| Welcome to Campfire Soapbox. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Racism Worse Now Than In The '80s?; Are remedies part of the Problem? | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Jun 13 2006, 09:52 PM (595 Views) | |
| tomdrobin | Jun 13 2006, 09:52 PM Post #1 |
|
Member
|
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,196686,00.html "The institutionalization of racial bias occurred on both a federal and local level. The official "Definitions of Racism" offered by the Seattle Public Schools offers an example of the latter; it defines the approach to racism teachers in that system should adopt. The core definition of racism is, "The systematic subordination of members of targeted racial groups who have relatively little social power in the United States (Blacks, Latino/as, Native Americans, and Asians), by the members of the agent racial group who have relatively more social power (Whites). The subordination is supported by the actions of individuals, cultural norms and values, and the institutional structures and practices of society." By this definition, it is impossible to commit an act of racism against a white person. Also, the definition converts racism from an act into a pattern of attitudes; ideas and not actions become the target of control. Sub-categories of racism are also defined. 'Cultural Racism' is, in part, "[t]hose aspects of society that overtly and covertly attribute value and normality to white people and Whiteness…Examples of these norms include defining white skin tones as nude or flesh colored, having a future time orientation, emphasizing individualism as opposed to a more collective ideology…" 'Active Racism' includes advocating "protection of 'the rights' of members of the agent group [whites]." By these definitions, standing up for individual rights such as freedom of speech, especially if the individual is white, is racist. Individualism becomes the new racism. The Seattle school policy is one instance of inserting racial bias into institutions, most notably the education and legal systems. Such bias engenders a sense of entitlement within included races and a dangerous resentment within the excluded ones. Such policies create racial tension. What is the solution? I believe that most social problems arise from violence or other violations of individual rights. By treating all individuals as equal under laws that protect their person and property, social problems shrink. By punishing or rewarding people according to their conduct and not their racial identity, racism shrinks. If a white man rapes a black woman, it is not wrong because the perpetrator is white and the victim is black. Reverse the races and the act is still wrong because rape is an [italic]act[italic] of violence. You do not control and are not responsible for your racial identity but you are absolutely accountable for your conduct. Racism has no easy answer. But a necessary prerequisite is to dead-letter all laws and policies that express racial preference and replace them with ones that connect consequences to conduct rather than to race. On a more personal level, stop apologizing for being white or any racial group identified on a government checklist. Apologize only for your actions; they are all you control. Your actions are who you are." |
![]() |
|
| cmoehle | Jun 14 2006, 05:13 AM Post #2 |
|
Chris - San Antonio TX
|
Better to treat everyone equally before the law. Reverse discrimination is as bad as discrimination. |
|
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order. --Barry Goldwater | |
![]() |
|
| tomdrobin | Jun 14 2006, 11:48 PM Post #3 |
|
Member
|
We've got a ballot proposal coming up next election here in MI, that bans preferential treatment for minorities (afirmative action). Some are already howling that it is racist. I think the old saying, "two wrongs don't make a right", applies. You don't ensure justice for one group of society by being unjust to another group. This just encourages the group belief that sins of our fathers must continue to be paid for by the current generation in the form of set asides, preferential hiring and entitlments. And, the effect of that is to continue the idea that individuals of the entitled group are somehow unable to make it on their own merits. |
![]() |
|
| cmoehle | Jun 15 2006, 06:15 AM Post #4 |
|
Chris - San Antonio TX
|
If you read blacks like Sowell you'll see they are every bit as opposed to reverse discrimination as you and I. It doesn't elevate, it keeps people dependent and subservient. |
|
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order. --Barry Goldwater | |
![]() |
|
| ngc1514 | Jun 15 2006, 06:24 AM Post #5 |
![]()
Member
|
I don't think affirmative actions programs were set up to insure justice, but to level playing fields. While AA has been around for what? 35 years? There were centuries prior when opportunities readily available to white were denied to blacks. My own company at the time - AT&T - had racial hiring policies. No blacks were hired to do the technical work, the only blacks were in operator services or "apparatus cleaners" (janitors in switching offices). In 1968, when I hired on, there were no black or female technicians among the 50,000 employess in the Long Lines division. In the middle 70's, bowing to legal and sociatal pressures, AT&T signed the "Implied Consent Decree." As is so frequently the case, AT&T admitted no wrongdoing, but promised - under threat of legal actions - never to do it again. For the first time, blacks were hired as technicians and managers and now make up a representative percentage of the payroll for the rump AT&T and the rapidly merging Baby Bells. In 1960, my father was hired as the personnel director of JC Penney. His primary job was college recruitment of potential store managers. His boss, a delightful southern gentleman with the name of King Karlus Knight (think initials) told him, as my father was gearing up to visit a northeastern school with a sizable number of black business graduates, that he was NOT to hire any blacks as manager candidates. He did, was almost fired, but, eventually prevailed. I know, all this is ancient history and purely anecdotal, but gives a personal perspective why AA was put into place: to counter explicit and implicit racism and racist hiring policies in an historically racist nation. I don't think anyone likes affirmative action, but most people understand why it was originally implemented. Has it worked? Swimmingly well! Just look at the numbers of blacks who have moved into jobs unavailable to them just 40 years ago. Is it a perfect system? Of course not, but no system is. Should we do away with it? There is an unexamined assumption behind these proposals that assumes - without offering any evidence to support it - racial bias in hiring and college admissions has been bred or educated out of those doing the hiring and accepting admission applications. Anyone advocating the elimination of AA care to offer any evidence that the old racist hiring practices of the last century wouldn't rear its head again? Maybe it wouldn't, but I've seen no evidence to show that true. |
Eric
| |
![]() |
|
| cmoehle | Jun 15 2006, 07:24 AM Post #6 |
|
Chris - San Antonio TX
|
I think we need to be careful about a false dichotomy here as the opposite of discrimination is not reverse discrimination but enforcing equality before the law. That would go to preventing future discrimination. I understand the good intentions of correcting centuries of discrimination, but as is typical in government being fair to one group usually means being unfair to other groups. |
|
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order. --Barry Goldwater | |
![]() |
|
| Banandangees | Jun 15 2006, 09:53 AM Post #7 |
|
Member
|
I've mentioned this before on a past topic, that in a particular highshool in a city in NW PA, the black/white ratio is about 50/50. Same teachers, same books, same class room opportunities. Yet, the grade averages favor the white students. More whites go on to college (many via student loans and grants available to most all). More whites go on to gainful employement and more blacks get into drug dealing. The athletic teams somewhat favor black participation. Same school opportunities. I'm not sure why the white students fair well moreso than the black students. Do school teachers put more time on the white students? Could it be more whites in that school come from more-in-tact familes, where there is a father and mother, more discipline to encourage good study habits? If so what has brought about that family structure difference in this land over the last 50 years. Latino families and Asian families seem to have a stronger family structure. Asians seem to do well in scholastic endeavors. I'm not saying that there is no discrimination in our land. I'm saying that maybe the the discrimination situation is compounded by the do gooder legislation that has contributed to family breakdown and dependence. President Johnson's war on poverty did much to bring about opportunities for minorities. Blacks have had opportunity to take advantage of President Johnson's action; yet, the Native Americans seem to have been lost to it in their confinement. Asians have more so risen above it. What will the Latinos do? |
| Banan | |
![]() |
|
| ngc1514 | Jun 15 2006, 11:10 AM Post #8 |
![]()
Member
|
You are probably correct with the false dichotomy. They are not opposites. Let me give my opinion of what AA is and see how it works in the real world. I'm not a lawyer nor have I read the statutes, so if wrong - perhaps someone will correct my misunderstanding. At the basic level, AA appears to require that the racial/sexual makeup of the employee base of medium to large corporations will approximate the general population from which these employers draw their workers. I know it also applies to public colleges, but the principle is the same. There are obvious exceptions - I don't think the government, even at its most perverse, would expect the position of wet nurse to be filled with 50% males. I've never heard the law requires that any particular person, or group of people, be hired; just the above mentioned requirement is fulfilled. The advantage of this system is that by asking a company to provide the demographics of its workforce, the congruence between the demographics of the local population and that workforce could be easily determined. In fact, a divergence between these demographics might constitute prima-facie evidence of discriminatory hiring practices. In other words, the onus of non-discriminatory hiring is on the company and the company can do whatever is necessary to meet those requirements while insuring a competent workforce. Now, you suggest that the force of law – equality before the law – is sufficient to obtain the same results. How does that work? This would, apparently, throw the onus of proving discrimination on to the job seeker, would it not? If black was turned down for several positions for which he was qualified, he now has to go out and hire a lawyer and prove that he was discriminated against rather than filing an EEOC complaint. How many job seekers have the financial resources to take on a major corporation? I agree that it is a crappy system and a great example of the sins of the fathers being visited on the children. In an ideal society, it would be unnecessary, but our racist societal history would seem to indicate that counting on fairness from the employers is not realistic. |
Eric
| |
![]() |
|
| cmoehle | Jun 15 2006, 11:31 AM Post #9 |
|
Chris - San Antonio TX
|
I think you describe the intent of the law correctly. But it seems to me it leads to hiring people simply because they are of a minority rather than for skills or knowledge or other requirements. This is good for neither the employer nor the employees hired. So, to me, it seems better to remove any sort of quota system and enforce the law stating race, sex, etc cannot be used to discriminate in hiring. You're right, it shifts the burden of proof from employer to applicant. The EEOC should be open to investigating applicant complaints without the need of lawyers. Though lawyer fees could be taken from employer fines. The end result, however, imo, benefits employer and employee. I think you're right, it's a crappy system, and will be no matter how you try to correct it. |
|
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order. --Barry Goldwater | |
![]() |
|
| ngc1514 | Jun 15 2006, 12:29 PM Post #10 |
![]()
Member
|
Ah! And here is where we disagree. WHY would an employer hire people who don't have the requisite skills and knowledge for the job... no matter what color they might be? It might take a little longer to find a viable candidate and it might cost some relocation funds, if that's what's required to find the right person, but those options seem to be much less expensive or detrimental to the company bottom line than hiring unqualified help. Do you have any evidence that this actually happens? I haven't experienced it in the literally thousands of technical people I've worked with during my 38 years in telecommunications. Yes, there are been some duds of all sexes and ethnic origins, but I can't think of a case that meets your argument. Why would an employer do something so destructive to his company? |
Eric
| |
![]() |
|
| cmoehle | Jun 15 2006, 01:24 PM Post #11 |
|
Chris - San Antonio TX
|
Because the govt forces him to, or the person hiring perceives he must. Or because, even unawares, he, or she, is biased. I can only relate stories my Dad tells of his experiences. His company, back, what, in the 60s was it, did hire minorities even when they were unqualified. I think that's what leaves a sour taste in the mouths of those who complain now. It feeds the backlash. |
|
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order. --Barry Goldwater | |
![]() |
|
| TexasShadow | Jun 15 2006, 02:19 PM Post #12 |
![]()
Jane
|
yes, as stated, because the government forces him to do so. just as schools are forced to bus in students to establish ethnic/racial balance, companies are forced to hire certain percentages of minority races, etc. |
|
| |
![]() |
|
| karmasasha | Jun 15 2006, 02:47 PM Post #13 |
![]()
Andrea in Minnesota, USA
|
I remember a friend of husbands who was a Sup at Honeywell in Mpls. He said they would lose government contracts if they did not hire a certain number of blacks no matter what their qualifications were. The situation was not good here in the twin cities. Off topic but it brings back memories of when I was caught up in two black race riots with two small children. I feel uneasy thinking about it. First was in about 1966 when I was going to see a girlfriend in a new house. I looked on the city map and chose a route. I stopped at a red light with my four year old and two year old children and then saw them running towards my car. A mob of blacks. I hit the gas and ran the light and never slowed down until I no longer saw black angry faces. Next time was when David was about three. He stayed home with his Dad and I took a six and eight year old to the Mpls Aquatennial Torch Light parade...think it was '72 or '73. The last of the parade was just going by us in downtown Mpls when the huge glass windows around us started breaking and people screaming. We were so busy watching the parade I had not noticed the black mobs moving in behind us. I had a tight grip on each childs hand but was pushed down and lost my six year old son. I was screaming his name and finally heard him...he was croutched down under one of those saw horse baricades. I tryed making it back to our car parked at the post office lot and things got worse....the police were walking in a line with German Shepards and we were caught with the blacks. The police finally got to us and parted so the children and I could get on the safe side of them.......my two oldest children are adults now but extremly prejudiced. David is not. |
![]() ![]() Women Who Behave Rarely Make History | |
![]() |
|
| ngc1514 | Jun 15 2006, 03:47 PM Post #14 |
![]()
Member
|
Virtually every person hired for a technical position with the various telephone companies like BellSouth, Qwest, AT&T...etc are unqualified for the work they are hired to do. No publically available school in the country teaches people how to repair #4ESS or 5ESS machines or how to engineer telephone central offices. A similar situation obtains in many other companies and industries who hire those they think able to do the work and then teach them HOW to do the work. If your Dad's company hired unqualified people who were unable, after training, to do the work required, that was not the fault of AA programs, but the fault of those doing the hiring. I think the phrase is cutting off one's nose to spite one's face. The backlash should be directed to the personnel departments and not programs designed to bootstrap blacks and women in an historically biased hiring environment. I suspect the backlash is more racially motivated than for any other reason and is just another indication of the racial attitudes found today. More good reasons to keep AA. |
Eric
| |
![]() |
|
| ngc1514 | Jun 15 2006, 03:53 PM Post #15 |
![]()
Member
|
No, the government does NOT force the hiring of unqualified applicants. The AA program has never done that. Yes, they have to align work force demographics with the local demographics, but that is not the same as telling a company they have to hire unqualified people. Who they hired remained a business decision based on qualifications. Or are you suggesting minorities and women are unable to meet the expectations of business? Racial and sexual balance doesn't mean a company has to hire unqualified people. |
Eric
| |
![]() |
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Soapbox · Next Topic » |













1:28 PM Jul 11