Basically, the gist I get from MM and Tin is, "Racism is wrong, but it would be equally wrong to do anything to stop it, so let's just hope that it goes away." Followed me, "Just because my solution isn't viable doesn't make your solution any better."
To bring up the abortion analogy, it would be like saying, "Look, I agree that under-aged pregnancy is a problem. But I am opposed to safe sex education. So how about we cross our fingers and hope that children practice abstinence on their own?" Followed by, "Look, just because my teenage daughter got knocked up doesn't make it okay to teach safe sex education to teenagers."
Notice neither of these opposing, but reasonable ideas relate in any way to white privilege or white guilt. Just sayin.
It does when one side refuses to acknowledge or doesn't care about the advantages of being white in America.
No, it only applies to your sense of self-riteousness. A good point coming from a poor motive is still a good point, and a bad point coming from a good motive is still a bad point.
I actually agree with the version of Schrodinger's argument that I posted, for the record, as long as we ere on the side of caution, because I view institutional racism of an equal level to social racism to be much worse.
Why their point isn't any good has already been explained thoroughly in this thread. They pick and choose which forms of discrimination are acceptable at will and hold everyone else to a higher standard of proof of damages then they do themselves.
Basically, the gist I get from MM and Tin is, "Racism is wrong, but it would be equally wrong to do anything to stop it, so let's just hope that it goes away." Followed me, "Just because my solution isn't viable doesn't make your solution any better."
To bring up the abortion analogy, it would be like saying, "Look, I agree that under-aged pregnancy is a problem. But I am opposed to safe sex education. So how about we cross our fingers and hope that children practice abstinence on their own?" Followed by, "Look, just because my teenage daughter got knocked up doesn't make it okay to teach safe sex education to teenagers."
But he isn't saying that at all. He's saying your solution is wrong, and just because no other solution has been presented, that doesn't make your solution any more right.
Discrimination is made worse when people are honest and upfront about it.
It's so much better when people lie.
Of course not, but discrimination with an official body to support it is worse than discrimination with an official body opposed to it. Assuming they're the same level of discrimination in the first place. So I think AA should ere on the side of caution. Which so far as I know it does.
Basically, the gist I get from MM and Tin is, "Racism is wrong, but it would be equally wrong to do anything to stop it, so let's just hope that it goes away." Followed me, "Just because my solution isn't viable doesn't make your solution any better."
To bring up the abortion analogy, it would be like saying, "Look, I agree that under-aged pregnancy is a problem. But I am opposed to safe sex education. So how about we cross our fingers and hope that children practice abstinence on their own?" Followed by, "Look, just because my teenage daughter got knocked up doesn't make it okay to teach safe sex education to teenagers."
But he isn't saying that at all. He's saying your solution is wrong, and just because no other solution has been presented, that doesn't make your solution any more right.
How is that not conveyed in the analogy?
Seriously, though. MM presents no solution of his own. His entire argument is that AA is wrong, but he refuses to explain it.
He also makes the argument that Jim Crow laws were unjust for being discriminatory, even though he doesn't believe them to be racist. First off, the idea that Jim Crow laws weren't racist is laughable. Second, the inherent irony is that many Jim Crow laws weren't discriminatory in writing. They simply allowed for discrimination in practice. So he's wrong on two counts.
Discrimination is made worse when people are honest and upfront about it.
It's so much better when people lie.
Of course not, but discrimination with an official body to support it is worse than discrimination with an official body opposed to it. Assuming they're the same level of discrimination in the first place. So I think AA should ere on the side of caution. Which so far as I know it does.
Literacy tests are okay, because there was no official body saying "Black people can't vote." There was no "official" discrimination. There were simply people who unofficially subjected black people to different literacy tests than white people.
Casting a black woman as Rosa Parks is wrong, because the casting sheets officially specifies that they're looking for a black woman to play the lead.
You have just either completely misunderstood or knowingly mischaracterized what I said. In case of the former let me reiterate. An injustice is worse when institutionalized, codified, and endorsed by a ruling body than an identical injustice decried by that ruling body. In case of the latter, I'm not interesting in arguing with someone that is disingenuous at the moment.
So my post a few pages back got a whole bunch of responses that I sadly didn't get to address because work got busy, but now I'd like to add something as an overall response to the points others were making against mine.
I think focusing primarily on class is a better metric for measuring who requires the most help than race because a lower economic status is the most common result of inherent legal or societal persecution.
For example, who is in greater need of social aid? A black person who is descended from slaves, a person of Chinese-American descent whose great grandparents were railroad workers (indentured servant), an person of mixed Irish/Ugandan decent who is 6th generation on one side and 3rd on the other, or a migrant worker from Mexico?
The question is largely impossible to answer inside any systemic framework. The best answer, in my opinion, is the one who was born into the shittiest economic situation.
I disagree. I think it's because their parents and grandparents were black. For them it's mostly because they're poor. There may be a situational spectrum, but poverty trumps race in contemporary society IMO.
You can't discount the social part of socioeconomic too readily though. The cultural issues at work in many traditionally poorer communities are where a lot of huge roadblocks lie. When I was growing up I wasn't just encouraged to go to college it was expected. By not just teachers but my parents and my friends even though my parents couldn't afford to foot the bill. Well, a lot of the native kids I knew not only didn't get that kind of support, but got active discouragement from friends and even older people that talked like it's a betrayal to do something so white. So they didn't go to college, even with the great financial aid available out there. Culture is tough to overcome.
You can't discount the social part of socioeconomic too readily though. The cultural issues at work in many traditionally poorer communities are where a lot of huge roadblocks lie. When I was growing up I wasn't just encouraged to go to college it was expected. By not just teachers but my parents and my friends even though my parents couldn't afford to foot the bill. Well, a lot of the native kids I knew not only didn't get that kind of support, but got active discouragement from friends and even older people that talked like it's a betrayal to do something so white. So they didn't go to college, even with the great financial aid available out there. Culture is tough to overcome.
I agree with the concept here, I just don't think AA could hope to adequately dissect that social element.
It usually takes the form of a "race" checkbox, which doesn't cut it when trying to examine something so complicated.
Economic factors are much easier for an AA system to essentially diagnose and address.
I disagree. I think it's because their parents and grandparents were black. For them it's mostly because they're poor. There may be a situational spectrum, but poverty trumps race in contemporary society IMO.
So my post a few pages back got a whole bunch of responses that I sadly didn't get to address because work got busy, but now I'd like to add something as an overall response to the points others were making against mine.
I think focusing primarily on class is a better metric for measuring who requires the most help than race because a lower economic status is the most common result of inherent legal or societal persecution.
For example, who is in greater need of social aid? A black person who is descended from slaves, a person of Chinese-American descent whose great grandparents were railroad workers (indentured servant), an person of mixed Irish/Ugandan decent who is 6th generation on one side and 3rd on the other, or a migrant worker from Mexico?
The question is largely impossible to answer inside any systemic framework. The best answer, in my opinion, is the one who was born into the shittiest economic situation.
I disagree. I think it's because their parents and grandparents were black. For them it's mostly because they're poor. There may be a situational spectrum, but poverty trumps race in contemporary society IMO.
Unfortunately, the data disagrees with you.
Which we posted and cited on numerous occasions.
When a employer looks at too people with identical resumes but has a 50% of hiring the person with the white sounding name, it's not because the person with the black sounding name is poor. It's because the person with the black sounding name is black.
Look, I get it. You don't want to believe that black people are still discriminated against solely for being black. You don't want to believe that society is still racist.
Are Tin and MM okay with laws regarding literacy tests for voters?
Because I'm pretty sure that there was nothing inherently racist with the letter of the law. i.e., there was nothing in the law saying "Black people can't vote." It was only racist in execution.
According to Tim and MM, racism and society is okay, as long as it is not specifically stated/endorsed in the letter of the law. And apparently, the spirit/intention of the law also doesn't matter. i.e., it is irrelevant if a law was crafted with racist intent. So does that make literacy tests okay as well?
You're a master of arguing against strawman. No, racism in society is not okay, morally. But it's only illegal when you discriminate against someone based on their race. If literacy tests had been applied evenly to white and black voters, they wouldn't have been discrimination, just a really stupid idea.
Does this make AA, which does specify race, worse than a literacy test designed to prevent black people from voting?
No, AA is not as bad as racist literacy tests. What's your point?
He also makes the argument that Jim Crow laws were unjust for being discriminatory, even though he doesn't believe them to be racist. First off, the idea that Jim Crow laws weren't racist is laughable. Second, the inherent irony is that many Jim Crow laws weren't discriminatory in writing. They simply allowed for discrimination in practice. So he's wrong on two counts.
How in God's name did you take this from any of my comments? Seriously, you need to work on your reading comprehension.
Modern Man on
Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
Rigorous Scholarship
I disagree. I think it's because their parents and grandparents were black. For them it's mostly because they're poor. There may be a situational spectrum, but poverty trumps race in contemporary society IMO.
Have any evidence to back this assertion up?
Which part? That historical racism has disadvantaged members of minorities or that being currently poor is a tremendous disadvantage? I can provide evidence for both.
When a employer looks at too people with identical resumes but has a 50% of hiring the person with the white sounding name, it's not because the person with the black sounding name is poor. It's because the person with the black sounding name is black.
Can you revise that so it makes sense in your context (I think it's meant to be "greater than 50%", is this correct?)
Look, I get it. You don't want to believe that black people are still discriminated against solely for being black. You don't want to believe that society is still racist.
Actually, you don't get it, because that isn't what I've been saying. Re-read some of my posts. I do not in any way believe that there isn't a societal element of racism. I just don't think it can be systemically tackled.
The current checkbox for race approach misses the nuance of societal racial prejudice. The word "Black" is simply never going to be descriptive enough. Economic situation is, in my view, a better metric.
Which part? That historical racism has disadvantaged members of minorities or that being currently poor is a tremendous disadvantage? I can provide evidence for both.
I think an affirmative action program based on parents household income would be less controversial.
Four problems with that.
First off, there's a huge difference between wealth and income. A black person and a white person might work the same job with the same income, but the white person still has a lot more inherited wealth and assets. For instance, discrimination gives white people more access to alone, which allows them to invest in property and pay lower interest rates. The wealth gap between black/white is far greater than the income gap between black/white. So even if you take income into account, that only tells half the story. And tracking wealth would be incredibly difficult.
Second, white people outnumber black people. It's true that black people are more likely to be poor, but it's also true that poor people are more likely to be white. So who would be the most likely beneficiaries of an income based program? White people. Stack that on top of the fact that poor white people are more likely to have more wealth than poor white people, and you put poor black people at a double disadvantage.
Third, what exactly would be the net effect of this proposal on black people? You can say what you want about "improving" AA or about making it more just, but all it boils down to is denying the black people of the few opportunities they already have and giving them to white people. It's a re-distribution scheme where black people lose, and white people win. That's the entire point of this proposal. Otherwise, you would be proposing that AA address income in addition to race, rather than replacing race entirely. Anyone who claims that black people would be just as well off under an income only standard is lying. If they were, then there would be no point to an income only standard. So the underlying question here is: Do you think that black people have too many opportunities right now? Do you believe that black people are over represented in college? Because if you do, then taking away their opportunities and making it harder for them to get into college makes sense. If not, then I have no idea why you are proposing this.
[quote=" http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2003-05-25/topic/0305240078_1_action-in-college-college-admissions-affirmative-action/2"]This happened in the University of California system, which ended race-based preferences eight years ago while still giving an edge to students who have "suffered disadvantage." Immediately, the numbers of Asians at top campuses surged; the numbers of blacks and Latinos plunged. A study by Berkeley sociologist Jerome Karabel found that SAT scores for Californians with family incomes of less than $20,000 were about 200 points higher among whites and Asians than blacks and Latinos.
In fact, defenders of race-based preferences say, income-based preferences would result in less racial diversity at top colleges simply because few poor blacks and Latinos would apply.[/quote]
Fourth, you are placing black people under a catch-22. If black parent wants to help his child overcome racism, then he has to work much harder and be much more successful than his white counterpart in order to overcome the odds. By by attempting to overcome the odds, he makes more income, and no longer qualifies as "poor." Which means that he's no longer eligible.
Poor white kids score 200 points higher than poor black kids on the SAT. Now, we can try to come up with all sorts of explanations for this. We can say that it's because social discrimination, or because the tests are biased against black people, or that poor white schools are better than poor black kids. Again, this is a catch-22. Yes, there are a lot of black kids who are poor, and there are a lot of black kids who are qualified for college. But generally, the black kids who are poor are less likely to be qualified. And the black kids who are qualified are less likely to be poor.
So, to borrow the marathon analogy, black people are punished twice. First, they are punished by being chained up for the first lap of the race, while their while counterparts get a head start. Secondly, they get punished for using bolt cutters, which is seen as an unfair advantage that their white counterparts didn't have.
AA is a program that's designed to balance out some of the disadvantage that black people face due to their race, and give them the opportunity to succeed. It shouldn't abandon that cause the moment that black people start working themselves out of poverty. There's still a long, long way to go.
Schrodinger on
0
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
When a employer looks at too people with identical resumes but has a 50% of hiring the person with the white sounding name, it's not because the person with the black sounding name is poor. It's because the person with the black sounding name is black.
I don't really think you proved that
there are a class of names - the Shaneequas and the LaDontes - that indicate "black" and "poor" at the same time
as you mentioned, there doesn't seem to be an analogue on the white side really - James Robert might or might not be a "Jim-Bob"
that people in the study were reluctant to hire people with these names in the study you're waving around just shows that they're reluctant to hire the "poor black" people, not that they were necessarily reluctant to hire black people in general.
When a employer looks at too people with identical resumes but has a 50% of hiring the person with the white sounding name, it's not because the person with the black sounding name is poor. It's because the person with the black sounding name is black.
I don't really think you proved that
there are a class of names - the Shaneequas and the LaDontes - that indicate "black" and "poor" at the same time
as you mentioned, there doesn't seem to be an analogue on the white side really - James Robert might or might not be a "Jim-Bob"
that people in the study were reluctant to hire people with these names in the study you're waving around just shows that they're reluctant to hire the "poor black" people, not that they were necessarily reluctant to hire black people in general.
But what is a non-poor black name? I can't think of one. I don't think it's as nuanced as you're portraying it to be.
Which part? That historical racism has disadvantaged members of minorities or that being currently poor is a tremendous disadvantage? I can provide evidence for both.
That being black isn't a disadvantage anymore.
For them it's mostly because they're poor
I have numerous statistics regarding the disadvantages of the impoverished in the categories of graduation rates and social mobility (google will find you these quite easily), but these studies don't serve to definitively establish one way or the other whether the issue is race or economics since there's currently so much overlap.
I would ask you to provide systemic (note: the word systemic is very important, as AA is an inherently systemic solution) that being black is a disadvantage today regardless of economics. I agree with you that there are societal reasons for this, but think those societal reasons are not addressed adequately by the current implementations of AA.
I would ask you to provide systemic (note: the word systemic is very important, as AA is an inherently systemic solution) that being black is a disadvantage today regardless of economics
This has been done time and time again in this thread.
I have numerous statistics regarding the disadvantages of the impoverished in the categories of graduation rates and social mobility (google will find you these quite easily), but these studies don't serve to definitively establish one way or the other whether the issue is race or economics since there's currently so much overlap.
As was shown above, children of equally poor black people are worse off than children of equally poor white people. This alone shows that there is a race component that AA tries to overcome.
You're seem to be saying that there is no race component to poverty and therefor programs targeting race are unneeded. This is provably false.
I think an affirmative action program based on parents household income would be less controversial.
Four problems with that.
First off, there's a huge difference between wealth and income. A black person and a white person might work the same job with the same income, but the white person still has a lot more inherited wealth and assets. For instance, discrimination gives white people more access to alone, which allows them to invest in property and pay lower interest rates. The wealth gap between black/white is far greater than the income gap between black/white. So even if you take income into account, that only tells half the story. And tracking wealth would be incredibly difficult.
Wouldn't a net worth metric negate the issue all together? As in, when qualifying for AA, the net worth of an individual and their parents is taken into account?
Second, white people outnumber black people. It's true that black people are more likely to be poor, but it's also true that poor people are more likely to be white. So who would be the most likely beneficiaries of an income based program? White people. Stack that on top of the fact that poor white people are more likely to have more wealth than poor white people, and you put poor black people at a double disadvantage.
I don't think you can use numerical values to measure the overall benefit to a specific group of people in the way you have here. If a higher % of the black population is poor, and AA targets the poor, then AA will yield a higher benefit for the black population, because that overall group will be considerably more affected.
Third, what exactly would be the net effect of this proposal on black people? You can say what you want about "improving" AA or about making it more just, but all it boils down to is denying the black people of the few opportunities they already have and giving them to white people. It's a re-distribution scheme where black people lose, and white people win. That's the entire point of this proposal. Otherwise, you would be proposing that AA address income in addition to race, rather than replacing race entirely. Anyone who claims that black people would be just as well off under an income only standard is lying. If they were, then there would be no point to an income only standard. So the underlying question here is: Do you think that black people have too many opportunities right now? Do you believe that black people are over represented in college? Because if you do, then taking away their opportunities and making it harder for them to get into college makes sense. If not, then I have no idea why you are proposing this.
[quote=" http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2003-05-25/topic/0305240078_1_action-in-college-college-admissions-affirmative-action/2"]This happened in the University of California system, which ended race-based preferences eight years ago while still giving an edge to students who have "suffered disadvantage." Immediately, the numbers of Asians at top campuses surged; the numbers of blacks and Latinos plunged. A study by Berkeley sociologist Jerome Karabel found that SAT scores for Californians with family incomes of less than $20,000 were about 200 points higher among whites and Asians than blacks and Latinos.
In fact, defenders of race-based preferences say, income-based preferences would result in less racial diversity at top colleges simply because few poor blacks and Latinos would apply.
[/quote]
I think many of the arguments in this thread, much like the above one you've referenced, will lead me to revise my position to the point where race and economics are taken into account. I think economics deserves considerably more weigh than it currently possesses, however.
Fourth, you are placing black people under a catch-22. If black parent wants to help his child overcome racism, then he has to work much harder and be much more successful than his white counterpart in order to overcome the odds. By by attempting to overcome the odds, he makes more income, and no longer qualifies as "poor." Which means that he's no longer eligible.
I think this argument is as flawed as the right wing argument that "If you tax higher brackets more I won't work as hard to make as much money". Upward mobility is a compelling enough reason for anyone to continue to push for higher gains.
I could make the same flawed argument that AA is a double benefit for minorities, because both a parent and a child could benefit from it.
I would ask you to provide systemic (note: the word systemic is very important, as AA is an inherently systemic solution) that being black is a disadvantage today regardless of economics
This has been done time and time again in this thread.
I have numerous statistics regarding the disadvantages of the impoverished in the categories of graduation rates and social mobility (google will find you these quite easily), but these studies don't serve to definitively establish one way or the other whether the issue is race or economics since there's currently so much overlap.
As was shown above, children of equally poor black people are worse off than children of equally poor white people. This alone shows that there is a race component that AA tries to overcome.
You're seem to be saying that there is no race component to poverty and therefor programs targeting race are unneeded. This is provably false.
Actually, what was shown above was that poor black children score lower on standardized tests than poor white children, a problem that could likely be solved by improving their public education systems (which is what I advocated in my very first post in this thread).
You're a master of arguing against strawman. No, racism in society is not okay, morally. But it's only illegal when you discriminate against someone based on their race. If literacy tests had been applied evenly to white and black voters, they wouldn't have been discrimination, just a really stupid idea.
Black people and white people were both subjected to the literacy tests, and black people and white people were both given access to the grandfather clause. So under the specific letter of the law, there was no discrimination and no racism. Black people and white people were treated completely unequal. The problem was the spirit and the motive of the law, which was ridiculously racist. The people who crafted the law knew full well that black people didn't have grandfathers who could vote, and they used that to their advantage.
You said earlier that the motive of the law doesn't matter, which means that the racist intentions behind literacy tests are irrelevant by your standard. You said just now that "it's only illegal when you discriminate against someone based on their race," which literacy tests did not do overtly. You said "If literacy tests had been applied evenly to white and black voters, they wouldn't have been discrimination." Guess what? They did. A black person with a voting grandfather would still be eligible to vote.
If I point out that your moral standards are okay with literacy tests, then merely stating, "But literacy tests are immoral!" is not a valid rebuttal. We already know that literacy tests are immoral, that's why we're bringing it up. It's to point out the inherent contradiction in your logic. It's not enough to say, "I disagree with literacy tests." You have to show that your moral standards would disapprove of them.
Unfortunately, your moral standards is to only be against policies that discriminate outright (like casting a black woman as Rosa Parks), rather than laws with racist motive (Like subjecting people to a literacy test.). That's because your moral standards are silly goose.
He also makes the argument that Jim Crow laws were unjust for being discriminatory, even though he doesn't believe them to be racist. First off, the idea that Jim Crow laws weren't racist is laughable. Second, the inherent irony is that many Jim Crow laws weren't discriminatory in writing. They simply allowed for discrimination in practice. So he's wrong on two counts.
How in God's name did you take this from any of my comments? Seriously, you need to work on your reading comprehension.
I asked you for an example of a discriminatory law that was absent of racism but still unjust, and you responded by citing Jim Crow.
Conclusion: You don't think that Jim Crow is racist.
Of course, we can all agree that Jim Crow was unjust. But why you would cite it as an example of "not racist" is completely beyond me.
When a employer looks at too people with identical resumes but has a 50% of hiring the person with the white sounding name, it's not because the person with the black sounding name is poor. It's because the person with the black sounding name is black.
I don't really think you proved that
there are a class of names - the Shaneequas and the LaDontes - that indicate "black" and "poor" at the same time
as you mentioned, there doesn't seem to be an analogue on the white side really - James Robert might or might not be a "Jim-Bob"
that people in the study were reluctant to hire people with these names in the study you're waving around just shows that they're reluctant to hire the "poor black" people, not that they were necessarily reluctant to hire black people in general.
But what is a non-poor black name? I can't think of one. I don't think it's as nuanced as you're portraying it to be.
Danzel Washington?
Of course, people might wonder where Danzel Washington was applying for Burger King.
Schrodinger on
0
Options
Deebaseron my way to work in a suit and a tieAhhhh...come on fucking guyRegistered Userregular
When a employer looks at too people with identical resumes but has a 50% of hiring the person with the white sounding name, it's not because the person with the black sounding name is poor. It's because the person with the black sounding name is black.
I don't really think you proved that
there are a class of names - the Shaneequas and the LaDontes - that indicate "black" and "poor" at the same time
as you mentioned, there doesn't seem to be an analogue on the white side really - James Robert might or might not be a "Jim-Bob"
that people in the study were reluctant to hire people with thSamese names in the study you're waving around just shows that they're reluctant to hire the "poor black" people, not that they were necessarily reluctant to hire black people in general.
But what is a non-poor black name? I can't think of one. I don't think it's as nuanced as you're portraying it to be.
The salmon is LOL hollywood. The lime are people I've professionally worked within the past month + a judge I plead my pro se case in front of.
Sure these aren't "black names" per se, but they obviously aren't "white" names either per the above. They're mostly standard middle class American names.
Edit: I know anecdote <> data, but when I was doing my civil suit, the pro se clerk's window was right next to the name change window. I spent about 10 hours total online at that office and except for 1 Hispanic guy and an asian woman, everyone else utilizing that service was a black dude.
Wouldn't a net worth metric negate the issue all together? As in, when qualifying for AA, the net worth of an individual and their parents is taken into account?
Good luck getting an honest assessment of that.
I don't think you can use numerical values to measure the overall benefit to a specific group of people in the way you have here. If a higher % of the black population is poor, and AA targets the poor, then AA will yield a higher benefit for the black population, because that overall group will be considerably more affected.
Unless poor black people have 200 fewer points on the SAT than poor white people. You're assuming that all black people are equally qualified for college, regardless of income. Which contradicts the very premise of income only AA in the first place. What the data shows is that in order for a black candidate to be competitive to a white candidate, they need a slightly higher income to make up for the lack in test scores.
I think many of the arguments in this thread, much like the above one you've referenced, will lead me to revise my position to the point where race and economics are taken into account. I think economics deserves considerably more weigh than it currently possesses, however.
There is no reason why you can't have both. And no one would argue with you if you tried to implement both, except for perhaps rich white people.
The odd thing is that people proposing income-only AA are in this mindset of "It has to be one or the other." Why? How did they get into that mindset in the first place? Why would that mindset even occur to them? I find that odd.
I think this argument is as flawed as the right wing argument that "If you tax higher brackets more I won't work as hard to make as much money".
Except you still have more money after taxes. There are some people who have a misconception that you will have less money after entering a higher tax bracket (because they assume that all your income is taxed higher, not just the money in the higher bracket), but those people are idiots.
A better analogy might be from when my friend had cancer and had to empty his $2000 bank account in order to be eligible for medicaid. Or the argument that we should be expanding existing public health services to cover people at all ages and income levels.
I could make the same flawed argument that AA is a double benefit for minorities, because both a parent and a child could benefit from it.
Last I checked, both the parent and the child faced discrimination in the workplace.
When a employer looks at too people with identical resumes but has a 50% of hiring the person with the white sounding name, it's not because the person with the black sounding name is poor. It's because the person with the black sounding name is black.
I don't really think you proved that
there are a class of names - the Shaneequas and the LaDontes - that indicate "black" and "poor" at the same time
as you mentioned, there doesn't seem to be an analogue on the white side really - James Robert might or might not be a "Jim-Bob"
that people in the study were reluctant to hire people with thSamese names in the study you're waving around just shows that they're reluctant to hire the "poor black" people, not that they were necessarily reluctant to hire black people in general.
But what is a non-poor black name? I can't think of one. I don't think it's as nuanced as you're portraying it to be.
The salmon is LOL hollywood. The lime are people I've professionally worked within the past month + a judge I plead my pro se case in front of.
Sure these aren't "black names" per se, but they obviously aren't "white" names either per the above. They're mostly standard middle class American names.
Edit: I know anecdote <> data, but when I was doing my civil suit, the pro se clerk's window was right next to the name change window. I spent about 10 hours total online at that office and except for 1 Hispanic guy and an asian woman, everyone else utilizing that service was a black dude.
But you see my point, right? Irond is saying that the names are discriminated against because they imply black AND poor, but I think the black part is the major basis for the discrimination.
I dunno, I work in a state office that has lots of black women with unique names. Maybe, as my generation gets older, the "poor black" connotation will wear off of distinctly black names.
Black people and white people were both subjected to the literacy tests, and black people and white people were both given access to the grandfather clause. So under the specific letter of the law, there was no discrimination and no racism. Black people and white people were treated completely unequal. The problem was the spirit and the motive of the law, which was ridiculously racist. The people who crafted the law knew full well that black people didn't have grandfathers who could vote, and they used that to their advantage.
Literary tests weren't applied equally. Potential black voters were given tests that were essentially impossible to pass, while potential white voters were given tests that were laughably easy.
Black voters would be required to recite the entire Constitution from memory, for example. Literacy tests were consistently applied in a racially discriminatory manner. You're kind of missing the whole point as to why literacy tests were so terrible.
I asked you for an example of a discriminatory law that was absent of racism but still unjust, and you responded by citing Jim Crow.
No I didn't.
Modern Man on
Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
Rigorous Scholarship
Black people and white people were both subjected to the literacy tests, and black people and white people were both given access to the grandfather clause. So under the specific letter of the law, there was no discrimination and no racism. Black people and white people were treated completely unequal. The problem was the spirit and the motive of the law, which was ridiculously racist. The people who crafted the law knew full well that black people didn't have grandfathers who could vote, and they used that to their advantage.
Literary tests weren't applied equally. Potential black voters were given tests that were essentially impossible to pass, while potential white voters were given tests that were laughably easy.
Black voters would be required to recite the entire Constitution from memory, for example. Literacy tests were consistently applied in a racially discriminatory manner. You're kind of missing the whole point as to why literacy tests were so terrible.
I asked you for an example of a discriminatory law that was absent of racism but still unjust, and you responded by citing Jim Crow.
No I didn't.
I think it's pretty clear that Shrodinger mistakenly referred to literacy tests when he meant grandfather clauses.
Black people and white people were both subjected to the literacy tests, and black people and white people were both given access to the grandfather clause. So under the specific letter of the law, there was no discrimination and no racism. Black people and white people were treated completely unequal. The problem was the spirit and the motive of the law, which was ridiculously racist. The people who crafted the law knew full well that black people didn't have grandfathers who could vote, and they used that to their advantage.
Literary tests weren't applied equally. Potential black voters were given tests that were essentially impossible to pass, while potential white voters were given tests that were laughably easy.
Yes, but the question is whether or not this unfair application was mandated in the law itself.
Because according to you, the motive of a law doesn't matter. Only the wording does.
You're kind of missing the whole point as to why literacy tests were so terrible.
No, you're missing the point.
When I point out that your logic allows for literacy tests, it's not because I think that literacy tests are great. It's because I think that your logic is awful.
You don't need to explain that literacy tests are bad. We already know that literacy tests are bad. What I'm asking you to do is explain why literacy tests are bad under the same standards that you criticize AA for. You can't do that. Because your logic for criticizing AA sucks. So instead, you use a different set of logic for criticizing literacy tests, while ignoring the fact that this different set of logic invalidates your criticisms of AA.
I asked you for an example of a discriminatory law that was absent of racism but still unjust, and you responded by citing Jim Crow.
I oppose AA for the same reason that I oppose things like racial segregation and anti-miscegenation laws: any law or policy that dicriminates for/against someone based on their race is unjust.
Prove that such a law would still be unjust in the absence of actual racism, without merely repeating your assertion that it is.
I'm kind of speechless here. Are you really saying that racial discrimination is OK so long as the motives behind such discrimination are OK, based on your subjective standards.
Wow. Just wow.
I guess the Southern states should have just re-enacted Jim Crow while pretending they were doing so out of love, and they would have been all set.
I asked for an example of a law that met three criteria:
1) Racially discriminatory.
2) No actual racism
3) Still inherently unjust.
Black people and white people were both subjected to the literacy tests, and black people and white people were both given access to the grandfather clause. So under the specific letter of the law, there was no discrimination and no racism. Black people and white people were treated completely unequal. The problem was the spirit and the motive of the law, which was ridiculously racist. The people who crafted the law knew full well that black people didn't have grandfathers who could vote, and they used that to their advantage.
Literary tests weren't applied equally. Potential black voters were given tests that were essentially impossible to pass, while potential white voters were given tests that were laughably easy.
Black voters would be required to recite the entire Constitution from memory, for example. Literacy tests were consistently applied in a racially discriminatory manner. You're kind of missing the whole point as to why literacy tests were so terrible.
I asked you for an example of a discriminatory law that was absent of racism but still unjust, and you responded by citing Jim Crow.
No I didn't.
I think it's pretty clear that Shrodinger mistakenly referred to literacy tests when he meant grandfather clauses.
There were literacy tests during the time of grandfather clauses as well. Those were a different set of literacy tests than the ones in the 1960s.
Of course, in both cases, it's the same idea. "How do we prevent black people from voting, without explicitly saying that we don't want black people to vote?"
So you create a law that doesn't discriminate overtly, but still massively racist in intent.
The people who proposed the creation of literacy tests knew that black people and white people would not be treated equally by society when applying to vote.
The people who propose ending AA know that black people and white people will not be treated equally by society when applying to work.
Is tacit racism still bad? Or is only codified racial discrimination bad?
If only codified racial discrimination is bad, then literacy tests are okay.
Black people and white people were both subjected to the literacy tests, and black people and white people were both given access to the grandfather clause. So under the specific letter of the law, there was no discrimination and no racism. Black people and white people were treated completely unequal. The problem was the spirit and the motive of the law, which was ridiculously racist. The people who crafted the law knew full well that black people didn't have grandfathers who could vote, and they used that to their advantage.
Literary tests weren't applied equally. Potential black voters were given tests that were essentially impossible to pass, while potential white voters were given tests that were laughably easy.
Yes, but the question is whether or not this unfair application was mandated in the law itself.
Because according to you, the motive of a law doesn't matter. Only the wording does.
You can have the most discriminatory intent imaginable, but if you write a law that is not discriminatory on its face and that is applied evenly, then the motivation for the law is irrelevant. But literacy tests were not ever applied fairly, which is one of the reasons they were struck down.
There might be other reasons why an evenly-applied non-discriminatory literacy test might be unconstitutional, but that's a different issue.
No, you're missing the point.
When I point out that your logic allows for literacy tests, it's not because I think that literacy tests are great. It's because I think that your logic is awful.
You don't need to explain that literacy tests are bad. We already know that literacy tests are bad. What I'm asking you to do is explain why literacy tests are bad under the same standards that you criticize AA for. You can't do that. Because your logic for criticizing AA sucks. So instead, you use a different set of logic for criticizing literacy tests, while ignoring the fact that this different set of logic invalidates your criticisms of AA.
You're missing the point, as usual. Literacy tests and AA are completely different issues. Literacy tests were a problem, from a discrimination point of view, because of their unfair application. AA is a problem because it is discriminatory on its face since it explicitly treats people differently based on race.
Seriously, son, just stop. This subject matter is clearly well above your head.
I asked you for an example of a discriminatory law that was absent of racism but still unjust, and you responded by citing Jim Crow.
I oppose AA for the same reason that I oppose things like racial segregation and anti-miscegenation laws: any law or policy that dicriminates for/against someone based on their race is unjust.
Prove that such a law would still be unjust in the absence of actual racism, without merely repeating your assertion that it is.
I'm kind of speechless here. Are you really saying that racial discrimination is OK so long as the motives behind such discrimination are OK, based on your subjective standards.
Wow. Just wow.
I guess the Southern states should have just re-enacted Jim Crow while pretending they were doing so out of love, and they would have been all set.
I asked for an example of a law that met three criteria:
1) Racially discriminatory.
2) No actual racism
3) Still inherently unjust.
You cited Jim Crow.
I did no such thing. Read that post again. Read it slowly. I know you want it to say something, but my post does not do what you want it to do.
Modern Man on
Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
Rigorous Scholarship
I just realized something while reading this thread. I support AA in general because my grasp of statistics isn't absolutely terrible, but I also named my son pretty much specifically to exploit race and class advantage. Really, the fairest thing I could have done is give him one of the names off the black list (intended) in order to level the playing field.
You can have the most discriminatory intent imaginable, but if you write a law that is not discriminatory on its face and that is applied evenly, then the motivation for the law is irrelevant. But literacy tests were not ever applied fairly, which is one of the reasons they were struck down.
Would you be okay with a law that mandated literacy tests for everyone, with a grandfather exemption, as long as that law was applied to all people equally?
Because you seem to be saying that you would be.
The term originated in late-19th-century legislation and constitutional amendments passed by a number of U.S. Southern states which created new restrictions on voting, but exempted those whose ancestors (grandfathers) had the right to vote before the Civil War. The existence of slaves prior to the Civil War effectively excluded African Americans while allowing poor and illiterate whites to vote. Although the original grandfather clauses were ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in 1915, the terms grandfather clause and grandfather remain in use.
You're missing the point, as usual. Literacy tests and AA are completely different issues. Literacy tests were a problem, from a discrimination point of view, because of their unfair application.
But the unfair application was not mandated by the law itself. It was carried out by the society.
Just like the racism that AA attempts to address isn't mandated by the law itself, but again, carried out by society.
You can't have it both ways.
You insist that racist intent doesn't matter, but racist application somehow does. Look at the example cited above. They say nothing about applying the law differently to black people. They say nothing within the law itself that is written as discriminatory. However, the law itself is was clearly created with racist motive, and takes advantage of the inherent institutional racism of society (the fact that black people were in slavery prior to the civil war, and ineligible to vote). Which is the one thing that you insist is irrelevant.
I did no such thing. Read that post again. Read it slowly. I know you want it to say something, but my post does not do what you want it to do.
I asked you for an example of how racial discrimination would still be unjust in the absence of actual racism. You cited Jim Crow as an example that fit my criteria. What did I miss?
Either you assume that Jim Crow wasn't racist, or you were avoiding the question in an attempt to derail the thread because you didn't have a valid counter argument.
Schrodinger on
0
Options
Deebaseron my way to work in a suit and a tieAhhhh...come on fucking guyRegistered Userregular
When a employer looks at too people with identical resumes but has a 50% of hiring the person with the white sounding name, it's not because the person with the black sounding name is poor. It's because the person with the black sounding name is black.
I don't really think you proved that
there are a class of names - the Shaneequas and the LaDontes - that indicate "black" and "poor" at the same time
as you mentioned, there doesn't seem to be an analogue on the white side really - James Robert might or might not be a "Jim-Bob"
that people in the study were reluctant to hire people with thSamese names in the study you're waving around just shows that they're reluctant to hire the "poor black" people, not that they were necessarily reluctant to hire black people in general.
But what is a non-poor black name? I can't think of one. I don't think it's as nuanced as you're portraying it to be.
The salmon is LOL hollywood. The lime are people I've professionally worked within the past month + a judge I plead my pro se case in front of.
Sure these aren't "black names" per se, but they obviously aren't "white" names either per the above. They're mostly standard middle class American names.
Edit: I know anecdote <> data, but when I was doing my civil suit, the pro se clerk's window was right next to the name change window. I spent about 10 hours total online at that office and except for 1 Hispanic guy and an asian woman, everyone else utilizing that service was a black dude.
But you see my point, right? Irond is saying that the names are discriminated against because they imply black AND poor, but I think the black part is the major basis for the discrimination.
I dunno, I work in a state office that has lots of black women with unique names. Maybe, as my generation gets older, the "poor black" connotation will wear off of distinctly black names.
I see both of your points, but honestly I don't think there's definitive proof for either. I myself only have anecdotes to offer. To wit, my company has two offices in Africa as well as several in major US cities and while we have quite a few people with "unique" names due to our international scope, at a glance we don't have any employees with unique names that are also what you would consider "poor black" names. We are a very multicultural office and I wouldn't accuse any of my colleagues of "cism". It might just be that when your name is "Derrick" or "Antawn", you're labeled subconsciously as "raised by morons."
Fortunately, it also appears that we don't have any stupid upper middle class white people names either (ie, Dawson, Madison, Lexington). Seriously, fuck Dawson.
The names chosen for the study weren't chosen because of class. They were simply the names that had the highest correlation with black people and the lowest correlation with white people (or vice verse).
Now, it's possible that the wealthier you are as a black man, the more likely you are exposed to white people, the more likely you will give your kid a white sounding name. OTOH, the reverse could also be true. It could just as easily be that the wealthier you are, the more likely you are to have black pride, the more likely you will give your kid a name that shows that pride off. I don't know.
But the point is, people evaluating resumes aren't thinking that deeply. They probably haven't researched the data to point them in either direction. What they do have is their gut. And what their gut tells them is, "African name, reject."
Posts
To bring up the abortion analogy, it would be like saying, "Look, I agree that under-aged pregnancy is a problem. But I am opposed to safe sex education. So how about we cross our fingers and hope that children practice abstinence on their own?" Followed by, "Look, just because my teenage daughter got knocked up doesn't make it okay to teach safe sex education to teenagers."
No, it only applies to your sense of self-riteousness. A good point coming from a poor motive is still a good point, and a bad point coming from a good motive is still a bad point.
I actually agree with the version of Schrodinger's argument that I posted, for the record, as long as we ere on the side of caution, because I view institutional racism of an equal level to social racism to be much worse.
--LeVar Burton
But he isn't saying that at all. He's saying your solution is wrong, and just because no other solution has been presented, that doesn't make your solution any more right.
--LeVar Burton
It's so much better when people lie.
Of course not, but discrimination with an official body to support it is worse than discrimination with an official body opposed to it. Assuming they're the same level of discrimination in the first place. So I think AA should ere on the side of caution. Which so far as I know it does.
--LeVar Burton
How is that not conveyed in the analogy?
Seriously, though. MM presents no solution of his own. His entire argument is that AA is wrong, but he refuses to explain it.
He also makes the argument that Jim Crow laws were unjust for being discriminatory, even though he doesn't believe them to be racist. First off, the idea that Jim Crow laws weren't racist is laughable. Second, the inherent irony is that many Jim Crow laws weren't discriminatory in writing. They simply allowed for discrimination in practice. So he's wrong on two counts.
Literacy tests are okay, because there was no official body saying "Black people can't vote." There was no "official" discrimination. There were simply people who unofficially subjected black people to different literacy tests than white people.
Casting a black woman as Rosa Parks is wrong, because the casting sheets officially specifies that they're looking for a black woman to play the lead.
--LeVar Burton
I think focusing primarily on class is a better metric for measuring who requires the most help than race because a lower economic status is the most common result of inherent legal or societal persecution.
For example, who is in greater need of social aid? A black person who is descended from slaves, a person of Chinese-American descent whose great grandparents were railroad workers (indentured servant), an person of mixed Irish/Ugandan decent who is 6th generation on one side and 3rd on the other, or a migrant worker from Mexico?
The question is largely impossible to answer inside any systemic framework. The best answer, in my opinion, is the one who was born into the shittiest economic situation.
I disagree. I think it's because their parents and grandparents were black. For them it's mostly because they're poor. There may be a situational spectrum, but poverty trumps race in contemporary society IMO.
Our first game is now available for free on Google Play: Frontier: Isle of the Seven Gods
--LeVar Burton
I agree with the concept here, I just don't think AA could hope to adequately dissect that social element.
It usually takes the form of a "race" checkbox, which doesn't cut it when trying to examine something so complicated.
Economic factors are much easier for an AA system to essentially diagnose and address.
Our first game is now available for free on Google Play: Frontier: Isle of the Seven Gods
Have any evidence to back this assertion up?
Unfortunately, the data disagrees with you.
Which we posted and cited on numerous occasions.
When a employer looks at too people with identical resumes but has a 50% of hiring the person with the white sounding name, it's not because the person with the black sounding name is poor. It's because the person with the black sounding name is black.
Look, I get it. You don't want to believe that black people are still discriminated against solely for being black. You don't want to believe that society is still racist.
But they are.
No, AA is not as bad as racist literacy tests. What's your point?
How in God's name did you take this from any of my comments? Seriously, you need to work on your reading comprehension.
Rigorous Scholarship
Which part? That historical racism has disadvantaged members of minorities or that being currently poor is a tremendous disadvantage? I can provide evidence for both.
Can you revise that so it makes sense in your context (I think it's meant to be "greater than 50%", is this correct?)
Actually, you don't get it, because that isn't what I've been saying. Re-read some of my posts. I do not in any way believe that there isn't a societal element of racism. I just don't think it can be systemically tackled.
The current checkbox for race approach misses the nuance of societal racial prejudice. The word "Black" is simply never going to be descriptive enough. Economic situation is, in my view, a better metric.
Our first game is now available for free on Google Play: Frontier: Isle of the Seven Gods
That being black isn't a disadvantage anymore.
Four problems with that.
First off, there's a huge difference between wealth and income. A black person and a white person might work the same job with the same income, but the white person still has a lot more inherited wealth and assets. For instance, discrimination gives white people more access to alone, which allows them to invest in property and pay lower interest rates. The wealth gap between black/white is far greater than the income gap between black/white. So even if you take income into account, that only tells half the story. And tracking wealth would be incredibly difficult.
Second, white people outnumber black people. It's true that black people are more likely to be poor, but it's also true that poor people are more likely to be white. So who would be the most likely beneficiaries of an income based program? White people. Stack that on top of the fact that poor white people are more likely to have more wealth than poor white people, and you put poor black people at a double disadvantage.
Third, what exactly would be the net effect of this proposal on black people? You can say what you want about "improving" AA or about making it more just, but all it boils down to is denying the black people of the few opportunities they already have and giving them to white people. It's a re-distribution scheme where black people lose, and white people win. That's the entire point of this proposal. Otherwise, you would be proposing that AA address income in addition to race, rather than replacing race entirely. Anyone who claims that black people would be just as well off under an income only standard is lying. If they were, then there would be no point to an income only standard. So the underlying question here is: Do you think that black people have too many opportunities right now? Do you believe that black people are over represented in college? Because if you do, then taking away their opportunities and making it harder for them to get into college makes sense. If not, then I have no idea why you are proposing this.
[quote="
http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2003-05-25/topic/0305240078_1_action-in-college-college-admissions-affirmative-action/2"]This happened in the University of California system, which ended race-based preferences eight years ago while still giving an edge to students who have "suffered disadvantage." Immediately, the numbers of Asians at top campuses surged; the numbers of blacks and Latinos plunged. A study by Berkeley sociologist Jerome Karabel found that SAT scores for Californians with family incomes of less than $20,000 were about 200 points higher among whites and Asians than blacks and Latinos.
In fact, defenders of race-based preferences say, income-based preferences would result in less racial diversity at top colleges simply because few poor blacks and Latinos would apply.[/quote]
Fourth, you are placing black people under a catch-22. If black parent wants to help his child overcome racism, then he has to work much harder and be much more successful than his white counterpart in order to overcome the odds. By by attempting to overcome the odds, he makes more income, and no longer qualifies as "poor." Which means that he's no longer eligible.
Poor white kids score 200 points higher than poor black kids on the SAT. Now, we can try to come up with all sorts of explanations for this. We can say that it's because social discrimination, or because the tests are biased against black people, or that poor white schools are better than poor black kids. Again, this is a catch-22. Yes, there are a lot of black kids who are poor, and there are a lot of black kids who are qualified for college. But generally, the black kids who are poor are less likely to be qualified. And the black kids who are qualified are less likely to be poor.
So, to borrow the marathon analogy, black people are punished twice. First, they are punished by being chained up for the first lap of the race, while their while counterparts get a head start. Secondly, they get punished for using bolt cutters, which is seen as an unfair advantage that their white counterparts didn't have.
AA is a program that's designed to balance out some of the disadvantage that black people face due to their race, and give them the opportunity to succeed. It shouldn't abandon that cause the moment that black people start working themselves out of poverty. There's still a long, long way to go.
I don't really think you proved that
there are a class of names - the Shaneequas and the LaDontes - that indicate "black" and "poor" at the same time
as you mentioned, there doesn't seem to be an analogue on the white side really - James Robert might or might not be a "Jim-Bob"
that people in the study were reluctant to hire people with these names in the study you're waving around just shows that they're reluctant to hire the "poor black" people, not that they were necessarily reluctant to hire black people in general.
But what is a non-poor black name? I can't think of one. I don't think it's as nuanced as you're portraying it to be.
I have numerous statistics regarding the disadvantages of the impoverished in the categories of graduation rates and social mobility (google will find you these quite easily), but these studies don't serve to definitively establish one way or the other whether the issue is race or economics since there's currently so much overlap.
I would ask you to provide systemic (note: the word systemic is very important, as AA is an inherently systemic solution) that being black is a disadvantage today regardless of economics. I agree with you that there are societal reasons for this, but think those societal reasons are not addressed adequately by the current implementations of AA.
Our first game is now available for free on Google Play: Frontier: Isle of the Seven Gods
This has been done time and time again in this thread.
As was shown above, children of equally poor black people are worse off than children of equally poor white people. This alone shows that there is a race component that AA tries to overcome.
You're seem to be saying that there is no race component to poverty and therefor programs targeting race are unneeded. This is provably false.
Wouldn't a net worth metric negate the issue all together? As in, when qualifying for AA, the net worth of an individual and their parents is taken into account?
I don't think you can use numerical values to measure the overall benefit to a specific group of people in the way you have here. If a higher % of the black population is poor, and AA targets the poor, then AA will yield a higher benefit for the black population, because that overall group will be considerably more affected.
[/quote]
I think many of the arguments in this thread, much like the above one you've referenced, will lead me to revise my position to the point where race and economics are taken into account. I think economics deserves considerably more weigh than it currently possesses, however.
I think this argument is as flawed as the right wing argument that "If you tax higher brackets more I won't work as hard to make as much money". Upward mobility is a compelling enough reason for anyone to continue to push for higher gains.
I could make the same flawed argument that AA is a double benefit for minorities, because both a parent and a child could benefit from it.
Our first game is now available for free on Google Play: Frontier: Isle of the Seven Gods
Actually, what was shown above was that poor black children score lower on standardized tests than poor white children, a problem that could likely be solved by improving their public education systems (which is what I advocated in my very first post in this thread).
Our first game is now available for free on Google Play: Frontier: Isle of the Seven Gods
Black people and white people were both subjected to the literacy tests, and black people and white people were both given access to the grandfather clause. So under the specific letter of the law, there was no discrimination and no racism. Black people and white people were treated completely unequal. The problem was the spirit and the motive of the law, which was ridiculously racist. The people who crafted the law knew full well that black people didn't have grandfathers who could vote, and they used that to their advantage.
You said earlier that the motive of the law doesn't matter, which means that the racist intentions behind literacy tests are irrelevant by your standard. You said just now that "it's only illegal when you discriminate against someone based on their race," which literacy tests did not do overtly. You said "If literacy tests had been applied evenly to white and black voters, they wouldn't have been discrimination." Guess what? They did. A black person with a voting grandfather would still be eligible to vote.
If I point out that your moral standards are okay with literacy tests, then merely stating, "But literacy tests are immoral!" is not a valid rebuttal. We already know that literacy tests are immoral, that's why we're bringing it up. It's to point out the inherent contradiction in your logic. It's not enough to say, "I disagree with literacy tests." You have to show that your moral standards would disapprove of them.
Unfortunately, your moral standards is to only be against policies that discriminate outright (like casting a black woman as Rosa Parks), rather than laws with racist motive (Like subjecting people to a literacy test.). That's because your moral standards are silly goose.
I asked you for an example of a discriminatory law that was absent of racism but still unjust, and you responded by citing Jim Crow.
Conclusion: You don't think that Jim Crow is racist.
Of course, we can all agree that Jim Crow was unjust. But why you would cite it as an example of "not racist" is completely beyond me.
Danzel Washington?
Of course, people might wonder where Danzel Washington was applying for Burger King.
Off the top of my head:
The salmon is LOL hollywood. The lime are people I've professionally worked within the past month + a judge I plead my pro se case in front of.
Sure these aren't "black names" per se, but they obviously aren't "white" names either per the above. They're mostly standard middle class American names.
Edit: I know anecdote <> data, but when I was doing my civil suit, the pro se clerk's window was right next to the name change window. I spent about 10 hours total online at that office and except for 1 Hispanic guy and an asian woman, everyone else utilizing that service was a black dude.
Good luck getting an honest assessment of that.
Unless poor black people have 200 fewer points on the SAT than poor white people. You're assuming that all black people are equally qualified for college, regardless of income. Which contradicts the very premise of income only AA in the first place. What the data shows is that in order for a black candidate to be competitive to a white candidate, they need a slightly higher income to make up for the lack in test scores.
There is no reason why you can't have both. And no one would argue with you if you tried to implement both, except for perhaps rich white people.
The odd thing is that people proposing income-only AA are in this mindset of "It has to be one or the other." Why? How did they get into that mindset in the first place? Why would that mindset even occur to them? I find that odd.
Except you still have more money after taxes. There are some people who have a misconception that you will have less money after entering a higher tax bracket (because they assume that all your income is taxed higher, not just the money in the higher bracket), but those people are idiots.
A better analogy might be from when my friend had cancer and had to empty his $2000 bank account in order to be eligible for medicaid. Or the argument that we should be expanding existing public health services to cover people at all ages and income levels.
Last I checked, both the parent and the child faced discrimination in the workplace.
But you see my point, right? Irond is saying that the names are discriminated against because they imply black AND poor, but I think the black part is the major basis for the discrimination.
I dunno, I work in a state office that has lots of black women with unique names. Maybe, as my generation gets older, the "poor black" connotation will wear off of distinctly black names.
Black voters would be required to recite the entire Constitution from memory, for example. Literacy tests were consistently applied in a racially discriminatory manner. You're kind of missing the whole point as to why literacy tests were so terrible.
No I didn't.
Rigorous Scholarship
I think it's pretty clear that Shrodinger mistakenly referred to literacy tests when he meant grandfather clauses.
Yes, but the question is whether or not this unfair application was mandated in the law itself.
Because according to you, the motive of a law doesn't matter. Only the wording does.
No, you're missing the point.
When I point out that your logic allows for literacy tests, it's not because I think that literacy tests are great. It's because I think that your logic is awful.
You don't need to explain that literacy tests are bad. We already know that literacy tests are bad. What I'm asking you to do is explain why literacy tests are bad under the same standards that you criticize AA for. You can't do that. Because your logic for criticizing AA sucks. So instead, you use a different set of logic for criticizing literacy tests, while ignoring the fact that this different set of logic invalidates your criticisms of AA.
Liar.
I asked for an example of a law that met three criteria:
1) Racially discriminatory.
2) No actual racism
3) Still inherently unjust.
You cited Jim Crow.
There were literacy tests during the time of grandfather clauses as well. Those were a different set of literacy tests than the ones in the 1960s.
Of course, in both cases, it's the same idea. "How do we prevent black people from voting, without explicitly saying that we don't want black people to vote?"
So you create a law that doesn't discriminate overtly, but still massively racist in intent.
The people who proposed the creation of literacy tests knew that black people and white people would not be treated equally by society when applying to vote.
The people who propose ending AA know that black people and white people will not be treated equally by society when applying to work.
Is tacit racism still bad? Or is only codified racial discrimination bad?
If only codified racial discrimination is bad, then literacy tests are okay.
There might be other reasons why an evenly-applied non-discriminatory literacy test might be unconstitutional, but that's a different issue. You're missing the point, as usual. Literacy tests and AA are completely different issues. Literacy tests were a problem, from a discrimination point of view, because of their unfair application. AA is a problem because it is discriminatory on its face since it explicitly treats people differently based on race.
Seriously, son, just stop. This subject matter is clearly well above your head.
I did no such thing. Read that post again. Read it slowly. I know you want it to say something, but my post does not do what you want it to do.
Rigorous Scholarship
I have no regrets.
Edit: Amazing thread btw, GG Schrodinger
Would you be okay with a law that mandated literacy tests for everyone, with a grandfather exemption, as long as that law was applied to all people equally?
Because you seem to be saying that you would be.
The term originated in late-19th-century legislation and constitutional amendments passed by a number of U.S. Southern states which created new restrictions on voting, but exempted those whose ancestors (grandfathers) had the right to vote before the Civil War. The existence of slaves prior to the Civil War effectively excluded African Americans while allowing poor and illiterate whites to vote. Although the original grandfather clauses were ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in 1915, the terms grandfather clause and grandfather remain in use.
But the unfair application was not mandated by the law itself. It was carried out by the society.
Just like the racism that AA attempts to address isn't mandated by the law itself, but again, carried out by society.
You can't have it both ways.
You insist that racist intent doesn't matter, but racist application somehow does. Look at the example cited above. They say nothing about applying the law differently to black people. They say nothing within the law itself that is written as discriminatory. However, the law itself is was clearly created with racist motive, and takes advantage of the inherent institutional racism of society (the fact that black people were in slavery prior to the civil war, and ineligible to vote). Which is the one thing that you insist is irrelevant.
I asked you for an example of how racial discrimination would still be unjust in the absence of actual racism. You cited Jim Crow as an example that fit my criteria. What did I miss?
Either you assume that Jim Crow wasn't racist, or you were avoiding the question in an attempt to derail the thread because you didn't have a valid counter argument.
I see both of your points, but honestly I don't think there's definitive proof for either. I myself only have anecdotes to offer. To wit, my company has two offices in Africa as well as several in major US cities and while we have quite a few people with "unique" names due to our international scope, at a glance we don't have any employees with unique names that are also what you would consider "poor black" names. We are a very multicultural office and I wouldn't accuse any of my colleagues of "cism". It might just be that when your name is "Derrick" or "Antawn", you're labeled subconsciously as "raised by morons."
Fortunately, it also appears that we don't have any stupid upper middle class white people names either (ie, Dawson, Madison, Lexington). Seriously, fuck Dawson.
Now, it's possible that the wealthier you are as a black man, the more likely you are exposed to white people, the more likely you will give your kid a white sounding name. OTOH, the reverse could also be true. It could just as easily be that the wealthier you are, the more likely you are to have black pride, the more likely you will give your kid a name that shows that pride off. I don't know.
But the point is, people evaluating resumes aren't thinking that deeply. They probably haven't researched the data to point them in either direction. What they do have is their gut. And what their gut tells them is, "African name, reject."