Affirmative Action Ban Voted Unconstitutional

[Jimaz]

Here's an individual for you: Dewey Bozella - 2011 Arthur Ashe Award.

Update: The Dewey Bozella Story [[Great Boxing Documentary)

Documentary about Dewey Bozella, a boxer who spent 26 years in jail for a crime he didn't do. This is the moving story of a man who didn't let life break him.

[gazhekwe]

I am a civil rights advocate who worked in the field my entire career. I am giving you the benefit of my experience in that field for you to take as you will. My expectations are not high that many of those who are privileged due to skin color will ever see that privilege, it is so much a part of their being. I do feel blessed that I grew up walking in two worlds, where sometimes the privilege was available to me, and sometimes it wasn't.

[JVB]

I am a civil rights advocate who worked in the field my entire career. I am giving you the benefit of my experience in that field for you to take as you will. My expectations are not high that many of those who are privileged due to skin color will ever see that privilege, it is so much a part of their being. I do feel blessed that I grew up walking in two worlds, where sometimes the privilege was available to me, and sometimes it wasn't.

You keep talking about "white privilege", and keep ignoring the question about what white privilege do poor rural whites have? You have literally ignored that question at least 3 times in this thread.

How exactly are poor, rural whites [[like those in Appalachia, the Ozarks and many other places across the country) benefited by their white skin? What advantages do they have based on their skin color? These are some of the poorest people in this country, some without any running water or electricity - if you could just explain how their "white privilege" has helped them I'd love to hear it. Or you can continue to ignore the question because you know what the answer means to your entire argument for race-based preferences.

[Kevgoblue]

You keep talking about "white privilege", and keep ignoring the question about what white privilege do poor rural whites have? You have literally ignored that question at least 3 times in this thread.

So in your opinion every single white person in this country has to be gainfully employed and economically prosperous for the concept of white privilege to be legitimate? Gaz is trying to get you to look at general trends, not specific instances.

And generally speaking white people get preferential treatment in employment searches.
"After responding to 1,300 classified ads with dummy resumes, the authors found black-sounding names were 50 percent less likely to get a callback than white-sounding names with comparable resumes." http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-201_162-575685.html

Generally speaking white people get preferential treatment in housing. "A study of real estate agencies operating in Allentown alleges fair housing violations and disparate treatment toward white and minority homebuyers."
http://www.lehighvalleylive.com/alle...gage_in_d.html

Generally speaking white people get preferential treatment receiving bank loans. "Wells Fargo, the nation’s largest home mortgage lender, has agreed to pay at least $175 million to settle accusations that its independent brokers discriminated against black and Hispanic borrowers during the housing boom."
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/13/bu...rges.html?_r=0

Generally speaking white people get preferential treatment in the criminal justice system. "Black defendants are at least 30% more likely to be imprisoned than white defendants for the same crime"
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/201...ime/?mobile=nc

And all these examples compare people of similar backgreounds. These are not the black kid from Grosse Pointe vs the white kid from DPS comparisons.

[Cincinnati_Kid]

^^Good post, with references too. White people get all the breaks, always have.

[JVB]

So in your opinion every single white person in this country has to be gainfully employed and economically prosperous for the concept of white privilege to be legitimate?

That's a strawman. Calling something "white privilege" by definition infers that ALL white people benefit from it. Since we know for a fact that is not the case, then you can't call it white privilege. It is a class privilege. The same privilege that is available to the children of Ben Carson, Michael Jordan, Sean Combs or anybody else with money and connections.

Do some white people get an unfair advantage by knowing people in the right places, or being born into money or applying for jobs at a company that has a racist HR manager? Sure. But penalizing all white people as a whole for the benefits of some is prejudicial by definition.

Now if you want to argue that you support these policies as a way to make up for past injustices, then make that argument. But don't try to couch it in terms of "leveling the playing field" because that is demonstrably false. For a race-based policy to do that fairly would require that all blacks have a disadvantage and all whites have an advantage. Otherwise, you give benefits to some that don't need it, and punish some that need help the most.

Giving the nod to Russell Simmons kid over some poor white kid from the Ozarks is in no way a fair policy, but when you have race-based rules [[rather than class based) those are the types of things that will happen. That's my whole point.

White people get all the breaks, always have.

That's a profoundly ignorant statement on several levels. That's like the people that say black people commit all the crimes, always have.

It's racist thinking. It makes everyone of a similar skin color somehow responsible for the lives and decisions of others with similar skin color. It is collectivist thinking, and it taints everything it touches. Religions, politics, team sports etc - it's always us vs them. The only way to move past that poisonous thinking is to treat people as individuals - not as blacks, whites, Catholics, Muslims, Democrats, Republicans etc.

[gazhekwe]

JVB, I have answered and reanswered your question. In brief, it is not about economics. It is about representation comparable to the numbers in the community. There are poor folks of every race. What you fail to see is that, whatever the economic strata, whites are represented in the workplace and the universities at a higher rate than minorities.

In your last paragraph, above, you argue for individual treatment. That is not what affirmative action does, and it will not and can not do that as the laws are structured. If you want to keep tilting at that windmill, be my guest. I do not expect you to be able to grasp that understanding as you argue for affirmative action for poor whites. Should that come into play due to your efforts with your local and national representatives, it will continue to look at minority representation in the workplace and educational institutions, along with economic status. You will still be complaining that the poor whites were denied admission in favor of the poor blacks until representation comes close to community representation. Then you will have to find some other way to complain that blacks got in while whites did not [[ignoring that whites did get in and blacks did not as well).

I do thank you for this opportunity to explain affirmative action for people who are willing to expand their knowledge.

[JVB]

I do thank you for this opportunity to explain affirmative action for people who are willing to expand their knowledge.

Yes, you've made it quite clear that you fully support and endorse government policies that discriminate based on race.

Miscegenation, Jim Crow laws, Affirmative Action - the government has a long and storied history of using race-based laws to discriminate against its citizens and divide us into groups to make it easier to control us. You are not in good company though...

[gazhekwe]

So get out there and get to work, JVB. Sitting here complaining gets you nowhere. See if you can further advance the cause of hiring whites first. Just realize that many of us know that is actually still the case in most places. You also fail to acknowledge that the openings for any given position are limited, applicants are many, and there will still be many whites and blacks both that are not successful. Since you are only concerned with the whites who are not successful, there will doubtless be many in power who do not regard your pleas favorably. There will be many who do, but the recent elections were not favorable to them.

[JVB]

See if you can further advance the cause of hiring whites first.

I think that is as foolish as hiring blacks first. As someone who has worked in management I learned long ago to hire people based on their abilities, not their skin color.

Once again, it is the difference between collectivism [[blacks, whites, fat, skinny, male, female, etc) and individualism. You and your ilk make snap judgments based on color, whereas I think content of character should be the only thing that matters.

My argument is simply that making any decision based on race is discrimination and that discrimination is a bad thing especially when endorsed through the power of government. I understand we'll never agree, and I'm OK with that.

[gazhekwe]

I do not accept the accusation of making snap judgments based on skin color. Nothing I have said here attests that I feel race alone is an adequate criteria for hiring or admissions. Where qualifications are met, though, rather than knee jerk choosing the usual applicants to match the mostly white work force or student body, affirmative action makes one NOT consider whites first, when all qualifications are met. This is to continue only until the work force or student body is balanced to match the community profile. Some whites and some blacks will not get in because there were not enough openings for all applicants. For you, this indicates unfairness because some blacks did get in when there were white applicants who did not get in. I don't know how to show you the flaw in your view of the subject.

[Papasito]

Considering whites are a minority in most urban areas of the United States at this point in time, I don't see how rules saying you CANT hire them = "equality".

Whites are now in the minority in one third of America's most populous counties

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...-urban-US.html

Minority babies outnumbered white newborns in 2011 for the first time in U.S. history, the latest milestone in a demographic shift that’s transforming the nation.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-0...irst-time.html

Skin color should become a thing of the past.
The notion of making any decision based on skin in and of itself is racist.
...But if you think about the end of discrimination, if it actually happened, it would put a lot of folks in the NAACP and other organizations out of a job. Keeping racism alive and well is good for the minority rights business.

IF Martin Luther King were alive today, and went to a NAACP rally, he would not simply preach to the masses ... He would TEACH to the masses and make them realize that as they walked in, they stepped over or ignored the homeless in the allies and on the sidewalk.

[JVB]

This is to continue only until the work force or student body is balanced to match the community profile.

So should we expect the NBA to work on becoming 63% white in order to "match the community profile"? See how silly that sounds?

That's the definition of a quota. Your argument is that every workplace and school should be 13% black, but if 13% of applicants aren't qualified then you have to use different standards in order to "match the community profile". My jump shot isn't as good as it should be, and I'm pretty sure I can't dunk anymore - should the Pistons lower their standards to "match the community profile"? If not, how else can we expect them them to become 63% white?

See that's the problem you fail to understand. Not everybody is qualified to do everything. Trying to social engineer your way into equality in every workplace and school is naive.

[gazhekwe]

You fail to understand my repeated explanations. Qualified applicants are the ones who benefit from putting minority QUALIFIED applicants first in line, a change from past practice of defaulting to white qualified applicants. That is how the systems got unbalanced in the first place. Please note and I repeat for the umpteenth time, affirmative action is intended to increase the number of QUALIFIED minority applicants, so there is more likelihood of selection of QUALIFIED minority applicants. Lacking QUALIFIED minority applicants, affirmative action goes to affirmative recruitment, NOT to hiring unqualified applicants just to increase the minority enrollment.

From your continued arguments in favor of affirmative action for poor whites, it is apparent you do not believe blacks could be more qualified than whites, so you then believe that affirmative action requires selecting unqualified or less qualified applicants to meet a "quota."

[gazhekwe]

Papasito, the problem is for work forces and educational institutions that have high white and low minority representation in areas where minority populations are high. Sad to say, this applies to many employers and higher ed institutions.

It should also be pointed out that there are exceptions such as for family owned businesses, and small businesses with fewer than ten employees.

[JVB]

You fail to understand my repeated explanations. Qualified applicants are the ones who benefit from putting minority QUALIFIED applicants first in line, a change from past practice of defaulting to white qualified applicants. That is how the systems got unbalanced in the first place.

Your entire argument is baseless - look at UofM again. Whites are actually underrepresented at UofM just like blacks are. Asians are extremely overrepresented. How do you explain that if there really were a "past practice of defaulting to white qualified applicants" as you claim. Shouldn't whites be overrepresented instead of asians then? The numbers don't back up your preconceived notions.

Lacking QUALIFIED minority applicants, affirmative action goes to affirmative recruitment, NOT to hiring unqualified applicants just to increase the minority enrollment.

Apparently you've never heard of Ricci v Stefano a case just decided by the Supreme Court in 2009 in which they found the city of New Haven did exactly that.

From your continued arguments in favor of affirmative action for poor whites, it is apparent you do not believe blacks could be more qualified than whites, so you then believe that affirmative action requires selecting unqualified or less qualified applicants to meet a "quota."

I actually don't support Affirmative Action at all - to whites or any other race. My argument is if you're going to have it though then it should be based solely on finances, not skin color. Who needs more help, poor Appalachian kids, or Russel Simmons kids? When you base it on race too many people that don't need a leg up, get it and too many people that need it slip through the cracks. It's stupid. If we're going to help out those who need it, then help out those who need it regardless of race.

Maybe that's too logical?

[noise]

JVB, are your strong opinions based on study and research or solely on emotions?

The answers to your questions have been addressed in many forms and for many years. Run to a library and check out a book.

[JVB]

JVB, are your strong opinions based on study and research or solely on emotions?

It's very simple - I don't support racial discrimination in any form.

[noise]

It's very simple - I don't support racial discrimination in any form.

It's always easy to make a simple declaration about a very complex topic, but it does nothing to further the conversation or establish any sort of credibility.

Furthermore, it's disingenuous to claim the advancement of another is automatically discrimination against the other.

[JVB]

It's always easy to make a simple declaration about a very complex topic, but it does nothing to further the conversation or establish any sort of credibility.

I don't think there is anything at all complex about racial discrimination. I think it's wrong. I also realize that people who support racial discrimination in any of its forms will try to add as many nuances and code words as possible to muddle the situation in an attempt to justify their support of it.

[noise]

I don't think there is anything at all complex about racial discrimination. I think it's wrong. I also realize that people who support racial discrimination in any of its forms will try to add as many nuances and code words as possible to muddle the situation in an attempt to justify their support of it.

Don't let anyone tell you that you're not well-read or well-informed!

[JVB]

Don't let anyone tell you that you're not well-read or well-informed!

Oh I've heard a million justifications for it, but when you think it through it always comes back to the same thing. Racial discrimination is wrong, counter-productive and causes more unintended consequences and harm than good. History is always a good guide and all of the racial discrimination of the past has been bad for mankind as far as I can tell. I can't think of any exceptions, so I wouldn't expect that to change.

[oladub]

I previously used the term "affirmative racism" to describe the sort of affirmative action Gazhekwe has been advocating on this thread because it is based on reverse racism and the victimization of the white working class. The stories of whites cheating and stealing land from Indians, Bolsheviks stealing land from kulaks, National Socialists redistributing Jewish owned property, or edging out working class whites with programs for everyone but them have the same evil spirit behind them; using the politics of group identity to further an agenda. Perhaps it's the feeling of triumphalism following an election that brings out this judge's ruling and probably other things flying out of Pandora's Box. Today the Senate is voting on a huge rural land grab disguised as something for hunters. A couple of months ago, Obama promised the Russians more flexibility after the election.

In previous threads, Gazhekwe has done an admirable job of explaining her role of trying to show businesses that it was just good [[profitable) business to hire minorities. I respect that approach. It is win-win for businesses and the consumers they are now not making contact with.

We have also agreed that approaches lifting all boats helps certain minorities because they are poorer and generally have more to gain. These sorts of programs often rely on merit so that ghetto kids and rural white kids with high class rank, for instance, can both be better recognized. Merit is good. Again, this is a win-win situation that would not create a backlash from working class whites and would especially help poor minority groups.

[noise]

Oh I've heard a million justifications for it, but when you think it through it always comes back to the same thing. Racial discrimination is wrong, counter-productive and causes more unintended consequences and harm than good. History is always a good guide and all of the racial discrimination of the past has been bad for mankind as far as I can tell. I can't think of any exceptions, so I wouldn't expect that to change.

Sure but that doesn't change the fact that:

"Furthermore, it's disingenuous to claim the advancement of another is automatically discrimination against the other."

[JVB]

Sure but that doesn't change the fact that:

"Furthermore, it's disingenuous to claim the advancement of another is automatically discrimination against the other."

That was never claimed, and its disingenuous to infer that it was. See that's the real problem with Affirmative Action - the ends are admirable but the means are discriminatory.