An honest discussion about Racism?

---In other words: people prefer the path of least resistance. It's easier to obey your nature than it is to question and challenge it. I agree with you. This is the reason a handful of people can dominate a a vast multitude.

 

Keep telling yourself that, oh and thanks once again for proving the OPs point about how some view the issue.

 

Who is it racist against?

Also the real legalized racism that is left in this country is the Justice System.

 

Again who is it racist against?

Name me a case where someone black committed a crime against someone white and they were not prosecuted for it.

Can you give us list of some of those loans and grants.

Name them.

The US Justice System.

 

Suppose there are two candidates who did equally well on the tests, both of whom went to first rate schools would it be fair for the college, for Harvard to say we still want diversity along racial and ethnic lines even when not correcting for effects on test scores of educational disadvantage?

What about “legacy” admissions? George W. Bush could never have gotten into Yale without being a "legacy".

Cheryl Hopwood applied for admission to U Texas Law School. She worked hard went to community college, then Cal State at Sacramento. 3.8 Average. She was turned down at UT which was using an AA criteria for admissions using race and ethnicity as factors. UT said 40% of the population is made up of African Americans and Mexican Americans, so it’s important that they have a diverse student body, so they are not only going to take into account grades and test scores, but the demographic makeup of the class including its race and ethnic profile. Her argument was that those from a lower academic index were admitted while she was turned down. She argued, “I’m being turned down because I’m white”. If I were a minority with my grades and test scores I would have been admitted.” It went to Federal court. Minorities with her grades and test scores were admitted. She was not. Forget about Law, and look at it from justice and morality.

Is it fair to make Hopwood sacrifice to pay the compensation for an injustice that was admittedly committed, but which she had no part in ? Is there a group rights issue or collective responsibility that reaches over time?

One of the arguments for AA is the diversity argument. The diversity argument: It doesn’t have to worry about that question. It says that the common good is served and advanced through diversity racially and ethnically. Everyone benefits. Harvard made this argument in filing a friend of the court brief in the 1978 AA case in the SCOTUS the Bakke Case. The Harvard rationale cited by Justice Powell was the deciding factor in the swing vote.

“We care about diversity, scholarly excellence alone has never been the sole criterion for admission to Harvard College. The only difference to what was previously considered as diversity is the addition of race and ethnicity. When reviewing the large number of candidates able to do well in our classes race may count as a plus, just as coming from Iowa may count or being a good middle linebacker or pianist.”
A farmboy from Idaho can bring something to Harvard that a Bostonian cannot offer. Similarly a black student can usually bring something a white student cannot offer. The quality of educational experience of all students depends in part on these differences in the background and outlook that students bring with them.”

Does she have a case? Were her rights violated by the admissions policy at UT Law School?

Is the diversity argument persuasive? If it is, it must meet one large and powerful objection. Unless you’re a utilitarian, you believe that rights can’t be violated. So the question becomes; Is there an individual right that is violated? Is Hopwood's right violated? If she is used, and denied admission for the sake of the common good and the overall social mission of UT Law School has defined for itself, does she have a right? Don’t we deserve to be considered according to our excellences our achievements and hard work? Do these carry no weight? Is this the right that is at stake?

The answer was NO she doesn’t have a right. Nobody deserves to be admitted. This takes us back to the issue of desert vs entitlement.

The argument is that there is no individual right that Hopwood has. She doesn’t deserve to be admitted according to any particular set of criteria that she believes to be important, including criteria that have only to do with achievement and efforts. Why not?

Once Harvard (or UT Law for that matter...at one time Texas didn't permit African/Americans admittance to Law Schools in the state) defines its mission and designs its admission policy in light of its mission, people are entitled who fit that criteria to be admitted. According to this argument, no one deserves that Harvard define its mission and design its admission policy in the first place, in a way that prizes the qualities they happen to have in abundance whether those qualities are test scores, or grades or ability to play the piano or to throw a football or come from Iowa or come from a certain minority group.

There are broad social benefits of diversity to the State of Texas in the Hopwood case.

What right might be at stake? Maybe the right to be considered according to factors within ones control. Hopwood can’t help the fact that she’s white. Why should her chance of getting into Law School be based on something she has no control over? Harvard has the right to determine its own criteria for admission. It is a private institution. Once Harvard defines its mission, that we can identify the qualities that count. So no rights are being violated. Is that a legit argument?

Can a private institution define its social purpose any way it wants to and then define its admissions accordingly? In the 1950’s Texas Law denied admission to blacks because it stated its social mission accordingly. So, to fulfill their mission, they only admitted whites. Harvard in the 1930’s had an anti-Jewish quota. President Lowell of Harvard in the 30’s made an absurd justification that Jews aren’t interested in being stock brokers, lawyers, and legislators. Is there a principled distinction between the invocation of the social purpose of the college today, in the diversity rationale and that of Harvard in the 30’s and UT in the 50’s?

The difference is between exclusion and inclusion. With Harvard and UT their policies were based on “malice” and viewed blacks and Jews as unworthy. AA actions today don’t imply any such judgment. So long as a policy just uses people in a way as valuable to the social purpose, of the institution, it’s OK provided it doesn’t “judge” them maliciously as intrinsically less worthy.

 

Would you consider the Civil Rights Act or the Voting Rights Act...racist government actions? Or were they a response to racist state governments that denied a segment of the population basic rights that others within those states freely enjoyed based on....race.

 

I just treat everyone the same regardless of race or gender. That's the only way I know how to move things forward.

 

Proving the OP's point? I happen to agree with the OP's point. I just added my take on it. But thank you for proving my point about how some view the issue.

Affirmative Action is legalized racism usually against Whites and Asians.

I also happen to agree with your latter statement.

 

How is that when white women benefit from it more than anyone.

 

I wouldn't doubt it that that is true too.

 

OK.. so the question is about racism and based on this post it would seem to support the idea that racism is embedded into conservatism. The natural distribution of the racial makeup of any society is neither just nor unjust; nor is it unjust that persons are born into society at some particular position. These are simply natural facts. But what is just and unjust is the way that institutions deal with these facts. When racism is institutionally asserted to deny some people fundamental rights, then you're imposing tyranny on a minority based on their race. So you embrace racism? Are you a conservative by any chance? You're justifying racism.

Not all. Nazi Germany comes to mind. Another might be the Antebellum South in America. In fact, I can't even think of one. Racism is always used to deny the legitimacy of a group of people. This seems to be a conservative ideological position.

 

I think these might be "his people".



Racism Justified.

 

If that is the case then how is it racist against whites.

 

That's totally unrealistic. Racism exists in this country and it's more blatant today than when I grew up in the 50's and 60's. I actually thought the election of Obama had gotten us past all of that, but I was mistaken. It slithered out from under the rocks where it was always laying dormant. Today it's even justified as one of the posters right on this thread has done. How can you expect not to address it when it's openly endorsed? A poster say's I'm OK with racism, and you say that confronting it amounts to race-baiting?? How is a person justifying his racism, turn into a childish accusation when it's self-admitted?

 

Most of it comes from the Old Guard. Younger whites are less racist and most judge people on an individual basis for the most part. Look at who has the most racist attitudes on this forum.

 

Well we all know that White men are viewed as the evil by the left, or at least one would think by reading their posts on this forum anyway.

 

Wait a minute. A poster here said this: "I believe racism occurs naturally, and should not be avoided, but rather embraced." He also said he's ok with racism. So why would you make that statement when it's clear that it's false. We have people today that justify racism all the time. And I'm pretty sure that this person identifies himself as a conservative.

That would be great...but I'm afraid that it's embedded into the ideology of certain people. They have no interest in eliminating something that the "believe" in.

 

This has a lot to do with the OP. Most white people don't even realize little things like...if a white dude and a black dude are hailing for a taxi, it's more likely the white dude will get one first and that the black dude might not get one at all.

 

Please explain since there are white men that you consider as being on the left.

 

Sure they are on the left. But that will come to a screeching halt once they have become a victim of Affirmative Action Discrimination. Every listen to Michael Savage? He was a leftist when he was younger, and passed over for less qualified minorities.

 

There is a way out of that trap you know. Values cannot be demonstrated as true. If you accept that humans have values, then it’s "their" values. They are not dependent on demonstration, otherwise, why would we consider them "our" values? It certainly might be helpful to discuss how we made a particular value judgment. We might discuss certain consequences of holding or not holding the value. However as it is a value, it is determined by human judgment, not any particular demonstration. So there can be no basis or criteria or standard. Otherwise that would be to remove the human element from this. Truth is determined by humans, not criteria or standards or bases. Moreover, a criteria cannot be its own criteria. Again, it is an issue of responsibility. Even assuming you have a criteria you think is adequate, how did you determine that? Are you responsible for that judgment, or is the criteria responsible? Merely claiming a standard or a criteria or a basis does not help one to demonstrate the truth of values. Instead, it creates a certain amount of hypocrisy. If we claim a basis gives us truth, we then are making the implicit claim that truth requires bases. But then it is plainly obvious our own basis lacks a basis, as it cannot be its own basis. By claiming truth must be demonstrated by bases we undermine our own moral integrity.

If we can at least grasp the idea that we're fallible then we can digest the idea that our values are as fallible as we are in forming them. Knowing that, why would we demand that they be imposed on, or forced upon anybody else? That's just coercion. When you find a number of people that share similar values, it's easy to band together to assert those values as dominant whether others share them or not. When those that share similar values are all part of an ethnic group; (white, black, Hispanic, Arab, Jew, Asian whatever...) those in the greatest number can exert their own brand of tyranny on the smaller groups. That means your rights or values only exist as far as somebody else is willing to tolerate them. We saw that in the South during Segregation and Jim Crow. Unless some action is taken by the government, unbridled oppression is allowed to exist, which is contrary to the very principles behind the declaration that "All Men are Created Equal".

 

What I can't figure out is, if you go to most jobs or colleges black folks are the minority. What I want to know is how do you know you passed over for someone black. How do you know you weren't passed over for someone white? How do you know the black person's grades or qualifications weren't better than yours? Interviews and records are supposed to be confidential, so how is it you know you were passed over for someone black?

 

Only irrational White Men. But that would hold for any race. It just seems that there is an abundance of irrational white men. And I'm White, so I'm not going to give somebody a pass just because we might be the same race.

 

Let me clarify, I do not speak for the obtuse. If a person wishes to deny themselves the treasures of other cultures, well then I just plain feel sorry for them.

There are some out there that still believe the earth is flat, that the Bush administration made 9/11, that the moon landing was faked, and that we are controlled by reptilian overlords, people "believe" stupid things, as stated before, did the poster who openly claimed he was racist offer anything to the thread, in my eyes, no. Nothing more than someone trolling a thread and trying to bait someone into an arguement and not honest discussion. I pay people like that no mind, as I tend to find they are nothing more than attention seekers and have lived such an unsatisfying life that there is nothing you can do for them.

 

You mean Michael Weiner don't you? ( but then "Savage" sounds so much more...macho. I'm surprised he didn't call himself Mike Fist. Hard to sound really badass with the name Weiner.) He's an extremist. I've listened to him many times. And how was he passed over and for what position? Who "owed" Michael Weiner something that he felt was a moral desert that he was entitled to receive?