patrick.net

Kevin says

You can't make up for a millenia of discrimination with 50 years.
And a single half-black president doesn't mean that there's nothing left to do. There's still a massive educational, employment, income, business ownership, and government representation gap between white males and most other groups.

Should it be 75, 100, or 200 years...and who is to decide that ?

How many black presidents/congressmen must we have until so called discrimination has ended?
How many black CEOs and doctors must we have ?

Whats the quota you have in mind...

This all sounds like demands of some marxist guerrilla group holding out in the jungles of Peru demanding some power sharing structure from the government without actually having to do any work.

Kevin says

Hey, at least this conversation has moved from the fantasy land of "white men are the most marginalized group" to something that is actually a somewhat reasonable discussion.

Keep repeating that and being in denial. My answer is NO, your wrong!

thomas.wong1986 says

Should it be 75, 100, or 200 years...and who is to decide that ?

I suppose it could start being 'decided' when studies like the one below no longer reveal biases in the systems that have been traditionally and pretty much forever controlled by aging white men. To summarize, the study reveals that gender biasses completely influence hiring practices at most symphonies in favor of white males, and that these biases are eliminated when applicant musicians are tested behind screens - IE the talent is allowed to speak for itself and applicants aren't screened out or marginalized because they're women.

http://www.princeton.edu/pr/pwb/01/0212/7b.shtml

"Efforts to conceal the identities of musicians auditioning for spots in symphony orchestras significantly boost the chances of women to succeed, a study co-written by a Princeton economist suggests.

Traditionally, women have been underrepresented in American and European orchestras. Renowned (male) conductors have asserted that female musicians have "smaller techniques," are more temperamental and are simply unsuitable for orchestras, and some European orchestras do not hire women at all. Proving discrimination in hiring practices, however, has been difficult."

On being white in America and being offended by affirmative action... A friend of mine describes it as such: "Imagine someone who has been been riding a bicycle downhill with the wind at their back for so long they've forgotten that they're going downhill with the wind pushing them. Then, when they see someone coming in the opposite direction, struggling up the hill against the wind they just assume the problem is with individual and say "hey, what's their problem? We're both just riding bikes..."

thomas.wong1986 says

Keep repeating that and being in denial. My answer is NO, your wrong

Thomas, unfortunately you pretty clearly just don't understand the concept, and making an assumption based on your log in name - that your family is heritage is chinese - I find that kind of surprising, unless I suppose you actually are pretty deep denial. Have you looked into the kind of immigration practices that were in place in California not many years ago for people coming in from china? Do a bit of reading on Angel Island. Would you be arguing to keep those policies in place were they still policy?

Affirmative action is a very enlightened method to attempt enrich our entire culture & society, over the continued preferential treatment of one group. And frankly I applaud if for no other simple reason that it gets more hot multi-cultuaral chicks into the workforce. ;-). However, if your personal philosophy is one based on personal selfishness at the expense of others then I would indeed see why you'd have a harder time understanding or accepting the concepts.

Kevin says

I agree. Lets make sure that all schools have the exact same amount of money, all children are raised by equally competent parents, and nobody is allowed to inherit anything.

So you do admit liberals think most Black families, are headed by sheer incompetence? That's why the Liberals so desperately try to keep under some government or state wardship. And the Liberals want to take from those that are well off, especially those that inherited from a family and give it to them?

Your comeback is why I think Liberals are too incompetent to lead.
The dishonesty in the Republicans can be augmented by subpoenas, but like Scooter sez, you can't fix fucking stupid. This is why I would vote Palin/Buchanan(anyone for that matter) over Obama.

Kevin says

Of course Affirmative action gives preferential treatment to women and minorties -- THAT'S THE ENTIRE POINT OF THE PROGRAM!

Yes, and the program has been built on a base of poor reasoning. It has been wrong since it started and it still is today. We are trying to cure racism and sexism with a racist and sexist policy? Isn't this government approved discrimination? Do the ends justify the means?

Nobody is trying to cure anything. Only accelerate the change. Black and white authoritarian minded thinkers aren't good at solving problems that don't have nice solutions. Speaking of which...

TPB says

you can't fix fucking stupid

Just because you can't comprehend it, doesn't make it stupid. In fact,...well nevermind.

kentm says

women have been underrepresented in American and European

If women have no interest in a given profession, you cannot have govt mandate to require any under represented group (women) to occupy such professions all for the sake of 'equal representation'. Why do Orchestras ? why not do auto mechanics.. Are many women interested in being mechanics ? Not really...

It just gets stupider and stupider..

thomas.wong1986 says

If women have no interest in a given profession, you cannot have govt mandate to require any under represented group (women) to occupy such professions all for the sake of 'equal representation'. Why do Orchestras ? why not do auto mechanics.. Are many women interested in being mechanics ? Not really...

Thomas--you really aren't that dense. Did you read the study? It was proven discrimination.

I'll agree with one thing though--it does just get stupider and stupider. Although I don't think we are talking about the same things....

I hate white men. Or at least the ones posting on this thread.

marcus says

Nobody is trying to cure anything. Only accelerate the change.

Accelerate the change to what Marcus? What exactly is supposed to be the ultimate goal? A color blind and gender blind society?

Kevin says

I hate white men. Or at least the ones posting on this thread.

Are you going to have another "mofo" outburst? Talk about anti-white hate speech!

It's just skin reflectivity...

Will we ever have a "color blind" society? This thread seems to indicate a clear "no."

Scagnetti says

Accelerate the change to what Marcus? What exactly is supposed to be the ultimate goal?

We know that within decades caucasians will be a minority in the US. Even from the most simplistic economic point of view, it should be clear that if strides aren't made in promoting diversity in the academic and corporate world, then we as a country are in trouble.

As it is, I think we have and are making strides, and as a country we do diversity better than most others, which might be a big edge for us by 2200.

As for females, I'm not so worried about equality for women. As a high school teacher, I can tell you, women (girls) are doing great. The old beliefs about girls in Math and science are out the window. Along with this change in perception is the fact that in adolescence girls are often more focused, organized and disciplined than boys.

IT might not be clear why this is so relevant, but,... fact:

Academic success in grades k - 12 is very highly correlated to being middle class (or above). And this isn't just because of bad nutrition, single parent households, distractions of gangs and so on in poor neighborhoods. It's a cultural thing. Poor kids typically don't believe in the system and in the opportunity that school presents (maybe in part a reflection of their parents beliefs and fears about the system).

It's not that simple, but giving someone a good opportunity affects more than just his or her prospects. It's going to affect their children too.

marcus says

Preferential treatment to non whites and women makes more sense to me in some places than others, and it's usually done voluntarily, more than because of fear of consequences. This is especially true within corporations that sometimes go out of their way to promote having a diverse workforce.

Really? Companies would voluntarily do this without the fear of consequences?

In fiscal year 2007, the EEOC received 30,510 formal complaints or racial discrimination, 9,369 complaints of nationality discrimination, and 2,880 reports of religious discrimination, for a total of 42,759 discrimination cases (Jennifer C. Kerr, "Job Discrimination Complaints Jump", Associate Press, March 5, 2008).

Also, keep in mind many more complaints were probably dealt with "in house", through the companies own grievance procedures.

Robert P. Hartwig, Vice president of the insurance information institute says, "Sooner or later, virtually every medium to large size company is likely to find itself the defendant in a discrimination or sexual harassment lawsuit". He estimates that 60% of all companies are named in one of these lawsuits every 5 years. When asked why he responded, "The 21st century's racially and ethnically diverse workforce is a potential powder keg."

With all the potential pitfalls, why would a company care to promote diversity? Companies are interested in making money, not social changes.

Scagnetti says

Companies are interested in making money, not social changes.

Exactly--are you implying that promoting diversity reduces profits?

marcus says

We know that within decades caucasians will be a minority in the US. Even from the most simplistic economic point of view, it should be clear that if strides aren't made in promoting diversity in the academic and corporate world, then we as a country are in trouble.

This has been self inflicted. Changes in our immigration policy have opened the flood gates. If the goal is to have a strong academic and corporate world, maybe we should be more selective in who we let in the country.

tatupu70 says

Scagnetti says

Companies are interested in making money, not social changes.

Exactly--are you implying that promoting diversity reduces profits?

No, I'm saying hiring someone less qualified and effective will reduce profits.

marcus says

it should be clear that if strides aren't made in promoting diversity in the academic and corporate world, then we as a country are in trouble.

You're a teacher right Marcus? Do you really want me to throw up charts of the large racial gap in standardized tests? Show me where improvements have been made here.

Scagnetti says

No, I'm saying hiring someone less qualified and effective will reduce profits.

There's the problem. The orchestra study proved that employers don't always know what to measure to determine who is qualified or effective and inherent biases can play a large role. Many companies have found that adding diversity has proven to add more efffective people.

tatupu70 says

Many companies have found that adding diversity has proven to add more efffective people.

What is a more "diversified" company than the United States Armed Forces. Lets look at them shall we?

In 1997, 40 thousand soldiers were questioned in a government mandated survey about race relations. Two thirds of the soldiers said they suffered from "insensitive language" to racial threats or violence. That would be 63% of Whites, 76% of blacks, 79% of Hispanics, and 76% of American Indians.

When asked if opportunities for their race had improved......16% of whites thought so, 39% of Blacks, 47% of Hispanics, and 41% of Indians.

The pentagon delayed the release of this report for 2 years because it was so embarrassed.

Adding diversity for diversity's sake is not productive. Selecting the best person for the job is.

marcus says

IT might not be clear why this is so relevant, but,... fact:

Academic success in grades k - 12 is very highly correlated to being middle class (or above). And this isn't just because of bad nutrition, single parent households, distractions of gangs and so on in poor neighborhoods. It's a cultural thing. Poor kids typically don't believe in the system and in the opportunity that school presents (maybe in part a reflection of their parents beliefs and fears about the system).

It's not that simple, but giving someone a good opportunity affects more than just his or her prospects. It's going to affect their children too.

Marcus is right in one way. For each race, SAT scores go up the further along a person is on the income ladder. Still, there is a large racial gap. It cannot be overcome by raising a child's living conditions. This experiment has failed.

Scagnetti says

Adding diversity for diversity's sake is not productive. Selecting the best person for the job is.

If you say that again, you obviously missed the entire point of my post.

kentm says

Keep repeating that and being in denial. My answer is NO, your wrong

Thomas, unfortunately you pretty clearly just don't understand the concept, and making an assumption based on your log in name - that your family is heritage is chinese - I find that kind of surprising, unless I suppose you actually are pretty deep denial. Have you looked into the kind of immigration practices that were in place in California not many years ago for people coming in from china? Do a bit of reading on Angel Island. Would you be arguing to keep those policies in place were they still policy?

Assuming thomas.wong.1986 is Asian, the above charts are a good reason for him to be anti-affirmative action. If we were running on a true merit based system, there would be an OVER-representation of Asians. Asians as a whole are HIGHLY competetive. Asians (a minority) are being discriminated against because of this policy!

tatupu70 says

Scagnetti says

Adding diversity for diversity's sake is not productive. Selecting the best person for the job is.

If you say that again, you obviously missed the entire point of my post.

I "got" what you're saying. I think you "get" what I'm saying too. I also think that Orchestra's don't represent the workplace at large. Choosing an artist is personal taste. Choosing the best candidate for the job in many other fields would be much more cut and dry.

Scagnetti says

Choosing the best candidate for the job in many other fields would be much more cut and dry.

Really? It's not possible that a deep down subtle bias exists even in non-racist people that might prompt them to hire a white person over an equally qualified minority? If only because it is more comfortable?

tatupu70 says

Many companies have found that adding diversity has proven to add more efffective people.

I have posted numerous facts on here showing diversity CAUSES problems. If you think companies are better off for it, can make more money, make a better product, with better quality, because of a diversified workforce, prove it.

tatupu70 says

Scagnetti says

Choosing the best candidate for the job in many other fields would be much more cut and dry.

Really? It's not possible that a deep down subtle bias exists even in non-racist people that might prompt them to hire a white person over an equally qualified minority? If only because it is more comfortable?

Inversely, how about all the minorities we have put into managerial positions through affirmative action. Do you think they would be more likely to hire people like themselves? Remember, the sword cuts both ways.

I don't think that orchestra's are the best examples for the overall workforce. I do think that it would be more obvious in a different situation who would be a better candidate. For example, hiring police officers based on test scores.

Scagnetti says

Still, there is a large racial gap. It cannot be overcome by raising a child's living conditions. This experiment has failed.

If you just make shit up, do you really think that makes it true?

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are just an idiot, rather than a racist idiot.

The experiment has barely been done, but it has been successful to the extent it has been done. It's not an experiment though really, we are just talking data and facts. Public schools in middle class areas that are significantly hispanic and or african american do WAY better than similar schools in impoverished neighborhoods. Even when money spent is held constant.

Scagnetti says

I have posted numerous facts on here showing diversity CAUSES problems

No, you haven't. Diversity isn't the problem.

Scagnetti says

Inversely, how about all the minorities we have put into managerial positions through affirmative action. Do you think they would be more likely to hire people like themselves? Remember, the sword cuts both ways.

lol--I think we're a long way from that being a problem.

marcus says

Scagnetti says

Still, there is a large racial gap. It cannot be overcome by raising a child's living conditions. This experiment has failed.

If you just make shit up, do you really think that makes it true?

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are just an idiot, rather than a racist idiot.

The experiment has barely been done, but it has been successful to the extent it has been done. It's not an experiment though really, we are just talking data and facts. Public schools in middle class areas that are significantly hispanic and or african american do WAY better than similar schools in impoverished neighborhoods. Even when money spent is held constant.

WRONG! I did not make this up. Please see the above charts. I DID say that improving a family's income will raise the child's performance. I also said there is a racial gap, which I provided evidence for. You have provided none. You have already acknowledged an achievement gap. Your argument is that the achievement gap is based totally on the family's income level. The data I provided acknowledges this as a factor but also shows the racial gap. Just because the facts are not pleasant to your eyes doesn't make them untrue.

Scagnetti says

If the goal is to have a strong academic and corporate world, maybe we should be more selective in who we let in the country.

We are very fortunate not to have the population challenges that many countries have (because of our southern neighbors).

I changed my mind, you are a racist idiot.

marcus says

Scagnetti says

If the goal is to have a strong academic and corporate world, maybe we should be more selective in who we let in the country.

We are very fortunate not to have the population challenges that many countries have (because of our southern neighbors).

I changed my mind, you are a racist idiot.

Like I said before, you can't invalidate an argument by name calling. If your argument will stand on its own, there's no need for that. Simply prove me wrong.

On another note, you call me a racist because I think we should accept highly effective, educated, and motivated people into the country? Or is it because I posted some data about SAT scores that undermined your argument? Don't be mad at me! That's just what the data shows.

Maybe by racist you think I'm pro asian because of the above chart I posted!

Your accusations toward me are a classic example of trying to silence debate. We should be ENCOURAGING debate on these type of topics, not stifling it. We can never move forward if we don't challenge some of the assumptions we have that may be wrong! Also, I wont be knocked off course for fear of you or anyone else "calling me names".

It is scientifically proven that the Irish perform lower on standardized tests than whites. Study after study has confirmed the circumference of the Irish skull is smaller than English heads.

We must ban any further Irish from entering the country. The sheer number of Irish have pushed this nation into decline, and the Irish make terrible underclass minions for men of stature and merit.

I had a good friend in college that was Asian. He found it comical when he would walk into an advanced math course on the first day: many would glare at him apparently thinking, "aw crap, there goes the curve!"

He told me there's good reason for that stereotype, though. He said it's probably NOT true that Asians (as a whole) are inherently better at math than the rest. It's that ONLY the smart Asians make it into the U.S. to study math. He put it bluntly, "all the dumb Asians are still back in Asia."

So if you only sample the Asians at U.S. universities, you probably WILL find that they are better at math than the average American. It's not just a stereotype!

It's a well known fact that Orientals are good at one thing and one thing only, and it is certainly not mathematics.

This should be evidenced in my nicely cleaned suit.

And whites are still more marginalized than any other group in America.