Discussion of white discrimination

However, weren't you of the position that it should no longer be used today? I'm confused, I thought you wanted it ended now, not in 25 years, not in 10-15 years, but now. Or is that only in the workplace?

No, that is not (nor has it been) my position.

Instead I have stated that now is the time for us to start getting rid of it, much like Justice O'Connor stated. Affirmative Action was always designed to be a temporary measure, but few supporters of it ever seem to want to look towards when it would no longer be needed. Things have improved significantly in the last 25 years, to the point where it is time to star phasing out such outdated programs as Affirmative Action.

Now, I have also tried to be very clear in this thread to separate the government's actions from private ones. The government is bound by the Fourteenth Amendment. The private sector is not. As this ruling has only to do with government supported institutions, those are the only views that I needed to express in my last post.

As far as private institutions and individuals goes, I say let them choose to discriminate if they wish. Why? Because then the market will sort things out. I have often cited the example of Denny's, and how market pressure (not the legal pressure) caused them to do an abrupt 180 turnaround on race. Those companies that choose to discriminate will only be hurting themselves in the long run.

Is that too hard to understand? I reject the notion that the government should be allowed to determine who I (or anyone else) can hire or how I determine who my employees will be. While I reject the idea of racial, sexual, or other discrimination, I do not believe that such ideas can ever be successfully imposed on others.You can convince them to accept them, but you cannot force them.

Kimball Kinnison

EDIT:

Now, Kimball, I find it funny that you agree, but not that funny. I knew that once the school did away with the 20-point thing, enough rhetoric and PC style writing could justify the continued use of AA.

Funny how you overlook the point that they also said that they expect it should be gone in 25 years. While yes, they condoned a continuance of a form of AA, it was only for a limited time (as UM's law school agreed voluntarily). O'Connor even states:

In the context of higher education, the durational requirement can be met by sunset provisions in race-conscious admissions policies and periodic reviews to determine whether racial preferences are still necessary to achieve student body diversity. Universities in California, Florida, and Washington State, where racial preferences in admissions are prohibited by state law, are currently engaged in experimenting with a wide variety of alternative approaches. Universities in other States can and should draw on the most promising aspects of these race-neutral alternatives as they develop. Cf. United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549, 581 (1995) (Kennedy, J., concurring) (?[T]he States may perform their role as laboratories for experimentation to devise various solutions where the best solution is far from clear?).

In other words, the States are strongly encouraged to reduce the amount of Affirmative Action and experiment on other ways to encourage diversity. The court didn't say "AA is still justified". A closer interpretation is "Let's start phasing it out, but until then keep it on an individual level."

KK

 

outstanding post as is your custom, Kimball Kinnison .

OWM:

yeah, i guess there was more surprise about the decision of O'Connor than other members of the court. i just think it's stupid that the press basically put a spin of "O'Connor is a turncoat to conservatism" on the decision. if nothing else, it shows a measure of independant thinking on the part of certain justices who have been accused of being totally bised on things like, say, election result reviews.

 

Uh, not in my opinion.....The press has always maintained that O'Conner IS a swing voter...no one said she was a conservative stooge, just that in previous rulings she often leaned right, but often she was the swing vote that went with the more liberal wing. Who said that she betrayed the conservatives? She certainly didn't betray them when she betrayed justice by deciding Bush should have been President.

(If you ask me, the Supreme Court shouldn't have even been making that determination, either they do what Rehnquist always does in such election matters and defer to the state OR they should have done the constitutional thing and sent it to Congress.)

As far as private institutions and individuals goes, I say let them choose to discriminate if they wish. Why? Because then the market will sort things out. I have often cited the example of Denny's, and how market pressure (not the legal pressure) caused them to do an abrupt 180 turnaround on race. Those companies that choose to discriminate will only be hurting themselves in the long run.

-If only that were true. You have no idea how much racism would and could go on in the private sector. Rich wealthy 'whites only' communities could and would happen. Legal 'whites only' dining. Why do you think they had to make it illegal in the first place? And didn't I post in this thread the Supreme Court decision that justified extending some of these equal rights laws into the private sector? The private sector can't be racist because then then if they were sued or the issue went to court, the court could NEVER condone or justify or allow the private sector to continue to be racist, as then the court/government would be in violation of the equal rights laws. That's just the legal reason. We've had this argument before, but maybe you'll finally understand the reality of the situation this time, or at least my point of view.

Kimball, what you don't understand is that economically, while the more moderate/liberal wing of our society would protest such actions, they could not protest EACH AND EVERY action, just as each and every act of racism doesn't go by challenged even today. Whites don't economically need black business overall, but generally black business cannot thrive without business from whites. What you don't understand is that in the deep south and other pockets of our country, whites could run their racist businesses just fine without a single black dollar. (Heck, that's partly why they weren't sure if the commerce clause would work, since blacks may not affect it enough.) While I don't believe you to be a racist and while I do think your simple market solution would be true, it is a fiction, a fantasy.

Don't take this to mean I think all of your ideas are misguided, indeeded I have been impressed by your original thoughts and solutions on race relations in this country, and have begun to modify my own views on Affirmative Action as well based on our previous discusisons.

But time and time again, you spout this solution, and it makes me wonder how you can ignore what happened in our history, from the founding of our nation until the the sixties with equal rights legislation.

Private sectors cannot be allowed to discriminate based on race, it is a danger to society. It would deteriorate race relations, and lessen overall trust in our government.

And again, signs that said "WHITE'S ONLY" would be legal. I know you understand this, but I don't think you realize that it would start happening all over the place, and business in many areas would still thrive. While yes, since we are more enlightened today than in yesteryear, there would be outrage. But not everywhere, not every local district, not every pocket of hate in America. And it would be disatrous for our country. The worst of it could come in the form of minorities putting up signs that read "Asians only," "hispanics only," "blacks only," etc. This would be disastrous.

Gradually get rid of AA, yes, fine, (once it's no longer needed it will get rid of itself,)

 

Uh, not in my opinion.....The press has always maintained that O'Conner IS a swing voter...no one said she was a conservative stooge, just that in previous rulings she often leaned right, but often she was the swing vote that went with the more liberal wing. Who said that she betrayed the conservatives? She certainly didn't betray them when she betrayed justice by deciding Bush should have been President.

see, you just did it again, OWM!!! you said O'connor isn't a stooge, then she threw the election of 2000. make up your mind!!!

surely for someone in a fraternity, the idea of exclusion isn't something you would be able to say is NOT a part of your life, OWM. what is the ostensible point of fraternities if not to provide for an exclusive environment? the legacy issue applies here as well.

 

Kimball, what you don't understand is that economically, while the more moderate/liberal wing of our society would protest such actions, they could not protest EACH AND EVERY action, just as each and every act of racism doesn't go by challenged even today. Whites don't economically need black business overall, but generally black business cannot thrive without business from whites. What you don't understand is that in the deep south and other pockets of our country, whites could run their racist businesses just fine without a single black dollar. (Heck, that's partly why they weren't sure if the commerce clause would work, since blacks may not affect it enough.) While I don't believe you to be a racist and while I do think your simple market solution would be true, it is a fiction, a fantasy.

You are overlooking the proposal that I made to counterbalance that. My certification suggestion would provide an additional economic force to encourage (but not force) people to be non-discriminatory. That is the key: you cannot force people to change their attitudes. It is not the government's job to make people in their private associations abandon racist attitudes.

Yes, I saw the court case you posted. I also disagree with the reasoning of it. The government should not have any right to go into a private business and tell them who they can or cannot hire any more than the government should be able to come in and tell me who I can or cannot date. If I were to choose to only date whites, should someone be able to sue me for discrimination?

No one should be able to demand that I employ them any more than they should be able to demand that I date them. I don't care if there would be discrimination or not. It at least gets it out into the open, rather than getting people to hide it. Those laws do not change the attitudes one bit.

Private sectors cannot be allowed to discriminate based on race, it is a danger to society. It would deteriorate race relations, and lessen overall trust in our government.

It would deteriorate race relations no more than Affirmative Action does, when it persecutes people for not being "diverse" enough. I submit that it is not as great a danger as you suggest. At some point you need to let people make their own choices and face their own consequences.

Are there placs where "white" businesses could survive without a single "black" dollar? Of course there are. However, in many of those places there is a sufficient population who would be excluded to support their own businesses. Either "black" businesses would spring up to fill the need, or some "white" businesses would not discriminate, and would then reap the benefits of a larger clientele. At the same time, large corporations (such as Wal-Mart) would not dare discriminate because of the backlash that would happen around the country.

I'd write more right now, but I have my girlfriend over right now, and I'd rather spend time with her than online with you. She's much cuter.

Kimball Kinnison

 

It would deteriorate race relations no more than Affirmative Action does, when it persecutes people for not being "diverse" enough. I submit that it is not as great a danger as you suggest. At some point you need to let people make their own choices and face their own consequences.

an interesting point here. one of the things involved in the Michigan case was the subject of trying to get students to interact more. that once admitted (regardless of those admission policies), the students had a tendancy to naturally segregate themselves. i think that's a treu but unfortunate observation. and it's one for which i do not see a solution that can be offered by any set of criteria by an institution or government. people haev to WANT to interact on their own. they should LIKE to see other people's views and learn about them. but part of human nature is to form groups with which we can identify ourselves. it's very much a part of human nature to seek approbation from others. so, how can these tendancies be countered by any kind of social or institutional program?


I'd write more right now, but I have my girlfriend over right now, and I'd rather spend time with her than online with you. She's much cuter.


LOL!

 

While segregation does happen, I'd say that at least if you go to school with people of other races, there is a CHANCE that you'll interact, in classes, at the very least.

see, you just did it again, OWM!!! you said O'connor isn't a stooge, then she threw the election of 2000. make up your mind!!!

surely for someone in a fraternity, the idea of exclusion isn't something you would be able to say is NOT a part of your life, OWM. what is the ostensible point of fraternities if not to provide for an exclusive environment? the legacy issue applies here as well.

-Bah, you got me. All I was trying to say is that while she's not a conservative stooge, and she is a swing-voter, her loyalties are the Republican party, as she has stated that she wanted to retire with a Republican in the White House.

As far as the fraternity stuff goes, I support the legacy system, I think it may have helped me get into Law School, or maybe it didn't. And yeah, it was exclusive, we were the biggest and most wild fraternity on campus, naturally among the most exclusive. So naturally we had a healthy mix of blue and red blood. And you know what? I found that political ideology had little to do with wealth. My brothers who were conservative and GOP leaning tended to be more racist (there are degrees of racism, people aren't always just racist and not-racist), more selfish, and generally unconcerned about anything other than the welfare of themselves and their future. As you can guess, my liberal brothers tended to be the opposite. And I loved my fraternity, and all those guys were my good friends. Yet I noticed those subtle differences.

Kimball, I can't believe you are ok with 'white's only' diners. I can't believe you think a viable solution is for blacks to make 'blacks only diners.' Get out of the past and contemporize, man! Those 'seprate but equal' solutions didn't work back then, they don't work now.

And it's not a slippery slope. Private Busines is governed by the state in ways private personal lives are not. Just because you can't refuse to hire blacks outright doesn't mean that you can't choose to date white women exclusively. And thank God the Supreme Court has enough sense to realize that racism is wrong. Just like they felt it was wrong to automatically boost all blacks in admissions, it's wrong to automatically deny all blacks something.

But let me understand you correctly. You are now ok with public universities using Affirmative Action as long as it's supposed to be temporary, phased out at some point. You are also ok with Private Universities using Affirmative Action in any way they want. So if they want to give all blacks and all half-black-half-asians 50 points, that's cool, and if they want to give all half-white half-hispanics -30 points, that's ok. Except that you just stated that AA 'persecutes' people. How exactly does it do that?

And as far as universities go, it is personal choice. The university should have the choice to determine it's own criteria. Just like they can decide that athletes abilities are important and their grades don't matter, just like they can accept legacies, just like they can accept anyone whose daddy donates a new wing to the school, JUST LIKE they can decide that people from underrepresented STATES in our union are looked on more favoribly, so are certain underprivileged minorities.

-Also, your certification program would not be used for each and every single business. And I don't think it's right for ANY business of ANY kind to discriminate based on race. There is a clear distinction between your personal life and a private business. I mean, the laws aren't the way you want them now, do you think you are in any danger of seeing legislation that demands you do not discriminate in your personal life? You seem to think that the private sector is just the free and uncontrolled industry, and neglect the very public nature of private companies and businesses. Thank god allmighty the Supreme Court and the President, the Senate, and the H

 

it's not about whites losing out for me. it's about EVERYONE losing out. look, i've been mistaken for the following ethnicities;

Greek
Hispanic
Italian


all i can say is apparantly i'm of swarthy complexion. i could get away with saying i'm any one of those ethnicities to gain an advantage over others if i chose to in certain situations. what is someone going to do? run a DNA test to verify that i am actually a mix of several backgrounds including Native American and Danish? if i were inclined to, i could claim that MY ethnicity wasn't adequately represented enough in certain environments and in order to get an advantage over any other applicant, whatever ethnicity i chose can help put me over other competitors. it'd be pretty Machievellian, but it's just one example of how the system of institutionalized diversity is a flawed one. it is precisely because i see prejudice that i see dangers and pitfalls in AA.

the slippery slope is especially poignant when you consider the point system. is an Aboriginee from Australia given MORE or FEWER points than a black kid who's descendant from Africans? where's the adequate representation among the various middle eastern or eastern european countries? how do you award points for those different nationalities and ethnicities? 10 points to Iraqis, but only 9 to Syrians? those with darker complexions score higher than the ultra rare albinos? where are the representatives for the albinos? minority group? yes. denied their civil rights? well, i have yet to uncover a historical example of albinos being systematically kept out of the system. so then, what? award points for those groups who have suffered, what, the most? grade various ethnicities collective historical pain? do Slovaks get more points than Czechs? it's just gets silly. that's why i'm happy to see aspects of AA abandoned. again,. i hope you understand that in principle, i do understand and appreciate diversity. but it has to happen on its own. you cannot force people to be moral or diverse.

EDIT: Oh yeah, I'm sure that I'm MUCH cuter than your girlfriend, and not only that, that MY girlfriend is MUCH cuter than YOU! Hah!

ahhhh, touche, Obi_wan_McCartney.

 

No you can't, shizzle, and although we have been batting heads as of late, I agree with and acknolwedge most all of the things you just said.

 

well, i've said it privately, so i see no reason not to say publicly that i see and respect your points, too, Obi_Wan_McCartney . i'm very wont to use Belloch's quote from "Raider of the Lost Ark" here and say how much alike we probably are, but Belloch is a scary guy and i don't want to align myself with a Frenchman who works collusively with the Nazis. and i don't want my head to explode or melt later.

 

Since it appears to be Jesse Jackson day, here is another story that is growing in the Chicago area..

Has Jesse Jackson become so focused on a single issue that he has forgotten what true unity is?

Here is the background.. Chicago Police Superintendent Terry Hillard is retiring.

Hillard, who is black, rose up from the ranks of the Chicago Police to become the top cop. He was extremely well liked, and was an effective leader.

5 people applied to become the next superintendent, none of which were black. The list was narrowed to the top 3, which included 2 white candidates and a hispanic candidate...

Chicago Tribune 09/09/03:

Jesse Jackson sues Chicago to get black police superintendent candidate installed.

Jackson weighed in once more on Monday, calling on Daley to throw out results of the Police Board's search.

Although the city's last four superintendents have been black or Hispanic, "To hold yourself out as a representative of the black community and not make sure that one single African-American is considered as a finalist for police chief is absolutely insane," a spokesman for Jackson said.

The city police board, however, had a different comment.

"I thought maybe we were getting beyond some of this stuff, at the end of the day, the person's ability to command police at all levels has nothing to do with race."

Is Jackson solely concerned about a single race, overlooking all others in the process?

Should race even be a factor, if the best qualified applicants are picked, based on their ability?

If no black candidates happened to have applied this time, should a specific racially derived candidate be added, just to keep the representation at "fair levels?"

I don't think that race should trump ability. The outgoing police chief did an excellent job,was liked by the force, and he just happened to be black.

 

OWM said something in the Elections thread that I thought I'd respond to. However, it is more on topic here.

If Anti-AA advocates focused more on the content they disaprove of and less on the "OH NO, now the minorities are discriminating against us WHITE PEOPLE! We can't stand for this!" argument, they might have more success bringing liberals over to their cause. Simply because AA isn't about minority v. whites, and the mischarecterization that AA is wrong because whites get discriminated against doesn't really fare that well, given this country's history of bigoted racism.

For me, I am not opposed to AA because it "discriminates against whites", but because it is racist at its core. It is the flawed idea that you can add a bias to a process to obalance the output.

It is also degrading to minorities to claim that they need the "leg up" that others don't.

That is why I advocate abolishing Affirmative Action and all other racial biases in government, whether they are considered a positive or negative bias. Until we can look at the process without those biases, we cannot accurately determine what the real root causes of the problems are.

Additionally, AA does nothing to solve the major root cause of deficient elementary and secondary education. This is the one area where the old biblical proverb is absolutely correct. "Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it." If we do not start creating a culture that atively encourages education and learning (and study) when children are young, we will never be able to fully correct that when they are older, regardless of their race.

Kimball Kinnison

 

Well, guess what everyone?

According to some people at my work, I am racist.

Because I oppose giving Driver's Licence's to illegal immigrants.

And I am not talking about a good natured 'Your a racist' joke. I am talking about a genuine angry response to that.

Some idiot tried to claim Arnold Schwarzenneger was a racist because of that one topic. When I chimed in on it, this one guy got really upset about it. Even when I pointed out everything wrong with bill that was signed, they refused to believe it. He even claimed that Illegal Immigrants deserve to have licences more then I do. So I when I asked if Illegel Immigrants deserved a licence more then that guy did, he did not take it well.

This one girl tried to claim how I would feel if they tried to keep my parents from getting licences because they were immigrants. My answer was "My Parents were both born in the US, so that is going to work....and my GrandParents came here legally so don't try that one"

A few people sort of listened when I made the case about how illegal immigrants are actually getting it better then regular residents (ie, not having to take the tests, etc) and that did work to an extent, but I just love how democrats treat poorer latino's as lemmings, throwing out a few lines and watching them react to it.

 

Aren't you (I don't mean to be offensive if I get this wrong) hispanic? How could you be a racist? That's just a stupid law. Oooohh..by their standards I'm a racist, too. Tell those people to grow up, you're not in the 4th grade anymore. What's this? I'm actually agreeing/defending TripleB? The horror!

 

KK, I have always agreed with the logic used for your reasoning. I just happen to disagree witht he theoretical outcome.

I guess it's partly like what Clinton said about Bush. People want strong and wrong rather than right and weak.

AA is strong and has combatted racial inequality far greater than it's counterpart, which is simply to pretend that their exist no racial inequities and to do nothing.

I'll take action over inaction, since action may have a few casualties, at least it provides a strong way for getting results, rather than inaction, which simply lets the problem fester on.

Oh geez, don't anyone use that logic against me when defending Bush's Iraq policy!

 

Well, Hitler was part Jewish. But I know Triple B is not a racist. And ileegal immigrants should get nothing. Everyone coming should do it legally. The same thing for every country, go there legally.

 

Yeah, I have said before, I am hispanic but the way the Democrats demogogue things, I might as well be a KKK member in these peoples eyes. There is absolutely nothing racist in the Illegal Drivers licence debates, but the only card supporters of it have is to claim racism so they do it, and there are always plenty of ignorant people on the Democratic side who will runw ith it.

 

There you go again!

Taking the actions of a couple people and then proceeding to damn the enitre democratic party!

Furthermore, I am of the firm belief that everyone is a racist to some degree, unless you have a brain definciency and can't distinguish between cultures and races.

I mean, TripleB, I have noticed that at the very least you are a racist towards the French.

 

I guess it's partly like what Clinton said about Bush. People want strong and wrong rather than right and weak.

And so, you would advocate doing something that is wrong just for appearance's sake instead of trying to actually fix the problem? The reason that we have longer terms of office for the President and Senate is so that they can do the "right but difficult" actions more freely.

There is also the additional problem that there are some who benefit from the curent situation and do not want it to change. This happens on both sides. There are underqualified whites who want to maintain a racial preference for them, and at the same time there are those among minorities who only want to get benefits for "their people" without regard for any other groups. I find both attitudes dispicable.

AA is strong and has combatted racial inequality far greater than it's counterpart, which is simply to pretend that their exist no racial inequities and to do nothing.

I note that you said has (past tense). In that, I would agree with you. However, we have grown beyond the need for the immediate fix now. It is time to really focus on the root cause of the problem, not the temporary fixes for it.

The problem lies not with disproportionate admissions to college, nor with disproportionate employment or salaries. The problem goes much deeper than that and until the actual problem (poor education on the elementary and secondary levels) is corrected, it will remain a festering wound in our society.

Oh geez, don't anyone use that logic against me when defending Bush's Iraq policy!

Don't worry, we will.

I mean, TripleB, I have noticed that at the very least you are a racist towards the French.

But the French are not a race, but a nationality. That means he would not be racist, but nationalist. There is a difference, you know.

Kimball Kinnison

 

Well, evidence shows even race isn't a race. I mean, if you want to go by genetics, than I am a caucasian, but don't anyone go calling me whitey!

And it was specific to his negative french comments and his 'distinguished French looking' comment on Kerry.

But wait, are you saying TripleB is a French Nationalist?

 

But wait, are you saying TripleB is a French Nationalist?

Note the lack of an indefinite ("a") article in my sentence. I said he was nationalist, not "a nationalist".

Just as racist has to do with differentiating or giving preference based on race, nationalist means giving preference or differentiating based on nationality. Usually that means favoring your own nation above others, but that is not always the case.

Kimball Kinnison

 

Dude, it was a joke.

 

What? A joke? In the Senate?

That's it. I'm afraid we can't have that here. Report to the operating room. You need your funny bone removed if you want to stay around here.



Kimball Kinnison

 

Race


Racial UnitIts all Bull Shizzznit.

What is Black? A person who shares similar physical charateristics with Africans, Spicificly Sub Sharan Africans.

Like the Incredibly Dark skinned Sudanes? Or the skin color "Black as Night" Dravidi Indians?

The So called Sudenese arabs are darker than my Whole family.... Combined! The Bherber People of Algeria Share both SS African and Arab features.

The New Guinians Look "Black" Its also(Though not likely) possible to mistake an Aussie aborigone as Black as well.


Not to mention the Diffrence between Bantu, Kohisian, and Bushmen. Not to mention Sahelan peoples.

What is White? A person of European decent or with European features? What Are these?
Red heired Green eyed Celtic do not look like Blonde haired blue Eyed Norse, or Black haired dark eyed Meddie.

Where Dose it Stop? Where dose it Start?


The Concept of race is that made up of incredibly ignorant people with a poor grasp of how the world works.

The problem is with Ethnicity. Why Ethnicity is in direct relation with culture.

Coustom, Language, Social groups. If A White child is raised by a Black Muslim family he will likely share there values, looks be damnd.

Thier is no such thing as racial solidarity. How can there be. Time and time again it had been shown its Culture than devides and binds people.

Tutsi and I forget look similar to eachother. Hell several one set demanded a mixed group of people seperated because they often could not tell "their own" others.

Can you se the physical diffrence between Ethnic albanian and serbian?

Japanese and Korean? The Various Iraqi peoples?

Pakistani and Indian?(well they are the exception to the rules)

All Hate eachother all looks similar.

White race, Black Race, Arab race, what ever, all would slaughter memebrs of their own before, thinking about outsiders.

What the Problem is, it the Crapity Screwed up skewd views of history and social Inequity, in the placement of Educational funds which need to be adressed.

 

I don't know if this has been discussed here, but what about legacy preferences in addition to racial preferences in school admissions, jobs, etc.?

This hardly gets mentioned in the media or generally speaking when discussing affirmative action.