Court Upholds Mich. Affirmative Action

[transient]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=1&u=/ap/20030623/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_affirmative_action

argue here

[QBert]

Affirmative action has good and bad points.

As a minority, I can tell you of countless times I have not had the same opportunities as white people have. Personally, I don't care that much, as it's an incentive for me to be above and beyond those around me. However, I do understand that some people are not able to exceed the norm, and deserve a "fair shot."

I strongly believe that affirmative action's usefullness has died when pertaining to the Black and non-white hispanic population in the United States. The most that the original writers of AA wanted was to create a solid black middle class in America, and they have succeeded. Rising above the middle class takes work, talent, determination, and a bit of luck. You can't create an upper class via policy in this country. I also feel that this applies to East Asians and white/black/asian women.

I think affirmative action can still provide a useful role in helping native americans and some other ethnic groups, but I know not of any implementations which are in concordance to this philosophy.

[ethEreal]

I fully agree with Qbert. As a middle class Hispanic, I haven't gone through the hardships someone growing up in the ghetto has. My parents came from their respective countries, attended college, and work hard to maintain a decent standard of living. This isn't to say I haven't fallen victim to racism, which still exists, regardless of what some may say.

Affirmative action should be applied on a need basis, not on a blind basis, to all people. Not all blacks and hispanics are poor, and not all whites have money.

[Kermit]

" The most that the original writers of AA wanted was to create a solid black middle class in America, and they have succeeded."

The thinking that government policy is necessary to make a black middle class is odd. There was a significant black middle class in America up through the 1950s. This middle class did not have to have government mandates to be created. It was created through the hard work of a lot of people. Since the 1960s, the black middle class declined significantly. I don't know the reasons for the decline of the black middle class starting in the 1960s (liberalism maybe, but that's my own bias showing). However, I do not think that government policy is necessary to "make a black middle class."

One weakness of my opinion is that there is the common thrown stone about "inherent racism" in society preventing blacks, and other minorities, from achieving. But, surely, everyone can agree that racism back in the first half the the 20th century was much worse than any racism today. Given that, and the fact that the black middle class thrived during that period, how can we honestly argue that "racism today" prevents blacks from achieving? I don't think we can.

Lastly, I realize that discussing the issue of affirmative action can bring out lots of emotion. I would ask people to think on these two adages (paraphrased):

1) "The ends justify the means"

2) "Two wrongs don't make a right"


I personally find that these two adages are highly relevant when thinking about or discussing this topic. I find that people who support Affirmative Action are more likely to agree with #1 and disagree with #2. Doesn't this seem like a weak justification used to support a highly questionable process? (I'm sure Cain has a great word to describe this type of reasoning). Supporting #1 and disagreeing with #2 seems to me to be the converse to the NIMBY syndrome (Not in My Back Yard). By this I mean, "Affirmative action is bad unless it supports my particular group." After all, not everyone can get Affirmative Action because then it would become meaningless.

Anyway, some thoughts for people to chew on.

Kermit

p.s. edited to remove irrelevant comments

[QBert]

Since we're talking about black middle class doing worse now than in the 60s...

Average household income for the 2nd,3rd and 4th quintiles for blacks were (in 2001 dollars)
1967=20,004
2001=33,443

For whites, it was
1967=31,240
2001=46,955

As a percentage of total population income averages for the same fields, the black middle class in 1967 earned 62.3% of the average of what the American middle class earned.
In 2001, the black middle class earned 74.3% of what the average of American middle class.

So in essense, the "black middle class" is much more established now than it was 30 years ago.

This would tend to undermine your theory that blacks "thrived" at the turn of the century. You're telling me that 1 generation removed from slavery, blacks were afforded the opportunity to suceed, and as a whole, 50-60% of the black population enjoyed the same privledges that whites did?
I'm not sure I've ever heard anyone outside of David Duke say something like that.

I can speak from first hand experince how being a minority provides roadblocks to suceeding in the corporate world.

[Kermit]

"ou're telling me that 1 generation removed from slavery, blacks were afforded the opportunity to suceed, and as a whole, 50-60% of the black population enjoyed the same privledges that whites did?"


I resent your comment. Of course I do not believe the black population enjoyed the same privileges or opportunity. I didn't even talk about this in my post. But in the FACE of all that worked against the black populace, there was a thriving black middle class. I addressed FISCAL status, and not in 1967 either. Prior to the 60's , there was a black middle class that was more established. For some reason it diminished starting in the 60's , I don't know why. However, I find it strange that the decline was associated with the era of "peace love and understanding". Go figure.

Are you saying that blacks have ALWAYS failed? Have never succeeded? I disagree and find that sentiment to be self destructive.

I will say that blacks have faced discrimination (seems obvious to me). But blacks have also achieved many great things, and will continue to do so. Even WITHOUT government mandates.

It seems to me that a lot of people don't know history. I don't have the time to educate people on history. However, I have read several commentaries by two economists that talk about the black middle class prior to the 1960's in America. Do google searches on Thomas Sowell and Walter Williams. I found their comments and information on the black middle class to be quite informative and I learned a lot from them.


Kermit

[SUICIDAL]

Affirmative Action is a good idea, since the Minorities didn't have the chance to have the same educational foundation as the Caucasians, than lets give them a chance to prove they can do the same job. But now, after the 1970s, even with Racism still happening, its lost its usefullness. Now, i see more cases using it as a way to get money from Companies and the Government. Affrimative action goes hand in hand with racism by companies and empolyers, which is very minute, so shouldn't Affrimative Action also be minimized.

Discrimination in General is very one sided, so much so it is now the Whites that are being discriminated agianst. Just look at a few Government offices and you will see African americans not doing what they are being paid to do, and the managers and bosses afriad to fire or censure them for fear of being accused of discrimination. I do not mean that all African Americans are "slackers" or "lasy bums", in fact i believe the vast majority are hard working indivduals, but that small minority does exist.

[Moniker]

Affirmative action in schools is pretty much defunct as it stands, but there are a few things they do to bolster minority attendance such as offer scholarships and grants to get more of them to apply to the school.

So instead of having to choose less qualified minorities over more qualified whites in some cases, they simply just have a larger minorities that are more qualified than whites.

Discrimination in General is very one sided, so much so it is now the Whites that are being discriminated agianst. There's a difference between discriminating against a race and giving preference to another because they -don't- want to discriminate. If you moved to China and they wouldn't hire you because you're white, that's discrimination. If a Chinese-American got a job over you because they wanted more asians to work there, that's giving preference. Not saying it's fair, but there's definitely a difference.

Just look at a few Government offices and you will see African americans not doing what they are being paid to do, and the managers and bosses afriad to fire or censure them for fear of being accused of discrimination. To be fair, you have to go through a very strict process to fire anyone working in civil service, regardless of race or gender. I think they get to appeal the decisions among other things.

Oh and as for the black middle class thriving in the 60s... I guess my family and all the other families I know must've missed out on that. Maybe it was just like that in the North.

[Rupt]

"All men are created equal." Is that so hard to follow? To start off, to me there are black people and there are niggers, I totally agree with Chris Rock. My parents came from the south and were not very well off with money but they worked hard and today they are very successful. I have seen many black families in a town nearby which is mainly black and I'll tell you they are more well off than my parents were when they were growing up. But when you see their kids they are complete niggers. Here I am looking at their parents who are probably as successful as mine and their kids look like they are about o stab me. Why do these kids deserve better chances at a job than me because they are lazy scum? By basing affirmative action on color today is basically being racist. You are saying minorities are below whites and need a better chance to become successful. What we need is a system that gives less fortunate kids a better chance at getting jobs/into college without using race at all. I know you all hate rednecks, but since they are white they don't deserve a good chance right?

[Kermit]

"Oh and as for the black middle class thriving in the 60s... I guess my family and all the other families I know must've missed out on that. Maybe it was just like that in the North."

50's people, 50's.

I didn't say the 60's , Qbert did.

But, yes, as I understand it, it was mainly in the urban areas, such as chicago where the black middle class was doing well. That would preclude a lot of the south. Anyway, if you are interested in this go look up Thomas Sowell and Walter Williams and see what they have written.

Kermit

[QBert]

Well, you said "Given that, and the fact that the black middle class thrived during that period," the period being the turn of the centry (i'm assuming you meant 1899-1900, as opposed to the more recent centry turn). I can see how individuals thrived, but I have a hard time believing that the entire black middle class thrived, 1.5 generations removed from slavery.

I only quoted 1967 statistics b/c that was the 1st year that actual race/income statistics were kept. I'd be interested to know what sources those economists cited in their research, and how they substantiated it.

I agree that many blacks will suceeed. However, I think that many people, no matter what race or gender will suceed. The people that I think AA tries to address are those who are bound to stay in the doldrums of mediocrity, and suffer more significantly from discrimination than the ones who would suceed anyways.

[QBert]

I would disagree with you on just about everything.

AA is to make up for low education by minorities-We rarely hear about the asian immigrants who have a low educational foundation.

Since racism is still around, AA is no longer useful- That implies that AA was implemented to address racism, which it is not. AA was to help those who suffer from racism to feel less of an effect

Racism in companies is minute- I'm not sure I agree with that. When you look at mean salaries for blacks versus whites, there is a clear difference.

Discrimination, by definition, is one sided. AA never made claims that it wasn't discriminatory, but that it was a necessary policy in order to give those who are otherwise discriminated against, "a fighting chance."

A good boss or manager will never fire someone without documentation a mile long on the employee's failure, regardless of race. Not having the documentation is what opens the door for the lawsuits, not the race itself.

However, I do agree with you that there are *some* lazy bums out there, but that is regardless of race to me.

[QBert]

Originally posted by Rupt
"All men are created equal." Is that so hard to follow? To start off, to me there are black people and there are niggers, I totally agree with Chris Rock. My parents came from the south and were not very well off with money but they worked hard and today they are very successful. I have seen many black families in a town nearby which is mainly black and I'll tell you they are more well off than my parents were when they were growing up. But when you see their kids they are complete niggers. Here I am looking at their parents who are probably as successful as mine and their kids look like they are about o stab me. Why do these kids deserve better chances at a job than me because they are lazy scum? By basing affirmative action on color today is basically being racist. You are saying minorities are below whites and need a better chance to become successful. What we need is a system that gives less fortunate kids a better chance at getting jobs/into college without using race at all. I know you all hate rednecks, but since they are white they don't deserve a good chance right?

As long as people feel like they can freely use the term "nigger" and justify it's use, there is more racism than there should be.

[PurpleHaze]

He's not using it as a blanket term describing black people, but rather a specific category of lower than dirt, welfare carol singing, neighbour robbing, shooting at the movie screen type of black person that I can safely say everyone (except these people themselves), regardless of race, dislike.

He's just using Chris Rock's words to get his point across.

It's one I wholeheartedly agree with. If a black person works hard at what they do, be it school or work, I don't feel they need that leg up. However if they're less qualified than me, be it due to laziness or simple lack of experience/education/ability, but get the position over me because their great great grand daddy was born in Africa you better believe I'm gonna raise a little bit of hell.

I do not believe race should be any factor in determining whether or not a person is granted something over another. It should be based solely on merits and achievements.

Besides don't you want the best qualified people doing the jobs they're best at regardless of race?

[VeeKaChu]

Originally posted by QBert

A good boss or manager will never fire someone without documentation a mile long on the employee's failure, regardless of race. Not having the documentation is what opens the door for the lawsuits, not the race itself.

I haven't read the whole thread, and I agree that AA is a double-edged can o' worms, some of which are gummi and some of which are organic and un-chewable.

But as for Qbert's statement there, I'm a living refutation of that notion. Race *is* a factor in the ability of a wronged worker to seek redress...

I worked for 11 years in an auto parts warehouse, won't mention any names but their initials were Mercedes-Benz. The managers were complete assholes, the atmosphere was 100% "plantation" (i.e., we were reminded constantly that there were no other jobs out there, so we should just shut up, work as hard as possible and put up with their abuses all day, everyday...).

I was vocal in my disdain for management, I even attempted to rat out their counter-productive policies to the Home Office. In short order I was targeted for termination.

They took a year to do it. They documented everything, and the official reason for my release was 'non-performance'. See, they had these quotas for production (e.g. we had to 'pick' 60 lines of parts an hour). In the 11 years I was there, I met this quota once. Additionally, there were 5-6 other guys who NEVER met this quota, including in the year I was terminated. So if that isn't discrimination, I don't know what is...

So in the ultimate act of covering their asses, they flew the head of Human Resources into Illinois from New Jersey, just to fire li'l old me. They knew that they were not applying this performance quota fairly across the board, as did I. I think they even knew there was a slight risk of it coming back to haunt them, as they gave me a huge severance "go-away" package, which hardly makes sense considering they were FIRING my ass.

So I snooped around to some labor lawyers, and explained my situation.

"Are you female?" No.
"Are you a minority?" No.
"Were you fired because of age?" No.
"Were you fired because of religion?" No.
"Goodbye."

I do believe with just a bit more effort on my part I could've found a sheister who'd take up the case on the discrimination angle, if only in the hopes of getting them to dish some more cash to avoid a costly suit (a common practice). Instead, I just went on to a career in IT, and a much happier and much more lucrative life.

And I'm also not gonna whine about "reverse discrimination" or the blatant burden of being a white man in America today. But there it is- so to say that race has nothing to do with one's ability to seek redress for unfair labor practices is simply incorrect.

[crz]

the policy is self defeating plain and simple. if you want to even anything up, it needs to be based on socio-economic status so you dont perpetuate racism. if someone got in instead of me and i had better scores etc, i would be suspicious of anyone of that race that got in. if anything i think it would perpetuate suspicion of that race, because now you have to wonder how many of that race did better than you. its a stupid policy and merely exacerbates the situation rather than serving its purpose. if you want the less fortunate to have a better chance, make it need based, not race based.

Affirmative action programs should not go on forever, O'Connor wrote. "We expect that 25 years from now, the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary." I'm sure many people said that 25 years ago. But like any handout, it will continue to get milked by the people who dont need it or deserve it, while the people who do need it will never be able to fully reap the benefits because of those who are lazy/greedy/etc, and it will never die or go away. Chances are, someone will say that again in 25 years. Consider me a pessimist, but I've had more than my fair share of issues with universities and minorites in the past year.

[SUICIDAL]

Originally posted by xero
I'm sure many people said that 25 years ago. But like any handout, it will continue to get milked by the people who dont need it or deserve it, while the people who do need it will never be able to fully reap the benefits because of those who are lazy/greedy/etc, and it will never die or go away. Chances are, someone will say that again in 25 years. Consider me a pessimist, but I've had more than my fair share of issues with universities and minorites in the past year.
I agree.

[LuTze]

Qbert,
"As a minority, I can tell you of countless times I have not had the same opportunities as white people have."

I am just interested in some specifics. I have never seen someone denied opertunities, unless they weren't a minority.

I'm not attacking you or anything, i'm just curious.

[othell]

Just an editorial I found...

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/002/840flbgx.asp

[Moniker]

Well, here's one example:

http://coh.arizona.edu/aas/AFAS_Website/cola.htm

Edit: found another

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20030617/ap_on_re_us/abercrombie_lawsuit_6

[QBert]

Originally posted by LuTze
Qbert,
"As a minority, I can tell you of countless times I have not had the same opportunities as white people have."

I am just interested in some specifics. I have never seen someone denied opertunities, unless they weren't a minority.

I'm not attacking you or anything, i'm just curious.

hard to say this w/o going into too much detail... but instances such as:

lost clients b/c they didn't like asian people
lost out on a contract despite being lowest bidder b/c they felt that minorities were overrepresented by contractors.
when I was working in economic development, my program wasn't given full cooperation w/ the local community center b/c asians can't be trusted as much

yadda yadda yadda. it's not a sob story, it's life and I got over it. The point is, there are people who can not take things like this in stride. :-(

[QBert]

Originally posted by Magus
this whole fucking program has turned into just race based quotas.

it had nothing to do with his application not being clearly better than a minority's application?

I have seen some really stupid results of quotas, and admissions into educational programs doesn't qualify up there.

AFAIK, all these universities use these quotas to separate 2 closely qualified candidates. They're not going to replace someone who has a significantly stronger application just because of race.

[LuTze]

wow qbert i've never really seen discrimination along those lines.
but that shit sucks, and you are obviously farther out into the real world then I am.

Personally what i have seen though is:
There are no "White male only" scholorships/loans, internships, research assistant openings...

How can this discrimination be justified?

[NVader]

I don't know if it was mentioned yet, but the supreme court said that the University of Michigan's admission policy was too radical and unbalanced, hence they didn't uphold it.

It seems like mostly conservatives who complain about affirmative action, while at the same time asking for deregulation and government non-involvement with business. Diversity/ minority quotas set by private companies should fall under the umbrella of non-involvement, no?

[LuTze]

yeah but those companies have those quotas because of gov't regulations/tax breaks.

Companies following affirmitive action arn't being altruistic, the gov't gives them props for doing it and/or penalizes them for not doing it. So yeah opposing affirmative action would be under gov't non-involvement

[Moniker]

Originally posted by LuTze
wow qbert i've never really seen discrimination along those lines.
but that shit sucks, and you are obviously farther out into the real world then I am.

Personally what i have seen though is:
There are no "White male only" scholorships/loans, internships, research assistant openings...

How can this discrimination be justified? Actually..

1) There -are- scholarships awarded that are restricted to predominately white ethnic backgrounds.

2) If there were organizations founded to start them, then there would be money available strictly for white males.

3) The idea of quotas is to boost representation in an area that's underrepresented. Hence, if white males were underrepresented at a certain college (Tennessee State University comes to mind), or in a certain intern position, or in a certain research assistant position, then there will be government pressure to fix that.

Companies following affirmitive action arn't being altruistic, the gov't gives them props for doing it and/or penalizes them for not doing it. That's a pretty sweeping statement to make for EVERY single business that has self-imposed AA and quotas.

Not that I don't have complete faith in your words, but could you at least post a link or refer to a certain law to back that up?

[othell]

Originally posted by Moniker
Actually..

1) There -are- scholarships awarded that are restricted to predominately white ethnic backgrounds.

But being white is not a requirement... So the only other possibility is that this may highlight other possible problems that are not the result of nor have anything to do with the scholarship directly.

So the point is moot.

2) If there were organizations founded to start them, then there would be money available strictly for white males.

Highly unlikely in today's society. Someone would sue for discrimination or something. Everytime there is something labeled as "White Only" then people start complaining about racism and discrimination.

Unless I actually had alot of money... I do not forsee this happening anytime soon...

3) The idea of quotas is to boost representation in an area that's underrepresented. Hence, if white males were underrepresented at a certain college (Tennessee State University comes to mind), or in a certain intern position, or in a certain research assistant position, then there will be government pressure to fix that.

Ahhh... But quotas are illegal now are they not?

Lets not do anything illegal.

[SUICIDAL]

Just because its illegal doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

Since when has the Government been there to stop quotas. I would like to know, as i have no recollection of such an event.

[Freak]

I just wrote a research paper on the subject of AA actually.

Essentially, AA started not even as a program, but a serious of executive statements, most noteably by LBJ and Kennedy, designed to ensure that minorities were given fair OPPORTUNITY in the hiring/acceptance process of work and education, respectively. Eventually that became more solidified with the government demanding that corporations show them concrete ways in which they accomplish this. The idea was for the program to be reactionary on the part of the government, that they would be very senesitive to case and complaints broguht against employers and schools for unfair practices. Around 1974, they created the first AA policy which based success on the results of hiring, as in the percentage of workers that are minorities.

I think affirmative action as it has worked over the past two decades is pretty stupid. But we're starting tommove backward from the late 70's/80's period where it was very much based on results. First there was the removal of quotas. Now this. Th important thing to remember about this case is that the court didn't uphold anything really. They said the Law School can consider race, but it cannot be a determining factor like it is now. They then struck down the undergraduate policy of assigning points to minorities (it counted more to be black than it did to get a 1600)

Just some things to consider.

The government has been there to stop the use of quotes when the Supreme Court made them illegal.

[Moniker]

But being white is not a requirement... So the only other possibility is that this may highlight other possible problems that are not the result of nor have anything to do with the scholarship directly. So, you would rather have a scholarship say "white only" as opposed to "Irish American only", or "Italian American only". Well in that case, yes there ARE grants that benefit only white students and nobody else. Plus, I fail to see how the point is moot -- it's white people getting scholarships based on their race. In fact, you would be quite hard-pressed to name some non-white people who receive some of these scholarships. But you're welcome to try since the point is moot, and all.

Highly unlikely in today's society. Someone would sue for discrimination or something. Everytime there is something labeled as "White Only" then people start complaining about racism and discrimination. Yeah, well if they did start it, cows would fly out of my ass and rain down on us, slaughtering everyone without mercy. Assumptions are fun, aren't they? Besides, bad public opinion or not, they have the right to. Just because they're scared of what people might say is no excuse to not have any.

[othell]

Originally posted by Moniker
So, you would rather have a scholarship say "white only" as opposed to "Irish American only", or "Italian American only". Well in that case, yes there ARE grants that benefit only white students and nobody else. Plus, I fail to see how the point is moot -- it's white people getting scholarships based on their race. In fact, you would be quite hard-pressed to name some non-white people who receive some of these scholarships. But you're welcome to try since the point is moot, and all.

Although most Italians and Irish are white... Those scholarships should not be deemed racist in any way. The requirements are based on culture not skin color.

Many people, such as myself, cannot identify with any culture (Irish, Italian, African-American, etc...) other than our American culture. As such we're out of luck aren't we? I mean... There are no "White Only" scholarships available... Where as there are Black... errrrr... excuse me... "African-American" only scholarships available.

Yeah, well if they did start it, cows would fly out of my ass and rain down on us, slaughtering everyone without mercy. Assumptions are fun, aren't they? Besides, bad public opinion or not, they have the right to. Just because they're scared of what people might say is no excuse to not have any.

The difference here is that your assumption is pure fantasy... where as my assumption is based on observational evidence and historical fact. One is sarcastic and rediculously stupid while the other is serious.

So it would be interesting to see "Causcasian Only" scholarships as there are quite a few middle class, not top of the pile or poor enough white americans who are out of luck because the majority of scholarships go to those extremely low on the financial totem pole, extremely high on the academic/athletic totem pole, or of some minority. As if college is cheap and the average middle class american can afford it without going into debt... As if going into debt is an "OK" thing to do.

[Moniker]

Well, who are you putting the blame on then?

Are you mad that blacks and hispanics establish organizations and write grants to serve the interests of their own ethnicities?

If this was a REAL issue among people, then there would be much more pressure on the government to supplement black and hispanic scholarships with caucasian scholarships and grants. After all, whites ARE the majority in this country and obviously have the power to push this along.

But you say that whites can't do it because it'll be called discrimination. Could you at least point to a court case that determined that majority scholarships were discriminatory? If so, it would obviously be flawed and able to be contested and reversed.

So, unless you can show me a REAL roadblock on the path to getting something like that established, I would just chalk it up to inaction.

[othell]

Originally posted by Moniker
Well, who are you putting the blame on then?

Are you mad that blacks and hispanics establish organizations and write grants to serve the interests of their own ethnicities?

If this was a REAL issue among people, then there would be much more pressure on the government to supplement black and hispanic scholarships with caucasian scholarships and grants. After all, whites ARE the majority in this country and obviously have the power to push this along.

But you say that whites can't do it because it'll be called discrimination. Could you at least point to a court case that determined that majority scholarships were discriminatory? If so, it would obviously be flawed and able to be contested and reversed.

So, unless you can show me a REAL roadblock on the path to getting something like that established, I would just chalk it up to inaction.

I'm not blaming anyone... That's your own assumption.

Am I mad that blacks and hispanics have organizations protecting their interests? No... Not at all.

The problem is that social pressure and expectations lead everyone to claim that whites do not need such protection because they are the majority... Which brings up my whole problem with lumping all whites together seeing as they are made up of many different cultures. Which is a very big difference between the races. This is why you see Italian or Irish interest groups. You do not see White interest groups.

Social pressure is a very real and powerful force. You see black interest groups demanding more blacks in the upper echelons of corporations... Demanding that blacks be put there because they are black... Not even thinking about merit. Should there be blacks in the uppper echelons of corporations? That's a loaded question... And one without any real answer. Unfortunately the corporate world, at least the upper echelons of it, hardly ever follows merit. So it really doesn't matter either way as I would be pleased far less than those black interest groups.

You will not find anything labeled as white only in this country... Save for organizations like the KKK or "skinheads"... Which are totally dispicable.

Do I consider the majority of scholarships to be discriminatory? Not really. I just do not think that this society could handle scholarships aimed for white middle class americans. I can just imagine the hoopla such an organization would create. If you do not think such an organization would face an extremely hard time publicly you're more naive than you appear.

It's like the big hoopla that has been made about that golf club down in Atlanta (?)... The one that is for men only. Women's groups are claiming discrimination for odd reason and are sueing/demanding that things be changed within the private organization.

So once again the problem occurs because you of the big lump you like to call whites... Something that is made up of numerous cultural organizations with their own interests in mind and none concerned with just the average American Joe.

[LuTze]

Originally posted by Moniker


That's a pretty sweeping statement to make for EVERY single business that has self-imposed AA and quotas.

Not that I don't have complete faith in your words, but could you at least post a link or refer to a certain law to back that up?

http://www.dol.gov/esa/regs/compliance/ofccp/aa.htm#content

that outlines that any compay getting money from the gov't needs to follow affirmative action policies.

There is also some side links about other awards companies can recieve for filling their quotas correctly.

[Moniker]

So, the reason behind not having an interest group to look after the rights of the white middle class is "social pressure". Oh come on.

The Civil Rights act had social pressure. I would qualify firehoses and attack dogs as 'pressure'. Civil rights leaders got shot because of social pressure. Yet they obviously wanted more opportunities for their respective races. Luckily I happen to be in a generation that can benefit directly from others doing it for me.

Likewise, if you want something bad enough in this country, you have to fight for it whether it makes you unpopular or not. Obviously not very many people think that scholarships and political groups geared towards benefiting whites (as opposed to blacks or hispanics) isn't something worth fighting for. Funny thing is, it wouldn't be nearly as hard as it was in the 60s, especially since whites are the majority in this country.

So, to answer the initial question "how can this discrimination be justified?", it's because whites themselves allow it.

P.S.

If you do not think such an organization would face an extremely hard time publicly you're more naive than you appear. I appear naive? That's news to me.

i was talking to my girlfriends mother who is 100% oneida indian, and told her about my plans for college. after hearing my whole story, even she told me that white people get fucked. to hear that from someone who gets more benefits than almost anybody else, was somewhat depressing. she said, and i quote "whites, the new minority." :(

[othell]

There you go again....

"Whites are the majority." "Whites are the majority!"

Ok... Now remove all those of Irish, Italian, British, Scotish, French, German, etc... ancestry. Ok... Done? Good. Now tell me how much of a majority the remaining whites are.

Can you even tell me whites are as significant of a majority after doing that? Can you even claim that that group of whites has enough scholarships for its size?

I believe that the answer to both questions is a resounding no.

Now the question about you being naive was not stated as fact (go re-read if you don't believe me)... It could've been a compliment depending on how you responded to the statement; but since you apparently believe that any organization that targeted only whites would not have an extremely hard time publicly then you most definately are naive...

[Moniker]

Okay, maybe you didn't catch it the first time around so I'll repeat it again, in big capital letters.

but since you apparently believe that any organization that targeted only whites would not have an extremely hard time publicly then you most definately are naive... EXTREMELY HARD TIME, COMPARED TO THE 60's CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENTS. I never said it wouldn't be hard, but it would be nowhere near as hard.

Here's the second part, in big capital letters.

IT WOULD NOT BE AS HARD BECAUSE WHITES ARE THE MAJORITY IN THIS COUNTRY, AND HENCE, HAVE MORE POWER WITHIN THE GOVERNMENT TO PASS LEGISLATION BENEFITING WHITE PEOPLE.

So anyway let me reiterate. You say organizations can't be formed to benefit white people, because they're afraid of society might think, and that somehow is a reason to not do it. The law would even be on the side of these organizations, so there's not even an arugment there. If you, and others, care more about what people think, than about starting scholarships, or writing grants to make it fair, I suppose you have no room to complain then.

As for that stuff about majority -- are you kidding? So you're telling me the majority of this country isn't white? I have no idea what you're even trying to prove with that little example.

[othell]

Originally posted by Moniker
Okay, maybe you didn't catch it the first time around so I'll repeat it again, in big capital letters.

EXTREMELY HARD TIME, COMPARED TO THE 60's CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENTS. I never said it wouldn't be hard, but it would be nowhere near as hard.

Here's the second part, in big capital letters.

IT WOULD NOT BE AS HARD BECAUSE WHITES ARE THE MAJORITY IN THIS COUNTRY, AND HENCE, HAVE MORE POWER WITHIN THE GOVERNMENT TO PASS LEGISLATION BENEFITING WHITE PEOPLE

So anyway let me reiterate. You say organizations can't be formed to benefit white people, because they're afraid of society might think, and that somehow is a reason to not do it. The law would even be on the side of these organizations, so there's not even an arugment there. If you, and others, care more about what people think, than about starting scholarships, or writing grants to make it fair, I suppose you have no room to complain then..

Man... Must be good to have a simplistic approach to such things. Keep it up. I'm sure it'll serve you well.

As for that stuff about majority -- are you kidding? So you're telling me the majority of this country isn't white? I have no idea what you're even trying to prove with that little example.

Seems you missed the point here as well.

Here's an exerpt from the 2000 CensusANCESTRY (single or multiple)
Total population. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 281,421,906------------------100.0
Total ancestries reported . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 287,304,886------------------ 102.1
Arab . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,202,871------------ 0.4
Czech1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,703,930--------------0.6
Danish . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,430,897--------------0.5
Dutch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,542,494-------------- 1.6
English. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24,515,138---------------8.7
French (except Basque)1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8,325,509------------------- 3.0
French Canadian1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,435,098------------------0.9
German . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42,885,162------------15.2
Greek. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,153,307---------------0.4
Hungarian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,398,724------------------0.5
Irish1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30,594,130--------------10.9
Italian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15,723,555-------------- 5.6
Lithuanian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 659,992----------------------0.2
Norwegian. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,477,725--------------------1.6
Polish . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8,977,444------------------3.2
Portuguese . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,177,112--------------------0.4
Russian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,652,214------------------0.9
Scotch-Irish. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,319,232------------------ 1.5
Scottish . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,890,581------------------ 1.7
Slovak . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 797,764----------------------0.3
Subsaharan African. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,781,877-------------------- 0.6
Swedish. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,998,310------------------ 1.4
Swiss . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 911,502-------------------- 0.3
Ukrainian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 892,922-------------------- 0.3
United States or American. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20,625,093--------------------7.3
Welsh. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,753,794------------------0.6
West Indian (excluding Hispanic groups) . . . . . . . . 1,869,504------------------------ 0.7
Other ancestries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91,609,005---------------- 32.6


The last number on each row is percent....

Now tell me who's white. Tell me who the majority is. Tell me how "white's" (such a generalized term that means very little) being the majority matters when looking at culture and ancestry.

Again... It's all bullshit... But anytime anything is done for "Whites Only" accusations of racism and discrimination follow... as do law suits. Oh... So the law would be on my side? The law is not blind... So with today's society's focus on "racism" there's no telling what would happen.

This whole whites majority stuff is bullshit. It means nothing when culture comes into play. So drop it... It's really unimportant.

[Moniker]

What the hell are you even trying to argue anyway?

This whole whites majority stuff is bullshit. It means nothing when culture comes into play. So drop it... It's really unimportant. Drop it? You're the one who brought it up in the first place. I said whites are the majority in the context of something else and you decided that was the main issue at hand. This kind of boggles me because it has little to do with the discussion at hand in the first place -- perhaps you just ran out of things to contest and need to start nitpicking.

Oh, and by the way, answer this for me, and only this: Are white people the majority in this country's population?

Go ahead, don't be afraid.

Man... Must be good to have a simplistic approach to such things. Keep it up. I'm sure it'll serve you well. It's sad when you can't even think of a response. You may think it's simplistic but it's still true, unless you speak up to someone in charge, you have no reason to complain about "reverse discrimination". But I'll just have to assume your thinly veiled attempt at discrediting my post is just a sign that you no longer have an argument.

[othell]

No... You continue to claim that since whites are the majority then it should be easy for what I want to occur... Which is utter nonsense.

Not only am I claiming that accusations of racism and discrimination would abound (and not be cheap to defend), but I am questioning this whole white majority bit and its importance.

Yes... Those with the skin color classified as white are a majority... But that means little when looking at the culture of the individuals. Whites are not thought of to vote historically for democrats or republicans (where as blacks are thought to historically vote democrat)... Why is that? Because they are made up so many cultures that skin color does not define them but rather their culture.

Whenever someone talks about the rights of whites this whole majority issue is thrown in there (this time by you). This whole majority issue means jack shit, and until you realize that your views about how everything works is quite simplistic.

My argument has remained the same... The average middle class american white gets the shaft when it comes to such things as scholarships and grants and whatever else is needed to get to college. You're the one that tries to make everything confusing with this whole whites majority stuff... Or the the law is on your side... Or the we fought for our rights why can't you? Three things that not only try to simplify the issue but almost discredit it.

So continue to ignore the facts like you always do... Or better yet say they don't mean anything even after you ask for them. That's always a good way to go....

[Moniker]

Yes... Those with the skin color classified as white are a majority... But that means little when looking at the culture of the individuals. Whites are not thought of to vote historically for democrats or republicans (where as blacks are thought to historically vote democrat)... Why is that? Because they are made up so many cultures that skin color does not define them but rather their culture. Nobody here is even talking about cultures, I don't know why you are. In the political environment in America with regard to race, you're either white, black, hispanic, asian, native american, or "other". Don't sit there and try to tell me otherwise because anyone with common sense sees this, yet you need to dress it up into politically correct bullshit to somehow twist the facts and portray whites as the minority (which is obviously untrue).

How many times do I have to pound into your skull the fact that if there was a court case of a white person trying to establish a scholarship for middle income whites, it would meet less resistance, seeing how the people in charge of the country are white, and would vote favorably?

Like I said, if you think the cops will unleash attack dogs and spray firehoses on people lobbying for a middle income white scholarship or grant, you must have something seriously wrong with you.

The average middle class american white gets the shaft when it comes to such things as scholarships and grants and whatever else is needed to get to college. Nobody is even arguing this. What I'm trying to say is that it's your own damn fault. And yet you need to sit and bitch about it because nobody will do it for you.

Sorry, bud, that's not simplistic. That's the reality of the situation.

Or better yet say they don't mean anything even after you ask for them. Are you referring to that bit about those numbers being statistically insignificant? Do you even know what statistical signfigance IS and how it's used with data? Perhaps you need to brush up on a statistics lesson before you make sweeping claims like one races passes another in learning.

Anyhow, I'm done with this post. That is, unless someone posts something worth conversing about.

EDIT: Less resistance compared to what other races went through.

[othell]

Originally posted by Moniker
Nobody here is even talking about cultures, I don't know why you are. In the political environment in America with regard to race, you're either white, black, hispanic, asian, native american, or "other". Don't sit there and try to tell me otherwise because anyone with common sense sees this, yet you need to dress it up into politically correct bullshit to somehow twist the facts and portray whites as the minority (which is obviously untrue).

There you go again! Totally missing the entire point. You continue to subscribe to the idiotic notion that whites all have the same political beliefs. That we all vote along the same lines. That because we share the same skin color that that politically means something.

Well it does not. Most individuals' political leanings have more to do with their culture and upbrining than their skin color.

That is why this whole "You're white. You're the majority." lines are utter bullshit.

I have never once said that white's are not a majority. I have questioned how much of a majority the average white Americans are when you remove those that associate with their cultural ancestry (e.g. the Irish, the Italians, the Germans, etc...). What is the "statistical relevance"? Relevant facts that you apparently cannot grasp for some reason that escapes me.

So until you can understand that there are far more important things that determine who people are and what their motives are and what they deserve than race you most assuredly are naive and simplistic.

You continue to ask for court cases. This is not about any judicial setting. It is about the court of public opinion and public relations. Which is yet something else you do not seem to grasp. There is no movement for such things because it is consistently rammed into our heads that whites are the majority... but have there never been questions about the groups that make up the caucasion race?

Maybe skin color is all you can focus on... I don't know. It sure seems that skin color is what the majority of people like to focus on. As such... I, being in the majority because of my skin color, am given the shaft when it comes to scholarships. I was not in the top 5 of my highschool... I was not lucky enough to have parents who can pay for my way to go to college without going into debt (and my brothers' ways as well)... As such I get the shaft because my family is not considered poor.