Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Suppose a line of 25 people is at a resource center applying for things like social security benefits or employment services. Each person has to show proof of things like socioeconomic status (they have their income stubs for the prev. year), education, and work history. Of those 25, only 6 are White people. The only people that got selected are the White people. This happened a total of 10 times at that same location within a 2-month period. All of these occurrences involved the same White service attendant. Such a pattern is exclusive to this resource center location and any of the other associated locations.
The Native Americans, Asians, Blacks, and any other non-Whites in lines believe it was a case of "I was not picked because I am not White". For clarification, when the White service attendant history was investigated, there were no documented cases (vlogs, workplace performance evaluations, social media posts, etc.) that hinted at that the service attendant was racist by any definition of the word "racist".
While such a real-life investigation would carry a different wording, for the sake of argument, the hypothetical investigation team's findings are summed up in this quote: "It certainly could be seen as racist in that only Whites got selected each of those 10 times. In that we service only those that qualify, we find that claims those denied were denied because of their race to have no merit whatsoever."
Please explain how such a scenario is a case of servicing only those that qualify vs. discriminating based on race. Truth be told, there is a blurred line between the two. The scenario is try to give an idea that not all "I didn't get picked because I am non-White"-type claims are genuine. Obviously, this is not to be applied to every case as some service refusals are race-based. Yes, I recognize the scenario I presented sounds ludicrous.
Suppose a line of 25 people is at a resource center applying for things like social security benefits or employment services. Each person has to show proof of things like socioeconomic status (they have their income stubs for the prev. year), education, and work history. Of those 25, only 6 are White people. The only people that got selected are the White people. This happened a total of 10 times at that same location within a 2-month period. All of these occurrences involved the same White service attendant. Such a pattern is exclusive to this resource center location and any of the other associated locations.
The Native Americans, Asians, Blacks, and any other non-Whites in lines believe it was a case of "I was not picked because I am not White". For clarification, when the White service attendant history was investigated, there were no documented cases (vlogs, workplace performance evaluations, social media posts, etc.) that hinted at that the service attendant was racist by any definition of the word "racist".
While such a real-life investigation would carry a different wording, for the sake of argument, the hypothetical investigation team's findings are summed up in this quote: "It certainly could be seen as racist in that only Whites got selected each of those 10 times. In that we service only those that qualify, we find that claims those denied were denied because of their race to have no merit whatsoever."
Please explain how such a scenario is a case of servicing only those that qualify vs. discriminating based on race. Truth be told, there is a blurred line between the two. The scenario is try to give an idea that not all "I didn't get picked because I am non-White"-type claims are genuine. Obviously, this is not to be applied to every case as some service refusals are race-based. Yes, I recognize the scenario I presented sounds ludicrous.
A simple statistical analysis would tell you with a high degree of probability racism is involved.
Suppose a line of 25 people is at a resource center applying for things like social security benefits or employment services. Each person has to show proof of things like socioeconomic status (they have their income stubs for the prev. year), education, and work history. Of those 25, only 6 are White people. The only people that got selected are the White people. This happened a total of 10 times at that same location within a 2-month period. All of these occurrences involved the same White service attendant. Such a pattern is exclusive to this resource center location and any of the other associated locations.
The Native Americans, Asians, Blacks, and any other non-Whites in lines believe it was a case of "I was not picked because I am not White". For clarification, when the White service attendant history was investigated, there were no documented cases (vlogs, workplace performance evaluations, social media posts, etc.) that hinted at that the service attendant was racist by any definition of the word "racist".
While such a real-life investigation would carry a different wording, for the sake of argument, the hypothetical investigation team's findings are summed up in this quote: "It certainly could be seen as racist in that only Whites got selected each of those 10 times. In that we service only those that qualify, we find that claims those denied were denied because of their race to have no merit whatsoever."
Please explain how such a scenario is a case of servicing only those that qualify vs. discriminating based on race. Truth be told, there is a blurred line between the two. The scenario is try to give an idea that not all "I didn't get picked because I am non-White"-type claims are genuine. Obviously, this is not to be applied to every case as some service refusals are race-based. Yes, I recognize the scenario I presented sounds ludicrous.
Those are statistically small numbers.
I'd expect that with such small numbers, the actual documentation was examined in each case--both those whites accepted and those non-whites not accepted--to make sure all those accepted met the qualifications and all those rejected did not.
I'd also like to know how much discretionary authority the individual had to determine qualifications. I'd like to see what would happen if all the cases were run through a race-blind judgment process would they all be judged the same way.
I'd expect that with such small numbers, the actual documentation was examined in each case--both those whites accepted and those non-whites not accepted--to make sure all those accepted met the qualifications and all those rejected did not.
I'd also like to know how much discretionary authority the individual had to determine qualifications. I'd like to see what would happen if all the cases were run through a race-blind judgment process would they all be judged the same way.
Ralph, the story was made up bro. If you want to see what you said in the last paragraph, just make it up and post it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
