Do you Believe in Race-Based Affirmative Action?

[MadBadger]

When it comes to hiring for a job.

And yes, this has GD-P value after I put up my second poll.

[last1standing]

1. Absolutely!

I also believe in affirmative action for the GLBT community. We don't need the same kind of help but we do need help when it comes to being able to be open and still keep, or get, jobs in many environments.

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[noamnety]

4. wow

Yes, that's why black people are underrepresented in corporate/political America - they've just been too busy looking up to basketball players and rap stars. :eyes:

[Lyric]

9. You don't seem to understand why AA is needed.

There are always exceptions to the rule, like Barack Obama, but for the most part, people within oppressed minority groups simply do not have the same opportunities for advancement--no matter HOW hard they work, or how ambitious and motivated they are. It has nothing to do with SEEING themselves as "victims," and everything to do with acknowledging that they ARE victims--and as such, they deserve consideration to help ameliorate the disadvantages that they were born with.

[niceypoo]

19. I know plenty of Blacks who are making it through their own efforts

...to say blacks who make it are the 'exception not the rule' diminishes blacks racially, IMHO

Having said that, I do believe that AA is fine, to a point. Irrelevent though, they dont have it in my state.

[Lyric]

28. ....

:banghead:

It doesn't "diminish blacks" to acknowledge reality. The "blacks you know" (:eyes:) are not indicative of what the larger group is undergoing. There are always exceptions. Some people get luckier than others. But institutionally, proportionally, and politically, racial minorities do not have the same opportunities that white people have, just by virtue of their race.

Here's a really, really simplistic example of white privilege and institutional racism:

Scenario 1: Young white man walks into J.C. Penney. He has a small amount of personal marijuana in his jacket pocket. He picks up a few items, browses around, decides he doesn't want the items after all, leaves the store, then goes home to finish filling out his online application to college. He finds an ad for a good scholarship in his field, and applies. Nobody bothers him. Nothing unusual happens.

Scenario 2: Young black man walks into J.C. Penney. He also has a small amount of personal marijuana in his jacket pocket. He picks up a few items, and is immediately "tailed" by a loss prevention agent. He browses around, going out of the sight of the LP agent for a few minutes. Like the white guy, he decides he doesn't want his items after all and sets them down...but because his hands are empty when the agent sees him again, he is detained and asked to submit to a search. He refuses, offended and upset. The police are called. Nothing is found on him, but the responding officer doesn't like his "attitude," so he is taken downtown and charged with a few minor, ridiculous crimes like obstructing justice or failing to grovel enough to the police, or some stupid shit like that. He is also searched, and the police discover the little bag of marijuana in his pocket. He ends up pleading out to avoid jail time, is stuck with a hefty fine that his family can't really afford, and his college hopes are nearly dashed because he's just been convicted of a "drug crime," which automatically disqualifies him from receiving federal student aid. But wait! The black kid finds the *same* scholarship ad as the white kid, and applies. He's able to tell his side of the story, and because his grades are good, his story was compelling, and the scholarship committee believes in affirmative action--the black kid is granted the scholarship.

---------------------

Okay, that wasn't quite so simple after all, but you see my point? And that's just *one* scenario. There are countless others that are equally appalling and unfair. If not for the assumption by loss prevention that black people are more likely to steal than white people, the second scenario would never have happened. The bigotry and prejudices of our nation prevent minorities from having the same opportunities as white people have. Now, most people would try to defend this injustice by saying, "Well he shouldn't have had the dope!" That's arguable, and another topic altogether, but the point is that the only reason anyone FOUND the marijuana is because he committed the "atrocious crime" of "shopping while black." It's similar to "driving while black," by the way. I'm sure you've heard of that.

AA is definitely needed to overcome the obstacles that oppression throws into the path of minorities. I hope you understand a little better now.

/whitest white girl you've ever seen

[ChipperbackDemocrat]

65. There's one issue I have with all this..

What the hell are you doing being black with some "personal marijuana" in your jacket pocket or anywhere else.

That's what torpedos your entire argument. Rule #1 of being black...You will probably be detained for doing absolutely nothing, but you will sure as hell be detained if they find you doing something.

And that leads into Rule #2. If you are in a shopping mall, realize that you will be followed at certain stores. Be calm, be cool answer all questions and DON'T HAVE ANYTHING ILLEGAL ON YOU OR IN YOU!

Take away the personal marijuana issue, and then you might have a horserace.

[Lyric]

87. The point I was making? About fairness?

Went right over your head, there.

[ChipperbackDemocrat]

95. It went high, but I jumped up, caught it and found it wanting.

The problem is, the point you tried to make was completely destroyed because you brought in a variable that renders every other point moot.

Whether its far or not, marijuana possession is a crime and the kid got caught with it. All the inherent slantedness of our judicial system towards people of color aside, the law is still the law and both youngsters are on the wrong side of it and that overrides any point you are trying to make and that point is a stretch in the context of the greater discussion.

[uppityperson]

128. "Rule #1 of being black...You will probably be detained for doing absolutely nothing,"

Why should this be a "rule"?

[superduperfarleft]

15. Jesus f'ing christ.....

Congrats on being the racist-as-shit-but-doesn't-even-know-it poster of the day.

You know, white kids look up to basketball players and rap stars too. :eyes:

[Tutonic]

17. You make rednecks proud sir/madam.

[QueenOfCalifornia]

21. The meaning of affirmative

action really is giving minorities and women a hand up because they have been told to sit in the back of the bus, stay home and make cookies and let white males do the "important" stuff.

You want to give white males affirmative action? They already have it.

Women are still paid far less for doing the very same job as a man. It happened to me for YEARS and YEARS. I was told that because I didn't have a family I didn't need to be paid more - but the guy who did a lower level of work than me, he was paid more. Oh, and he didn't have a family either. Now that I have a family I am told I don't need to be paid the same as a man because I am married and my husband has an income... No matter how you slice it, I am being held back financially due to me having two x chromosomes.

Yeah, it's fair isn't it.

[DeepBlueDem]

27. White Males have AA. Its the "Good Ole Boy" Network.

Which is prominent here in the South. AA is needed but not abused.

[LostinVA]

51. White, straight & WASPY

:eyes:

[nini]

74. "Why should we 'tell' minorities.."

why do we have to 'tell' minorities anything? The way you worded that says lots about who you really are and how you think about minorities.

Your words imply you think minorities are not equal to whites and need to be told what to do. Your attitude is exactly why the playing field for good jobs is still uneven.

You have proven why there is still a need for AA in this country.

[namahage]

91. Weren't you the one who thought a certain someone...

...should be extended preferential treatment regarding vetting for SoS?

Why should she be getting any "special help"?

[happychatter]

3. I can survive financially with a truck and tools in the most depressed areas of America BECAUSE

I'm white (as far as you can tell from looking at me)

the GOP and even, evidently, some Dems, think everything is now spiffy doodle in America

I consider this willful ignorance... born in closeted racism

[ellisD]

5. giving a job based on ethnicity

is racism, no matter the skin color. Hiring an applicant should be based on being the best candidate for the job. Laws that protect qualified minorities from being passed over for white favoritism makes sense, setting hiring quotas where race is the sole deciding factor do not.

[quaker bill]

7. Which is why

quotas are illegal.

[redstate_democrat]

67. You're obviously ignorant to what Affirmative Action means

I believe quotas have been illegal since like three decades ago. Learn about a topic before you form an opinion on it. It makes you look really ignorant.

[quaker bill]

6. When properly understood, yes.

Legal affirmative action under current law does not include quotas. It means that hiring is blind to race, but that affirmative steps are taken to recruit a broad and diverse pool of applicants. You always hire the best qualified person, it would be stupid for a manager to allow race to get in the way of a good hire.

[Lyric]

8. I believe in race-based AA. I also believe in

gender, sexuality, and socio-economic AA.

[Bonn1997]

10. Amazingly (or not), race-based AA is the only form that people complain about

[Lyric]

13. Yes--it's very telling in that respect.

I think part of it stems from the continued misconception that "quotas" are in use, when in fact, they are not. That's a right-wing myth, of course. If most people understood how AA really works, I suspect the opposition would be much lower. It's not about hiring or admitting someone who is less qualified, but belongs to "X" group.

This paragraph sums it up nicely:

Critics of affirmative action often evoke images of qualified white males being denied jobs so that lesser qualified women and minorities might have them, all in the name of racial and gender fairness. But this is one of the worst myths about affirmative action.

Affirmative action works by determining what percentage of qualified women and minorities are available to a company, and then setting a goal for hiring that percentage. For example, suppose a minority makes up 30 percent of the local population, but only 15 percent are qualified for the company's jobs. The goal for the company is 15 percent, not 30 percent. And if the company makes a good-faith effort to reach this goal but fails, then it incurs no legal penalty -- the goal is simply reset for the next year, and the next, and the next, if need be. The courts step in with quotas only in the case of blatant discrimination against clearly qualified minorities.

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-qualified.htm

[noamnety]

32. I have to disagree with that.

There's a whole faction on DU that's quite irate over the concept of gender-based AA.

[noamnety]

33. eek double post (n/t)

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

35. It's also the most universal type of AA.

It's low-hanging fruit for people that don't pay attention.

[LostinVA]

53. Ha -- then you've never heard cops rant about women on the Force

Gender AA bigotry is also very prevalent and quite disgusting.

[Gormy Cuss]

57. Or firefighters, or construction workers, or lawyers, or doctors...

Nope, nothing to see here. :sarcasm:


I will say that women have made great strides through affirmative action and in many professions it's no longer unusual for women to be hired. However, gender based pay differences are still pretty common in those same professions.

[LostinVA]

68. Yup, all of those, too

Intresting fact: librarians are still woefully underpaid for professionals, but the pay went up ALOT as soon as men started entering the profession in decent-sized numbers.

[Bonn1997]

86. Sexism and opposition to gender-based AA programs are different

though they may be related. I have no doubt that sexism still exists, especially at less conscious levels. However, gender-based AA is not the subject of nearly as much attention and animosity as race-based AA. I remember about ten years ago when Republicans were running ads about their white sons and daughters not getting into colleges because of "unqualified" blacks getting in. They knew it wouldn't be as beneficial to do the ad expressing outrage over their sons not getting into colleges because girls had to get in. Nothing (maybe with the exceptions of atheism and homosexuality) elicits anger and hatred like race.

[Lilyeye]

88. I'm sure it does. However I always hear people compain about race based AA.

I've seen many white women complain that AA hurts white people. Then when I mention that they benefit from AA..they try to deny it.

[mr1956]

115. I believe in AA based on socio-economics

I don't think a black kid who had rich parents and every advantage growing up should get an additional advantage just because they're black. I think colleges should look at the schools that a kid went to and how that compares to other schools in the same area. Those that come from poor schools in disadvantaged areas should be given points on their college application. Chances are that growing up poor means you are more likely to go to a failing school. And for state colleges and universities, if you are in the top 10-15% of your class, regardless of the school, you should be given points on your college application and scholarships if needed.

In the work place, I think applications should be given online and the job offered sight unseen and unheard. We have the technology to become a color blind (and gender and sexual orientation and age and any other kind of blind) society. If a qualified applicant is turned down in the final interview, companies should have to answer as to what changed between the offer and the face-to face or not be allowed to get government contracts or get government loans.

[H2O Man]

11. Sometimes.

It's good to have a level playing field. The field hasn't been level for a long time. Therefore, there are some situations that require affirmative action.

[DeeDeeNY]

12. Yes to Race-Based Affirmative Action, but

No to "legacy" based policies that allowed W to get a free ride into Yale and Harvard.
(I'm still trying to figure out how he graduated.)

[Thothmes]

14. According to some posts on this forum

during the 04 elections cycle, W had a slightly higher GPA than Kerry.

[superduperfarleft]

16. Yes, wholeheartedly. n/t

[FloridaGrl]

18. Yes

as the election has proven racism is still very much alive and so is sexism. We have come a long way toward equality but there is still a large room for improvement.

[eshfemme]

20. I'd actually like class-based affirmative action

Since a large majority of minority affirmative action candidates also come from poorer households, this would actually be a more inclusive and better way of targeting for diversity. Also, it helps to lessen the racial tension as it will help poor white students as well.

What people don't realize is that diversity doesn't just rely on ethnic diversity-- true diversity also needs to include social and class diversity.

[AllentownJake]

24. Totally agree

I think affirmative action should have an economic bias not a racial one.

[Karenina]

52. WHITE WOMEN are the greatest beneficiaries of AA.

Check it out yourself.

[EFerrari]

83. Exactly. n/t

[harun]

37. Agree, awesome post.

[HPULiberal]

45. I very much agree

We should not look at things as black and white when it comes to oppresion. One poster above mentioned that white males in the South benefit from the "Good Ole Boy" system. While this is to a large part true, there are whites who don't fit in that category if their families came from outside the South (like I am) as well as poor whites. Economic-based affirmative action would be helpful in dealing with the most basic cause of oppression. Most of the same blacks who race-based affirmative action programs target would still be helped, and many low-income whites would benefit. This would be really important if we are to make in-roads in bringing back poor whites to our party. Appalachia is extremely poor and has gone heavily Republican over the past decade in each election. This should not be the case and as Democrats we need to make sure we are on their side as well when it comes to economic issues at least.

[JuniperLea]

58. Now this is a good idea...

A rising tide floats all boats.

[JuniperLea]

59. 'puter hiccup

Nothing to see here... move along...

[gollygee]

22. Very much so

The myth is that without affirmative action, things are neutral and everyone gets the same chance. The truth is that without affirmative action there is and has always been negative action, otherwise known as "last hired, first fired." Affirmative action just balances that.

[AllentownJake]

23. I believe in class based Affirmative Action

It has always been about economics.

[noamnety]

31. That's a very "liberal" viewpoint.

And not in the good way.

White people are exceptionally good at convincing themselves that it's not about race, it's about economics - as if being white doesn't come with its own set of privileges separate from class.

It's a whole lot easier to convince yourself race isn't an issue when you are white.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

34. Perhaps, but making a race-only based argument is equally ignorant.

Class and race are inextricably linked. You cannot reasonably discuss one without the other.

[noamnety]

41. Nobody has made a "race-only" argument.

However, race on its own carries issues that are SEPARATE from class.

Last week I had the fun of being in a room of maybe a few hundred people. We all scored ourselves from 0,3, or 5 on each item on the white privilege checklist. Then we lined up according to our scores around the perimeter of the room.

Guess where the people of color were? - many were down in the 0-30 area.

Guess where the white people were? - I couldn't even get into my proper place (228 out of 230) because of the giant mob that was clustered from 220-230.

In talking about it afterwards, the privileges happened regardless of education and class. I had more of those privileges than people who had more advanced degrees than me, which is the norm.

Same with gender - which is why it's not a "race-only" argument. A woman needs a college degree to get on an equal footing with a guy who has a high school diploma - statistically speaking - regardless of family economic status.

Same holds true for education. Achievement gaps show a huge discrepancy based on race. There is also one based on class, but even when you equalize economic class, there is still a gap between Asians, whites, latinos, and African-Americans that is not accounted for by economic status.

Reducing it to class is convenient for white folks - it allows us to not have to confront institutional racism. Don't kid yourself, though - that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

[npk]

113. You do know there are other forms of AA

This poll is talking about "race based" affirmative action. More specifically should race be considered in hiring. The poll wasn't asking about whether you think your are more privileged than somebody else based on your race. It is against the law to discriminate of the basis of hiring based on race, gender, religion, etc. When you inject race into a hiring decision you kinda circumvent that law.

[noamnety]

126. ?

Yes, obviously I know there are multiple types of AA, and that the poll asked about race-based. All types have their basis in the recognition that the system is NOT currently equitable, and that the types of invisible Affirmative Action that give privilege/priority to white men make the system not equitable.

An example would be suburbs that were founded for white people only. If people lived there for generations - and became close friends because of their long term association with each other, then get a job through those networks that are generational and white, that's race-based hiring. But we don't call it that, because it's based on invisible privilege. Race (or any other type)-based AA looks at how the system is not equitable, and attempts to fix that.

It's NOT discriminating against white people, or giving them less opportunity. It's evening out the system so everyone gets the same opportunities that some people take for granted, despite the legacy of being the same race/gender as all the role models in an industry, the legacy of getting into schools through alumni associations, the legacy of having gone through schools with or without being bullied, without having teachers treat you with a lowered set of expectations, etc.) And it's about correcting the demographics in positions of power so that the system doesn't continue to unfairly disadvantage the next generations who grow up without role models they identify with in. I think the folks who see it as discrimination against a white person are looking at individuals rather than systems, and are having a difficult time seeing that continuing to have all white men in power is itself an element of institutional racism/sexism and contributes to inequality in future generations.

[npk]

127. My concern is when people start inserting "white privilege" into the mix

I am white, and have not led a privileged life in any sort of the imagination. I do agree that privilege exists in this country, but I would contend that it has more to do with a persons economic background and status than race. For example many children, of all races, that are born into wealth, are often born into privilege. They often get the chances that others don't get. But to say that a person is privileged in this country, in this year, based on the fact that they are white, I find ridiculous. I do recognize that racism exists, at the individual level and the institutional level. I just wish people would understand that racism exists even in the poorest of conditions, not simply among the wealthy white elite. Foe example some of the most racist people in the country are dirt fucking poor, and wouldn't be considered privileged if a moose took a shit on their head and it turned to gold.

[noamnety]

132. There's a difference between

"white privilege" and "living a privileged life."

I think that's partly why people get so offended by the acknowledgment that racism exists. There is this odd disconnect, people say yes, the "system" is racist, and they can see that people of color are harmed by that system, but they only can talk about it as people of color having less advantages. The other half of that is that white people have more advantages. That's not a racist statement, it's just a statement of fact.

Now, does that mean that all white people are well off and all black people are living in poverty? No, of course not.

Just like gender, there is such a thing as male privilege, and it exists - even though hillary earns more money than Joenotaplumber.

When two people, a man and a woman, go for a music audition, for instance, some orchestras now use screens so they can't see the applicants during the audition. The reason is that they found that even when they were TRYING To be equitable, they couldn't do it - they would consistently score men higher on auditions than women. If they put up a screen so they are listening just to the sound and the audition is gender-neutral, the call back/hiring gap narrows considerably. Most interviews, however, don't have a way to include a screen - interviewers want to hear and see the applicant during the interview. So all other things being equal, men are rated higher for the same skills, the same resume.

Which is worse - not acknowledging that when the research proves it is true? Or acknowledging that it is systemic and addressing it in a systemic way? Would you consider being rated higher for the same skill set an example of male privilege - even if the job pays poverty wages, so neither applicant will be living a "privileged life"?

[uppityperson]

129. Living most of my life in northern tier, I changed my mind post Katrina

I used to think economic class and race were not as dependent upon each other as I do now. I now see economic class is often based on racism. Not always, but often and the 2 are very linked.

Economically (depressed? disadvantaged?) because of race. Again, not always, but often. Get rid of skin color issues and the economics change (often) also.

I'd like to see more AA based on economic and sex also, but believe highly in race-based.

[AllentownJake]

38. Sorry I'll disagree

Race is used as a wedge to keep the working class whites and the working class blacks, and working class latinos from organizing with each other. Affirmative Action is used by the other side to further that wedge among poorer whites.

I don't really think someone who is upper middle class and in any race should get any preferencial hiring or education from Affirmative Action.

[uponit7771]

47. You have a point on the upper middle class and sounds like Obama's positon but that doesn't negate

...the racial aspects of long term discrimination that has been part of America.

[AllentownJake]

55. So if your family

makes over 150,000 a year and both your parents had a college education and they paid for you to go to a private school or you lived in a very good public school district you deserve preferential treatment because you happen to be a minority over a white kid in Appalachia who has never had any family member go to college who worked hard to pull himself/herself out of poverty to get the grades to be considered to right a wrong that you yourself have never experience by your socio economic status...Bullshit on that. Sorry.

I don't mean you literally its the hypothetical person.

[TahitiNut]

39. "No problem can be solved from the same level of consciousness that created it." (Einstein)

"White people are ..."
"as if being white ..."
"...when you are white."

:eyes:

[noamnety]

42. No problem can be solved

by refusing to acknowledge it.

[uponit7771]

48. ...and refusing to acknowledge it usually means a refusal to address it too. I've tried to take race

...out of AA and the numbers wont jive for another generation or two.

Even the AA and Hispanics are far away from obtaining the generation wealth whites in this country have

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

56. What about white immigrants?

You know, the millions of whites that you casually lump in with everyone else that neither have the benefit of the generational wealth you refer to, nor the connections (aka 'good ol' boys network') that actually comprise the typical argument for "white privilege".

My grandparents had less than nothing when they got to this country. I say less than nothing because they too experienced discrimination of the highest levels. People like to forget that the Italians, Irish, and Polish immigrants had to deal with that. My grandparents and parents lived in section 8 housing. Neither of my parents had a 4-year degree. They worked themselves into the lower-middle class through community colleges.

I have no prevailing issues with the concept that affirmative action is needed. I also have no doubts that what my ancestors went through was barely comparable to segregation and other horrific experiences. However, I refuse to be labeled as privileged simply because I share a skin color with the people that perpetrated those crimes. My family, and millions of other immigrant families were little different in their eyes. Because of this, I would like to see affirmative action expanded to include class.

Anyone that advances such a theory as white privilege should be acutely aware of the dangers of labeling everyone of an ethnic group the same way. Sadly, you do not seem to have that awareness.

[noamnety]

66. There's a book I'd like to recommend to you

"How America's Immigrants Became White"
by Seth Sandronsky

There is some background on exactly the issues you bring up about immigrants here: http://www.blackagendareport.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=213&Itemid=43

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

75. Yes, I'm familiar with that book.

I believe I did acknowledge that my ancestors did not have it as bad as those of other minority groups. However, the book (and you) fail to acknowledge that the spectrum does not comprise of simply those that are privileged and those that are not in favor of neatly aligning groups against each other. There are a lot of shades of grey in between those that are not quite privileged and not quite fully disadvantaged. I know it makes life easier to put people into one of two boxes, but it just doesn't work.

[JuniperLea]

77. It's easier to drive a wedge...

When people are in tidy boxes.

[rebel with a cause]

100. White immigrants can assimilate, fit in, with the rest of the white population

and thus be considered a part of it. The African American can never fully assimilate with the white population because they do not look the same, thus are never considered a part of it. Darker Latinos or those with non-white features have the same problem, while white Latinos are more easily assimilated and accepted. The same goes for person of Asian descent.

This is part of the white privilege. Your white skin gives you the option of being accepted as part of the majority instead of a minority. I grew up in an area with a lot of European immigrants, and the first generation had problems due to their language and newness to the country but they were accepted into the area. The second and third generation were seen as no different than any other white person whose ancestors had been here for hundreds of years.

Oh did I mention that where I grew up was a white county because people who were not white were not accepted there. I grew up with Italian, French, Lithuanian, Jewish, Polish, English, German and other European immigrants. You could be part American Indian, and we had one Chinese man who worked in the dry cleaners/laundry. Other than these exceptions, I had to travel quite a ways to see a person from a non-European country, and these people were not seen on the same level as European immigrants in the area where they were allowed to live.

Don't tell me that white immigrants and Black/Latino immigrants come here as equals. They do not.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

123. You wanna hear a line that tells you EXACTLY how much I've "assimilated"?

Here's an exact quote that I've heard more than once in my life: "So, how much nigger you got in ya?"

Unless you're a WASP, you are never truly assimilated.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

124. One more line that I ALWAYS get...

"So, you're family's in the mafia, huh?"

[noamnety]

133. Yep.

I've heard family members state they they would never vote for someone with an Italian name. "They might not be in the mob, but then again ... you know, they might."

They can assimilate all they want ... until that moment when the whiter folks have a flash of suspicion, followed by the recognition that they are "one of THEM."

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

136. I greatly appreciate your acknowledging this. (nt)

[rebel with a cause]

137. You are of the darker complexion, I take it.

That would put you in the category of those who would not be as easily able to assimilate. The Italians I grew up with were from the Northern part of Italy, which means they are light in skin tone. As an adult I knew dark skinned Italians that said they had problems also fitting in, but in time had found their niche. You will note in my original post that I sited that with the Latinos, their acceptance depended on the darkness of their skin. The same can be sad of other groups.

My congressman's last name is Costello, and where I am from an Italian name does not mean much as far as holding one back. Many of the business' here have Italian names and so on. The one person I know who is very racist against Italian's on the whole is my ex-husband, a Latino. I know there are more out there, but I don't know them personally. The Mafia does not have a presence here and that may make a difference. There might have been a little in the thirties when the bootlegging wars were going on, but that was before my time. :shrug:

Again, I will say that if you are fair in complexion you will have an easier time to assimilate. If you are dark olive or deeper skin tones, not so much. My mother was part American Indian, and she was dark but because of the romanticizing of their history and se was 'only part', she was not as put upon as she might have been. That is not saying that she did not face any racism, she did. But on the most part the part American Indians I knew were looked at as desirable, as long as they didn't look TOO dark. :grr:

[JuniperLea]

63. There were a whole lot of white people in line at the food banks this weekend

Who would tend to disagree.

[noamnety]

70. Oh I am sure they would disagree. :)

That's because they'd be comparing their privilege to the privileges of people who are in a higher economic class and they'd know they were coming up short. We all get that.

Now what happens when they compare their privileges to someone who is in the same economic situation they are in, who also happens to be black?

[JuniperLea]

79. They are both unemployeed...

And they are living in exactly the same standard of living, driving (or not) the same car, wearing the same clothes.

I don't know where you live, but in my neighborhood, none of us are doing too well. And it has zero do to with the color of our skin. Zero. No one is afforded anything you could call a privilege. No one has more money because they are white. No one is given a job because they are white... no one has a job. And the lines at the employment offices are as inter-racial as they can be.

Like I said, I don't know where you live, but our experiences couldn't possibly be more different.

[noamnety]

89. Those white folks in the unemployment line ...

how many of them do you think have been pulled over for DWW?

White privilege doesn't guarantee you economic security. I think a lot of people don't get that - they think hey, I'm white, I'm not rich, therefore white privilege doesn't exist.

That's not demonstrating an understanding what institutional racism is.

[JuniperLea]

90. Everyone in my neighborhood gets pulled over...

I've been pulled over many a time for DWW! When you are a lone white woman in what USED to be a strictly black neighborhood, you damn betcha you get pulled over for being white. The cops think you're here looking for drugs.

You just don't get it.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

92. I've been pulled over for DWW, DWY, and DWOL

As in Driving While White, Driving While Young, and Driving While Out Late

Edit: Forgot the most important one: DWD - Driving While Democrat

[JuniperLea]

62. No problem can be solved when you mirror it either... eom

[JuniperLea]

60. Goddamn whitey always sitting on my head...

:eyes:

How is your post anything but racist?

[noamnety]

71. The piece you are missing:

Privilege is least visible to those who have the most of it. Not too hard to figure out why that is.

You can claim it's racist to acknowledge that white privilege exists. That's the premise behind colorblindness, right? If you don't see race, you don't see institutional racism. It's convenient that way.

You think it's racist to say institutional racism exists?

[JuniperLea]

76. No, you have changed your words... and hence mine

You need to read your own post again. I don't see the privilege because I've never experienced it.

White privilege is only white because most of those who hold the money are white. There are a whole lot of white people standing in line at the food bank alongside all shades of brown people who are wondering where their "privilege" is.

Classism is the new racism. I'm sure there are different perspectives in the so-called "Bible Belt." But where I live, it's a whole lot less about the color of your skin than it is the size of your bank account. Poverty knows no color around here, and when it comes to jobs, it's all about the skill set.

[noamnety]

78. "I don't see the privilege because I've never experienced it."

(laughing here)

[JuniperLea]

80. Yes, that's helpful

Clearly you don't care to attempt to enlighten anyone to your superior knowledge, but only to insult. Fine. You have no idea who I am, where I live, what my life circumstances are, you don't know shit. Yet you feel superior to the point you can laugh at me. I won't say what I want to say here.

Where do you live? I live in a condo complex in a neighborhood where I'm the minority. Most of the people here are black, and without exception, they all drive better cars than I do and have bigger TV's... they can afford to have parties and dress nicely too... well, compared to me.

Yet, all you can think to do is insult.

Whatever.

[noamnety]

93. Here's what I know

if you think your race hasn't had an impact on your life, your circumstances, you are wrong.

That's regardless of your race, gender, and economic circumstances.

As I mentioned in another post, if you haven't been pulled over for DWB, that's a privilege - but it's not one you would have ever been aware of, it would feel invisible to you. I have white students and black students in my class. Members of both groups have been pulled over for speeding. Only the members of one group have been pulled over repeatedly with the policeman never telling them what the problem was. We aren't talking "they sped but only got a warning." I mean the police pulled them over, took their ID, went back to their car to check it, delayed them just for general harassment purposes, then finally let them go - to discourage them from coming through that neighborhood. And it's been effective. Some of my former students have emailed to say they miss me but don't feel like dropping in to say hi because they don't want to deal with getting pulled over.

I would encourage you to ask your friends at the condo whether they feel race has had an impact on their life.
The way the question was posed to me, we were each given a piece of paper and asked to fill in a percent, from 0 to 100, of how much we feel race has effected our life. Please - try it with your neighbors as an experiment (with you participating as well).

[JuniperLea]

96. Reality, and the way we view it...

Are sometimes two different things.

[npk]

118. Race has nothing to do with privilege. THAT IS BULLSHIT

There are people of every race that are poor and living in poverty. I don't think they would consider that a privilege. Privilege has more to do with your families economic status that anything else. The wealthy could be considered privileged and thus their children. Stop lumping all white people into this privileged class of people.

[Zynx]

112. There are some advantages to being white, but being poor and white

from public schools in rural districts doesn't get you very far regardless of how talented you might be.

[NoodleBoy]

25. Personally, I think it should be family income and college history based

but that doesn't overcome the odd quirks that encourage young white kids to go to college and not young minority kids.

so, I vote for being glad I'm not the one who has to decide.

[DeepBlueDem]

26. If you guys want an example is theres no AA look at.

at Division 1 College Football Coaching opportunities. College football is a prime example of what would it be like if theres no AA. Not just Race based, but class based as well. The "Good Ole Boy" network is very strong.

[uponit7771]

49. +1 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! NCAA Football is the PRIME example I use ALL THE TIME & it doesn't matter if the

...person is white or black or polka dot they understand that the numbers being so skewed in the favor of what's is an injustice.

[ProSense]

29. AFFIRMATIVE ACTION FOR CONSERVATIVES....

WaPo's Ombudsman Deborah Howell (via Steve Benen}

The opinion pages have strong conservative voices; the editorial board includes centrists and conservatives; and there were editorials critical of Obama. Yet opinion was still weighted toward Obama. It's not hard to see why conservatives feel disrespected.

Are there ways to tackle this? More conservatives in newsrooms and rigorous editing would be two. The first is not easy: Editors hire not on the basis of beliefs but on talent in reporting, photography and editing, and hiring is at a standstill because of the economy. But newspapers have hired more minorities and women, so it can be done.

(Tom Rosenstiel, a former political reporter who directs the Project for Excellence in Journalism) said, "There should be more intellectual diversity among journalists. More conservatives in newsrooms will bring about better journalism."

Benen quotes Media Matters

Second, as Eric Boehlert noted, "Who's stopping conservatives from being hired in newsrooms? Honestly. If Newsbusters can document how scores of qualified College Republican grads were passed over by local newspapers to poorly paying jobs to cover local zoning commission jobs simply because the applicants were conservative, we'd love to hear about it. Because right now there's nothing stopping young conservatives from joining newsrooms and working their way up from the bottom just like everybody else in media does. They just don't want to do it."

It's amazing what conservatives will support when they get their asses handed to them.

Whine on!

[Deep13]

30. Are you asking if I believe it exists? nt

[Yukari Yakumo]

36. Absolutely not

AA is an old relic from a time women and minorities were still regarded as inferior to their white male counterparts. Today, it is an insult to them. It says no matter how much you achieved, it was done so due to the color of skin or your sex and not by the sweat of your labor.

Outside of individuals and very local businesses, no business or industry would dare risk getting accused of racism or sexism. Hence any application that includes a picture or contains information about demographic data is discarded without question. And in regards to individuals and very local businesses, not even AA could change them.

[Mass]

40. Yes, until the balance is reestablished.

As long as there is an imbalance in the population, it is not easy to reestablish the balance without using race-based affirmative action. The goal should be to establish this balance so that race based affirmative action is no more necessary.

[democrattotheend]

43. I believe income should be a bigger factor

I won't say point blank that I think race can never be a factor but I think socioeconomic status should be at least as big a factor if not bigger for college admissions. I do believe race can be a factor because after having gone to college, I recognize the value of diversity in the classroom, though I felt that some classes were hampered by the lack of socioeconomic diversity. I took an urban studies class that felt lacking since almost everyone in the class grew up in suburbs, for example.

In the workplace, I think race-based affirmative action is ok in certain cases, mainly when there is a business interest. For example, if a company wants to expand its marketing to target Latinos it makes sense to bring on someone from the Latino community to head up the effort. Although an interesting spin on that is what if there is a compelling business interest in hiring someone white? I have actually come across this in my job (we were concerned because one of our polling vendors was staffed with mostly black callers and some of the data we got back showed a discrepancy in the presidential vote between people who were interviewed by a white caller and people who were interviewed by a black caller). I don't think it would have been legal to hire more white callers specifically, but I'm not sure. I feel like I have seen some jobs, like casting notices for movies, that specify the race, which would make sense. For example, if it's a movie about race relations in the 1960's, certain characters have to be white and certain characters have to be black for the story to make sense.

[uponit7771]

50. What about situations like NCAA football? 60+% black atheletes but < 1% black choaches

[Terran]

44. I too would prefer economic-based AA

I fully agree that WMP helps even the lowliest white male do better in our society than other groups, but overall I think socioeconomic status is much more telling of real need than 'race' alone. I tend to think that quotas are not necessary as long as a given AA program ensures that a significant amount of recruitment and outreach are done to ensure a diverse pool of candidates for a given job.

I wonder if AA shouldn't be incentivised in the private sector? Tax breaks for participating companies, whose overall results would be audited to ensure that something is being accomplished. Just a thought.

[uponit7771]

46. It needs revision but overall yes, this election proves why...plenty of overt racist out there to

...discriminate against minorities.

[Yukari Yakumo]

119. And just what good does AA do against *them*?

It's useless if you try to apply it to the individual.

[Milo_Bloom]

54. No, it should be based on socio-economics, NOT race.

[closeupready]

61. No, I don't, because when two similarly qualified applicants are being considered (black/white)

it isn't fair to the white one if the black one is chosen due to his race.

But I don't get totally upset about this issue because I recognize white people have advantages over black people that make being passed over less devastating.

[ecstatic]

64. Yes, because white candidates tend to get preference

even if the black person is just as qualified or even more qualified.

Studies continue to show this is the case. When studies no longer show racial bias, then we can talk.

[noamnety]

73. I wish I could recommend just that post.

I'm surprised that people who think they are informed on this issue don't have an interest in learning those types of basic facts.

[Hippo_Tron]

69. I do think it needs to be re-examined to be more effective

Affirmative Action was created because the wealth gap between white people and black people was otherwise insurmountable. The problem is that it hasn't narrowed that wealth gap as much as we wanted to. Not that I'm saying we should get rid of it or that it doesn't help. But narrowing the gap is taking entirely too long and we need to consider all of the reasons that might be.

[Eric Condon]

72. A friend of mine summed it up perfectly

Some douche he works with was indignantly complaining, "My cousin couldn't get into Michigan law school because some got in on Affirmative Action." My friend said he just sat there thinking, "No, your cousin couldn't get into Michigan law school because he's a stupid racist, just like you."

[-..__...]

82. Maybe your friend should look up "Grutter v. Bollinger"?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grutter_v._Bollinger

Coincidently... The University of Michigan's Law School was involved in the case.

[JuniperLea]

98. I've seen it happen...

My mother finished at the top of her class in nursing school, but was passed over by six local hospitals because of her color.

It's really sad to raise a child to not see color, then have them passed over because of their color. I thought it would have changed by the time my kids were grown, sadly, it has not.

I'll now be called a racist in 3... 2... 1...

[Mass]

81. To anybody who answer NO, I recommend these two books

http://www.amazon.com/When-Affirmative-Action-White-Twentieth-Century/dp/0393052133

And particularly :

http://books.google.com/books?id=HAQBj8UohDAC&dq=Glenn+C+Loury&pg=PP1&ots=peMjgvUA96&source=an&sig=8Log4v59alY67FC6jG6_7S9_eBM&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=6&ct=result

These two books explain with numbers why non race based affirmative action programs do not help reduce the race gap.

[yardwork]

84. Yes.

[Sebastian Doyle]

85. Do you believe in "my husband used to be President so I'm qualified for any damn job I want"....

.....based affirmative action?

I mean that seems to be the topic of the day :shrug:

[MellowDem]

94. Not at all

Economic affirmative action for school? Yes. It solves the same problem much more effectively, namely that African Americans are disproportionally disadvantaged due to historical circumstances. Yet it keeps race-based policies out of it, and all the racial baggage that brings and which continues to rub raw in America.

For a job, hiring based on race does not work. They tried it back in the 80s and 90s. All that happened was that those blacks who were hired for race over qualifications were shuffled to positions of little responsibility and no real chance to move up on the corporate ladder. Affirmative action has done little to nothing in terms of improving the quality of life of African Americans overall. Just enforce laws already in place that you can't NOT hire someone because of their race, which is, ironically, exactly what affirmative action purports to do to whites and Asians. A horrible idea, morally, and practically. A good recruiting tool for racists and an impetus for more racial division though.

[JuniperLea]

97. "recruiting tool for racists and an impetus for more racial division though"

Well said.

Until we stop dividing ourselves into convenient groups, nothing will change. We need all the resorces now going into keeping the division going, to be put into education. Equal education with equal standards... from Kindergarten through grad school... this is what will change things.

You're right. Nothing has changed, and yet we keep doing the same things over and over expecting a change. Hmmm...

[Skittles]

99. funny how it's usually white men up in arms about AA

they've been the beneficiaries of race-based AA since time began

[MellowDem]

101. You're right!

Well, sort of. SOME white men were the beneficiaries, the elite land owners. Others, not so much. But you're right. It's such a great idea! White men PROVED that race-based AA is a great policy. No political ramifications or racial divisions to speak of! Why don't we have race-based policies for everything? I think we need more. Half white? Well, you get half the AA, we'll just call that A. One quarter? Hmm, I guess it's not real flexible. Ahhh well! Let's just pretend we aren't still sadly conforming our society around an illegitimate and false classification of humans that was created by slave masters to morally excuse themselves.

[Skittles]

106. are you kidding?

have you seen the makeup of congress lately? Notice there's never been a female president?

[MellowDem]

108. No, I'm not

Are you? Guess who ran the country and made up Congress for the vast majority of US history. Rich, politically connected whites. Not any whites. You are simplifying a very complicated thing here. You are painting with a very broad brush. For a long time, we didn't have Catholics in much of our politics, despite there being very many white Catholics.

In many ways, "white privilege" is too general. For example, in the South during the days of slavery, most whites in the South were poor tenant farmers. Why was that? It was because of the privileges of the rich white land-owning class. After all, having slaves do all your work ensured that other, poorer whites had little opportunities for careers of their own, much less for having any power to organize or compete in terms of labor. And forget about good pay and labor conditions. Remember all those textile factories in the South filled with privileged whites? It's why the millions of white immigrants coming into the country at the time from Europe avoided the South like the plague. There were no opportunities there for them, despite being white and privileged supposedly, and in the South no less, where their race should have gotten them the farthest according to you. Hell, most southern whites would have been better off without slavery existing. Only the slave masters would have lost out on anything.

Race is a lazy and stupid classification of humanity, based on skin color. Assigning privilege by race does not work quite so well in the real world.

[Skittles]

109. there is still massive racism and sexism in this country

white men are still getting the easiest ride

[MellowDem]

114. Yes

But not all white men are getting the easiest ride. The people getting the easiest ride by far is the rich, way more than whites, or even white men. Either way, we aren't going to solve racism and sexism with racial or gender-based affirmative action, we will only inflame it. And we will not redress inequalities with it either.

I have a feeling that gender inequality is closing up and will close up much faster than racial inequalities, and here is why. Look at the percentages of those who succeed in public education, of those who go on to college and graduate. Women are dominating in both by far. But it is a fairly recent phenomenon, with these women still only in their 20s and 30s. But we'll see, in the next 20 years, and with 20 more years of similar percentages, the gender inequality disappear (and perhaps reverse!) And why is it that women succeed so much more in academia? It's not affirmative action, that's for sure. It's a whole slew of other factors. Women are now the majority in college more often than not. Men are a minority.

Once again, we can't take such a broad theory of "white privilege" which does not apply in so many cases to form a policy of racial discrimination against white men that is somehow supposed to bring about racial and gender equity. It's economics, by far, always has been and always will be. Blacks living in the middle class have much much more privilege than whites living in poverty, whereas the difference in privilege between blacks and whites in poverty is practically non-existent and can go either way depending on circumstances. Put a poor white person in a black inner city or put a poor black person in a small, rural, poor white community. Then you may have differences in privilege, though not necessarily, and nowhere near as much as between the poor and the middle class, much less the rich.

We aren't focusing on the source of the inequity and are inflaming racial and gender division while we are at it with race and gender based affirmative action.

[uponit7771]

102. NCAA FOOTBALL = UNDENIABLE CASE FOR AFIRMATIVE ACTION

[MellowDem]

104. Erm...

Because blacks are underrepresented in one (highly unusual) profession, we should base a national policy of racial discrimination against whites and Asians across the nation and across every career? And do you know that just because blacks play football in higher numbers they will also want to go on and coach in anywhere near similar numbers? There are a lot of factors behind the NCAA football example, and race is probably the smallest, if it exists at all. No college has a problem hiring a black coach. Hell, it could be argued that college football coaching is one of the toughest jobs on the planet with the highest expectations, especially in certain conferences. It is a merit-based profession through and through. The scrutiny is like very few other professions.

The steps to right the disparity in college football that have been taken have nothing to do with AA. The Black Coaches Association is recommending more diverse search committees so that it's more likely minority candidates will at least be interviewed. They aren't promoting a policy of hiring black coaches no matter the qualifications. Here is a good article I tend to agree with on the subject:

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/79015-if-minorities-can-be-president-why-not-head-coach/page/3

Basically, black athletes do not graduate or succeed academically in near the numbers that white athletes do. This stems back all the way to public education starting from childhood. Fix that, and you'll have more black coaches. Affirmative Action based on economics for college education will also help. But really, like most problems, this one stems back to poverty, and as we all know, you can throw a ton of money at education in poverty stricken areas, and you won't get a much results. Your economics and home life is the greatest indication of how well you'll do academically, and poverty culture makes sure that very few get out of poverty, and the cycle continues. Racism is a red herring here, and a shame to be wasting time and resources on something that is not the source of the problem.

[MadMaddie]

103. Yes - I would broaden it to poverty and social class though

Martin Luther King understood this...these laws will have to stay in place until ALL Americans get a first rate education which will allow them to achieve loftier goals.

We have to go to the inner cities, the rural areas and everywhere else to educate the populations. The populations are sometimes isolated among their own races and in order for them to succeed in a multi-cultural world they must have good experiences with other Americans that don't look like them. (I don't have the answer on how to do that)

Education is the key. Eventually this will allow anyone who is seeking a job to get a fair interview.

People also have to learn what is appropriate during an interview process, what to wear, what not to wear. Understand that the first impression is the lasting impression upon an interviewer. (This is not based on race this is across the board).

Sadly, today without the laws you will find that you will have all White, all Black, all Hispanic etc businesses - I believe that this would be a detriment to America and you are not pooling the best talent for the company.

[MellowDem]

117. I agree partly...

but the main problem is poverty and the culture it breeds. Poverty is a cycle for a reason. I work for AmeriCorps at an inner-city school. The students there actually get more spent on them per capita than the kids in the suburbs. The facility is brand new and has great technology. It's not for a lack of funds that the students are not getting a good education. It is their home life. And that is what poverty does. We have to solve poverty before we can solve education.

[BlooInBloo]

105. hahaha! Good to have flypaper for all of the "reverse racism" whiners.

[Sparkly]

107. I'm amazed 39% here voted "no."

:wow:

[spooky3]

110. After many months of DU visiting, sadly, I am not.

Many "progressives" (a) have far greater biases in their views than they realize and (b) are woefully ignorant of the law regarding affirmative action - or have bought into RWer definitions as to what it is.

[MellowDem]

116. I'm not

Many progressives have finally seen where the source of the problem really lies: economics. The right wing wants nothing more than for racial and gender affirmative action to be available as use as a wedge issue and also as a way to divert attention from poverty and economic inequality.

[Sparkly]

120. You don't think economic disparity has any connection with racism? nt

[musicblind]

111. Yes I support Affirmative Action. n/t

[Gore1FL]

121. Ultimately the issue with the words "Affirmative Action" is that no one really knows the definition

If we are talking what Affirmative action really means as opposed to what it has been smeared into meaning, then clearly yes.

[Iggo]

122. Absolutely.

[Eryemil]

125. No way.

[LatteLibertine]

130. I have no problems with AA

I do think it is used as a clever wedge issue by some. I do think we should not overlook economic justice. You have a very small portion of United States citizens that hold 70% of our wealth. That small number is 10%.

http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

We need to work to undo the Corporatism that grips this nation however since wealth and power are intimately connected our chances are slim.

I try to focus on getting what justice I can for the disadvantaged and oppressed regardless of their "racial" label.

[Occam Bandage]

131. I do not believe in affirmative action of any type.

I have more experience with this, from several angles, than you might expect.

[SweetieD]

134. Why is this even up for debate????????????

I know other subjects like Gay Marraige and Union Support are not up for debate at DU. Why then is Affirmative Action up for debate?

[TheKentuckian]

135. Yes, because all else being equal its still almost always better to be white

Sure socio-economic may be the larger factor that affects more people but minorities have to go above and beyond to reach the same positions from the same starting points.

The best argument I've seen against affirmative action is that it motivates the racists and gives them a talking point to sell hate to others.