasian americans have traceable sub-saharan/african admixture, a phenotypically white person but black-identified person has a pretty good shot at passing that test. Particularly if they're not a relatively recent immigrant from Europe, whom I imagine make up a good portion of the 70% of white-identified americans that have no traceable african/black ancestry.

 

[CFLarsen]

If that is your claim, you shouldn't have any problems finding evidence of it. Will you?

I asked you a question. Is this not what AA is for?

Which standards, specifically? Evidence? Cases?

Scientific standards. If you lower the bar for academic acceptance, then you are lowering the bar for scientific standards.

You do realize there is a connection between academic achievements and academic merits?

If you admit education isn't equal across the country, how do we remedy this for those already beyond public education (out of high school) who are intelligent enough and willing enough to go to college, but who received a sub-standard education through no fault of their own?

I think this is one of the major differences in thinking. I don't see any reason to even think about placing blame on those who have not had the opportunities to get an education.

It isn't about blame, it's about opportunities.

I am intelligent enough that I now possess a BA in English. But my HS grades were not stellar, because I had lost interest, and thought I would never attend college. Should my grades count for more than my actual intelligence, or not? According to your standards, I should not have been allowed into college, yet I earned high grades, made the Dean's List 8 times, and earned one of the highest scores in the NATION on my content skills test, the Praxis II. Should I have been kept out of college because of my high school grades?

Why should you be allowed to attend college? You haven't earned it, have you? That you lose interest in educating yourself is your own decision.

Do grades always reflect intelligence? For instance, I earned a C in one college class because I was absent once, and the professor did not allow any absences. This had nothing to do with my work, which earned mostly A's. I did not, academically, deserve a C, but I still earned one. If you believe grades reflect intelligence, do you believe I did in fact earn a C, or an A?

Where did I say anything about intelligence? I am speaking about academic merit. Sure, intelligence plays a huge part, but intelligence is not the only factor. There are also such aspects as dedication and stamina. You may be intelligent, but that doesn't mean you are entitled to an academic career. You have to work for it, too.

The requirements for the job include the test. If you cannot pass the test, no hire. If you do pass the test, those who scored higher than you are hired first. You may have to take the test numerous times before you score high enough to be considered. Still, if you and a veteran both take the test, and s/he scores a few points lower than you, s/he can still be hired before you by virtue of those bonus points that you cannot ever have. Is that fair?

You didn't answer the question. Are we talking about life experience (maturity, etc), or academic knowledge?

So far, you have not proven we've lowered any bars. Can you?

When you allow people who don't have the academic skills to enter academia, you are lowering the bars.

Am I wrong here?

I don't see how. I suppose one can now do a DNA test and see if the person has some dna heritage from the humans that didn't leave Africa tens of thousands of years ago or so. But given that I think 30% of white/caucasian americans have traceable sub-saharan/african admixture, a phenotypically white person but black-identified person has a pretty good shot at passing that test. Particularly if they're not a relatively recent immigrant from Europe, whom I imagine make up a good portion of the 70% of white-identified americans that have no traceable african/black ancestry.

Stop. If you want to use DNA to determine who is black and who is not, I want to see what criteria you are using.

 

[DanishDynamite]

You are white when a majority of 10 random people chosen from across the globe consider you white.

Next question?

 

[CFLarsen]

You are white when a majority of 10 random people chosen from across the globe consider you white.

Next question?

But if you are the sole arbiter of who is black or not, and, hence, who gets the college grant?

What do you base your decision on, then?

Is race a social construct? Do we vote on who is black? That's even more ridiculous than setting up arbitrary "scientific" standards.

 

[DanishDynamite]

But if you are the sole arbiter of who is black or not, and, hence, who gets the college grant?

What do you base your decision on, then?

Sorry, what? I thought I answered your question? Why change the question to make it incompatible with my answer?

Is race a social construct? Do we vote on who is black? That's even more ridiculous than setting up arbitrary "scientific" standards.

No, race is not a social construct. The word "race" is another word for "sub-species". And Ed knows that sub-species abound in the scientific taxonomy world.