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.
I don't like race-based affirmative action (although I would support income-based affirmative action) and can understand nepotism, but what the Bushes have benefited from goes beyond ordinary nepotism. For example, they've benefited from "legacy admissions" at Yale. George W. benefited from a since abolished quota system that guaranteed everyone who went to certain expensive private schools in New England would be guaranteed a place at Yale, as well. If it wasn't for who his parents were he'd probably be a bartender in Midland, Texas, right now.
When was desegregation brought to the South? Many people seem to forget that it wasn't that long ago that blacks had separate restrooms and rode in the back of the bus.
How can government make up for that type of state-sponsered oppression that happened for so many years? It wasn't enough to be smart enough or work hard enough -- not when it was your color that determined where your place was in society. This is why AA came into being.
When was desegregation brought to the South? Many people seem to forget that it wasn't that long ago that blacks had separate restrooms and rode in the back of the bus.
How can government make up for that type of state-sponsered oppression that happened for so many years? It wasn't enough to be smart enough or work hard enough -- not when it was your color that determined where your place was in society. This is why AA came into being.
Dr. King favored giving affirmative action to low income people regardless of race or ethnicity, which obviously would have done a lot to help African Americans of that time period. However, income based AA was rejected by LBJ for being "socialist" while race was somehow considered more "Americanist". Affirmative action was a good idea on paper ; unfortunately it's worked out in practice as benefiting wealthy members of minority groups, and wealthy white women even more so (a group who should NEVER have recieved affirmative action) at the expense of the poor of all races. The whole idea of extending affirmative action to cover white women was ridiculous ; under existing affirmative action guide lines, Paris Hilton would be eligible for government affirmative action benefits while poor Russian immigrant men in NYC or poor rural whites in Appalachia wouldn't be. I'm 100% in favor of affirmative action for low income people.Basing AA on income would continue to help African Americans who really need it (i.e the poor, rather than the kids of Dick Parsons or Clarence Thomas) and would help others as well who currently do not benefit from it.
Affirmative Action as a philosophy is commendable, but in practice it hasn't worked--and I'm not certain it would have worked if it had been written to only benefit the poor.
It is a very difficult process to introduce an under-educated group/person into an educated mainstream school.
It is untenable to hire people without the proper credentials.
I think you mentioned, majoun, that one of the underlying challenges is poverty (in another thread).
If we could find a rationale way to take people out of poverty, provide them with access to resources, encourage them to utilize the resources, accept and maintain a social conscious in allowing these to percolate, we might see more people on an even playing field.
Now we push people into situations for which they are ill or unprepared and they suffer as those who work with them suffer.
It is untenable to hire people without the proper credentials.
This is a kind of interesting thought.
One thing I've seen done in the past is to change the requirements for a job. It used to be that policemen were hired with no college education. Once women and minorities started joining police forces, a college education became a requirement. This allowed for faster promotion of newer people with college educations versus promoting those with years on the job but no college.
Changing the requirements is one way to level the playing field.
USB50, can you explain or elaborate more on what you are saying here:
Quote:
Originally Posted by UB50
This is a kind of interesting thought.
One thing I've seen done in the past is to change the requirements for a job. It used to be that policemen were hired with no college education. Once women and minorities started joining police forces, a college education became a requirement. This allowed for faster promotion of newer people with college educations versus promoting those with years on the job but no college.
Changing the requirements is one way to level the playing field.
Regardless of personal experience, the very fact that AA exists destroys the morale of non-minority workers. I once saw an ad in the Long Island Newsday from the New York City Police department that said "We are actively recruiting hispanic Americans". WHAT is THAT? There was no mention of a spanish speaking requirement, or anything else like that. The only thing they said was they were looking for hispanics. How the hell would you feel if you were a non-hispanic looking to join NYPD? Wouldn't you feel like you were already working against the tide? Seriously, that stuff needs to be outlawed. I saved the clipping, but it was about 11 years ago and I've lost it. Boy was I steamed when I saw that.
Affirmative Action is racism with a positive intent. My argument is giving whites special treatment is the same thing. It's just positively affecting another group. Neither one is right.
I have a little experiment for people that actually care enough to do it.
Take your resume, and post it on Monster.
Now take the same resume, change the college to a historically black college, and change the name to a black name. i.e. Donnell Jackson or something. Mind you, both resumes have to exhibit the same skills and salary requirements. You also want to have a different address, but the same distance from the city the job is in.
Wait and see which one gets more interest. I did this already. You will notice that the larger corps, the ones trying to dance for the govt, will respond to Donnell, and not to your name. It's sad, but true.
-TT
You sound very mad at the world. I guess it's a "outside looking in mentality." When the police force indicates they are seeking out "hispanics" etc., it's to help police officers gain respect from the communities they will eventually serve and also help eliminate the "us against them" mentality. While recruiting, the force knows which areas they will most likely increase patrol. While one people feel crime is a mostly minority thing, if you ever take the time to look at it - there has never been a shortage of White police officers
As a sidenote, with while physician contracting for healthplans in NYC, I noticed companies would purposely hire a Jewish person to handle Boro Park, Crown Heights, Williamsburg - African American Black person for Brownsville, Bed Sty - West Indian Black person for Flatbush, Canarsie - White person for Mill Basin, Marine Park, Park Slope, Bergen Beach etc. for the same purpose...to easily build relationships.
Posting a resume on Monster with an afrocentric name hurts more than it helps, trust me on this one, I'm Black and my name makes that quite obvious. My resume will wind up in the shredder more often than not, whereas my husband with a generic "you have no idea what race I am" name gets called in to interviews complication free. The employers that jump at a so-called "African-American" names are crappy companies that want to low-ball and not pay an appropriate salary for the work they want done, skimp on benefits etc., you aren't losing anything. I've been passed up on jobs previosly since I don't speak Spanish in a field that doesn't require foreign language. Welders, Electricians etc. with certification that were making over $20 an hour now find themselves having to compete with a Mexican willing to be a jack-of-all trades for $8/hr. I just roll with the punches.
I have White friends I attended grad school with, we all network and give each other heads up on jobs and industry changes. For an equally qualified Black and White person - the Black person gets offered the lower end of the salary range while the opposite for a White person. The Black person may get the offer first for the company cost savings and despite trying to negotiate the company will go up $5,000 max and state "that's the best we can do." If we demand what a White person would most likely get, the company would rather give the job to a White person. It's rare that you'd see a White and Black person doing the same job, same experience where the Black person can edge out the White in the salary department.
Quite a few years ago, I had a job in the same industry as now, 3 years under my belt with a BBA degree. I was offered 38K, I was already making 35K spending less time to commute so I refused - they went up to 43K - I took the job. A few months later, a fresh out of school Whiteboy, whose only previous job was loading a Snapple juice truck was offered 48K for the same job and negotiated up to 51K. I discovered this while I was assigned the task of training this guy who never worked the this industry what to do.
So overall while you may feel there is reason to be upset with minorties over you job market frustration, there is reason for us to share the same displeasure.
It might have been the "boy" rather than the colour skin.
I have a graduate and post-graduate degree. I worked for peanuts at a major medical school--I went on sabbatical leave. My replacement was given a $20,000 increase, plus expenses and had a BA. My replacement was a young(ish) male!
So, what does this say: we have personal experiences but they are not necessarily racially biased!
Quote:
Originally Posted by RsAnd
You sound very mad at the world. I guess it's a "outside looking in mentality." When the police force indicates they are seeking out "hispanics" etc., it's to help police officers gain respect from the communities they will eventually serve and also help eliminate the "us against them" mentality. While recruiting, the force knows which areas they will most likely increase patrol. While one people feel crime is a mostly minority thing, if you ever take the time to look at it - there has never been a shortage of White police officers
As a sidenote, with while physician contracting for healthplans in NYC, I noticed companies would purposely hire a Jewish person to handle Boro Park, Crown Heights, Williamsburg - African American Black person for Brownsville, Bed Sty - West Indian Black person for Flatbush, Canarsie - White person for Mill Basin, Marine Park, Park Slope, Bergen Beach etc. for the same purpose...to easily build relationships.
Posting a resume on Monster with an afrocentric name hurts more than it helps, trust me on this one, I'm Black and my name makes that quite obvious. My resume will wind up in the shredder more often than not, whereas my husband with a generic "you have no idea what race I am" name gets called in to interviews complication free. The employers that jump at a so-called "African-American" names are crappy companies that want to low-ball and not pay an appropriate salary for the work they want done, skimp on benefits etc., you aren't losing anything. I've been passed up on jobs previosly since I don't speak Spanish in a field that doesn't require foreign language. Welders, Electricians etc. with certification that were making over $20 an hour now find themselves having to compete with a Mexican willing to be a jack-of-all trades for $8/hr. I just roll with the punches.
I have White friends I attended grad school with, we all network and give each other heads up on jobs and industry changes. For an equally qualified Black and White person - the Black person gets offered the lower end of the salary range while the opposite for a White person. The Black person may get the offer first for the company cost savings and despite trying to negotiate the company will go up $5,000 max and state "that's the best we can do." If we demand what a White person would most likely get, the company would rather give the job to a White person. It's rare that you'd see a White and Black person doing the same job, same experience where the Black person can edge out the White in the salary department.
Quite a few years ago, I had a job in the same industry as now, 3 years under my belt with a BBA degree. I was offered 38K, I was already making 35K spending less time to commute so I refused - they went up to 43K - I took the job. A few months later, a fresh out of school Whiteboy, whose only previous job was loading a Snapple juice truck was offered 48K for the same job and negotiated up to 51K. I discovered this while I was assigned the task of training this guy who never worked the this industry what to do.
So overall while you may feel there is reason to be upset with minorties over you job market frustration, there is reason for us to share the same displeasure.
As a sidenote, with while physician contracting for healthplans in NYC, I noticed companies would purposely hire a Jewish person to handle Boro Park, Crown Heights, Williamsburg - African American Black person for Brownsville, Bed Sty - West Indian Black person for Flatbush, Canarsie - White person for Mill Basin, Marine Park, Park Slope, Bergen Beach etc. for the same purpose...to easily build relationships.
A West Indian black person would be more able to build relationships in Crown Heights than a Jewish person, actually. A non-Hasidic Jew would feel far more at home in Park Slope than in Crown Heights.
But yes, discrimination survives. Witness the realtors in Brooklyn who got busted for steering - they wouldn't show African American buyers houses in Park Slope, Carroll Gardens, Cobble Hill, Brooklyn Heights, or Prospect Heights and steered them to Fort Greene, Flatbush, Bed-Stuy, Crown Heights, etc.
Actually, in New York, it has become common practice for groups to advocate their own ethnic, racial or religious representatives to serve them in all communities--and from my personal experience, the medical professions.
But that doesn't mean we are without prejudice and discrimination; what it means to me is a increased sense of separation as a result of discrimination policies and practices over the years. It also represents a bias that "what we know, is what we can represent best."
Quote:
Originally Posted by majoun
A West Indian black person would be more able to build relationships in Crown Heights than a Jewish person, actually. A non-Hasidic Jew would feel far more at home in Park Slope than in Crown Heights.
But yes, discrimination survives. Witness the realtors in Brooklyn who got busted for steering - they wouldn't show African American buyers houses in Park Slope, Carroll Gardens, Cobble Hill, Brooklyn Heights, or Prospect Heights and steered them to Fort Greene, Flatbush, Bed-Stuy, Crown Heights, etc.
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.
