That much seems apparent from the dozens of responses to my recent column about a hospital in Abington, Pa., where a white man asked that no black doctors or nurses be allowed to assist in the delivery of his child. The hospital agreed, a decision I lambasted.
I love the way this man writes. Just thought I'd share.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Lol. The problem that many people have with affirmative action, is that it gets in the way of their preferential treatment.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Both articles were great! Thanks for the links, Kayla. Posted by Sweet William (Member # 5212) on :
White men are the biggest beneficiaries of affirmative action this country has ever seen.
I had never thought of that, but it is probably true. Everywhere you go, there are people who have a certain job or position because they are related to someone, or know someone powerful.
Competence and incompetence come in every color.
Here's a question I have: We all get to choose our doctors. Since nurses have a whole lot more to do with patient care than doctors, why isn't this particular racist patient allowed to make some rules about his own care, even if they are irrelevant?
Heaven knows some people choose doctors based upon equally unimportant criteria.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
There is a big difference between choosing a doctor (large pool of possibilities (well, depending on your insurance) and relaxed time period) and saying I won't have such and such kind of doctor/nurse (small pool of possibilities, short, possibly urgent time period).
I chose my ob/gyn. Did research, got recommendations, etc.
When I suddenly went from "it'll be a few more hours" to "no I am not going to wait 20 minutes to push so my doctor can get here," they grabbed the on-call resident. Choosing a particular doctor was not a factor.
Posted by Doug J (Member # 1323) on :
So a couple white people are racist; that must show how all white people are racist to one degree or another.
Kobe Bryant is a black athlete; I guess that goes to show how all black athletes are, to one degree or another.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
The articles did not say that at all.
They said there were some dumb racist people out there who happen to be white.
That type of racism is an attack on logic and individuality, not against a person.
However, there is a history of preferential treatment given to white "profesionals" that exists to this day.
My wife's Grandmother would never go to a doctor who wasn't white. Giving your son preferential treatment in a company shows a bias to whatever color you are.
Historically, it is harder for a minority to gain the same reputation as a member of the majority, hence they should be better.
Posted by Doug J (Member # 1323) on :
People tend to prefer what they know and what seems familiar to them, no matter what race they are. So if we stopped making these artificial divisions of race then maybe other people won't seem so unfamiliar.
Posted by Papa Moose (Member # 1992) on :
WB, Dougie! Where you been hidin' out?
Posted by Igor Saxon (Member # 5150) on :
What a dumb article. I with I had the time to comment on it. Posted by Hazen (Member # 161) on :
Lets see. This appears to be that article's logic:
White people are statistically more successful. Therefore, white people recieve preferencial treatment.
Lets take it one step more.
Chinese and Japanese Americans people are statistically more successful than whites. Therefore?
All this goes to show is that statistical disparities in and of themselves do not provide evidence of discrimination. (Furthermore that discrimination does not prevent a group from succeeding) Earlier in American history, a case could easily be made that white Americans were discriminating heavily against blacks, on the grounds that there were laws on the books, and a great many whites were openly discriminatory. Today there are no laws against blacks, and there are very few whites that openly discriminate. Some still exists, obviously, but it is very difficult to prove that it has a large scale effect.
Posted by Ethics Gradient (Member # 878) on :
Wow. Way to miss the point of both articles, Doug and Hazen.
[ October 20, 2003, 06:53 PM: Message edited by: Ethics Gradient ]
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
I'm a little unclear (seriously). What exactly was the point?
<--*Not trying to be difficult, really doesn't get the point*
Hobbes Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
Wow, Hazen, did we read the same article? And by "earlier in American history" do you mean 35 years ago, when Jim Crow laws were still alive and well? Or did you mean further back than that when blacks were slaves? Or possibly you meant merely a decade ago when John Ashcroft was still vigorously fighting desegregation in Missouri.
quote:White people are statistically more successful. Therefore, white people recieve preferencial treatment.
No, you missed the point entirely. White people received centuries of preferential treatment, therefore they are more successful even today.
Please don't forget that while the civil rights act was signed in 1964, there is still violations going on today. And while you may not notice it, that doesn't mean it isn't there. I mean you only have to look at undercover investigations that look at blacks and whites looking at the same apartments and blacks being told it was already rented while the whites, showing up after the blacks, are allowed to rent it. Or at the research that showed, based on identical resumes, resumes with black "sounding" names were called for an interview half as often as white "sounding" names.
Posted by Ethics Gradient (Member # 878) on :
The first article, linked second, was essentially an article that decried the stupidity of racism and suggested that, even today, it is alive institutionally.
The follow-up article, linked first, was a comment on white questioning of black competancy based on affirmative action.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
Wow. I'm having the same reaction as Kayla. Did we read the same article?
quote:So a couple white people are racist; that must show how all white people are racist to one degree or another.
Kobe Bryant is a black athlete; I guess that goes to show how all black athletes are, to one degree or another.
quote:Lets see. This appears to be that article's logic:
White people are statistically more successful. Therefore, white people recieve preferencial treatment.
So, Doug, Hazen, just how far up your ass did you have to reach to pull those ones out? Can you provide any citations from the articles that support your straw men from Mars?
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
I'm so sick of this! How long will it be until people realize that the only reason Kobe Bryant is black is becasue of the color of his skin! Posted by Igor Saxon (Member # 5150) on :
And here I thought it wath my concactth.
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
quote: I'm so sick of this! How long will it be until people realize that the only reason Kobe Bryant is black is becasue of the color of his skin!
Posted by Ewin (Member # 5402) on :
So, my lack of concern over this incident can be excused if I say I'd have an equal lack of concern had it been a black couple demanding only black doctors? Chuckle. Shrug. "Well, people will just about do anything, won't they?"
People are stupid. Hospitals, in general, have the unenviable position of having to treat anyone who comes in, no matter how stupid they are... and few hospitals are going to dive happily into the risk of some crazy woman in labor endangering her baby by throwing a royal fit at the color of her doctor while under the care of said hospital. To say nothing of the time and trouble spent butting heads with her... and this is not an office complex, where time and trouble equal faxes not sent, money not made... hospital time and trouble is lives not saved and pain not comforted, melodramatic as it may sound. So, they accomodate the crazy lady (niiiiiice crazy lady, sit down, have an epidermal, shut up). Then, later, they accomodate the angry masses and apologize. And it happens again. With the same result. "Gee, angry masses, we're sorry, but until you've had to navigate a thousand-ton edifice of blood, human error and mayhem through a forest of litigation eggshells at 3 in the morning just to maintain PERMISSION to save your lives, our apology is all you get. We'll fight the good peace-love-and-understanding fight once we're done mopping blood off the floor." Lay off the healthcare providers. They don't get to pick and choose whose pain they are paid to ease, and they aren't given endless amounts of time in which to weigh the morals inherent in getting somebody to shut up and let them do their jobs.
And while I sympathize with the columnist, his second essay was just a little bit self-defeating. Yes, whites enjoy privileges to this day, especially when it comes to education... oops!
Wasn't it awfully nice of him to add the token, "Oh, but I don't mean THOSE whites, the poor, hardworking ones! THOSE whites are just fine," remarks to his generalizations? I'm surprised he didn't say some of his closest friends were whites. He did everything he could to agree with his racist detractors. He just agreed with them about a different group of folks.
No, no, I don't think the writer is a racist. But he's obviously picked up a few pointers from them.
These articles serve the purpose of enlightening the consciousness of Hatrack's discussion pages (hey, I never think about something so hard as I do when I'm disagreeing with it, so I suppose it worked for me), and of people slowly reading the paper over coffee and apple juice before leaving for work. And that's a noble cause, because those people are voters, too, and raisers of hopefully tolerant children to whom racism will become nothing but a history word someday. I just hope not too many readers take the writer up on his desire to "lambast" hospitals for this kind of thing...
Then again, people, as I said, are stupid.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
So the reason I (a white male) am successful at things is because of centuries of racism? That's a confusion, though. I haven't even been alive for centuries!
Sure, you could say racism caused my success. Or you could say that the fact that my Germanic ancestors destroyed Rome caused my success. Or you could say my father's decision to attend college caused my success. You could come up with an infinite number of things back in the progression of events that led to me that 'caused' my successes. But isn't that a rather absurd way of explaining away my successes? If we go about using that logic, nobody could ever be responsible for their own successs.
Now, we all know whites recieved preferential treatment in the past and that helped them succeed more than blacks. That's nothing contraversial. But the past is irrelevant until we invent time machines. What does this have to do with the question of whether racism exists today? It doesn't follow that past discrimination implies that it must still exist today.
The author's mistake is that he is talking about the 'white race' as if it is something we care about. The white race DID exist for centuries, and has moved ahead of the 'black race' because of racism. But who the heck cares about whether the white race is ahead of the black race or vice versa? The whole concept of a race is invented anyways - by racism! What we care about is individuals and whether each individual is being treated fairly. If one white individual moves ahead of another black individual because of their race, that's something unfair we should be concerned about. If all individuals are now being treated fairly, then we are fine, regardless of how history has skewed the balance of success across these arbitrary groupings we call races. And this author has shown nothing to suggest this is not the case.
[ October 21, 2003, 12:21 AM: Message edited by: Tresopax ]
Posted by Hazen (Member # 161) on :
quote:So, Doug, Hazen, just how far up your ass did you have to reach to pull those ones out? Can you provide any citations from the articles that support your straw men from Mars?
Let's see.
quote:It is not coincidence, happenstance or evidence of their intellectual, physical or moral superiority that white guys dominate virtually every field of endeavor worth dominating. It is, rather, a sign that the proverbial playing field is not level and never has been.
Seeing as how the logic I summarized is at the very least strongly implied in this passage, I thought a test of that logic would be in order. But I suppose it could be reversed.
quote:White people received centuries of preferential treatment, therefore they are more successful even today.
Hmmm. Native Malaysians revieve preferencial treatment in Malaysia (included some attemts at pro-Malay affimative action), therefore, Chinese recieved more university degrees and owned more businesses than the Malays. This was in absolute numbers, despite that fact that Malays are the majority. Once again, your logic can't stand the facts.
[ October 21, 2003, 12:26 AM: Message edited by: Hazen ]
Posted by Ethics Gradient (Member # 878) on :
Hey, Tres, I'm just wondering whether you really believe that the colour of your skin, in America today, has no bearing on your success, that it makes absolutely no difference whatsoever?
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
What exactly are articles like this supposed to do I wonder?
Will it help foster new understanding between the races? Promote dialogue to solve lingering racism?
My problem with this article and with an infinitude of others like it is that they are part of the problem rather than the solution. If a white guy like myself reads this article I just shrug. I don't promote racism. I don't think about race much at all, so the guilt reaction this article is seemingly crafted to produce just isn't going to happen. If I am a minority who reads this article it will probably simply provoke a bit of extra anger- a sense that I am being taken advantage of or perhaps give me a target to blame for any failures.
But what this article doesn't do is provide anything helpful. How should we go about correcting the problem? Mind control rays to force equal treatment? When people live together they often develop an appreciation for one another's differences, and yet the racial mixing doesn't seem to happen all that much. Is it only because white people don't want black people in their neighborhoods? Sometimes, yes. But there also seems to be an equal penchant among blacks to live among people of their same race. For that matter, Mexicans prefer to live amongst other Mexicans and Brazilians prefer to live around other Brazilians. Is this racism?
Posted by Doug J (Member # 1323) on :
Papa Moose: Nowhere in particular, just been a little busy at home. How have you been holding up? The little one doing ok?
Lalo: Can you cite any instance in my last post that I reached in my ass?
EG: So if a black person asked for a black doctor and didn't want any white nurses working on him and the hospital obliged him would that also indicate institutional racism? What about a Mexican immigrant asking for a Mexican doctor because the doctor understands spanish and makes the person feel better. Or is it only that way when it comes to white people?
And correct me if I’m wrong but being a racist isn't illegal.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Hey, Tres, I'm just wondering whether you really believe that the colour of your skin, in America today, has no bearing on your success, that it makes absolutely no difference whatsoever?
Well, it has a slight bearing, because there is a little bit of racism still alive and kicking in places and because of affirmative action, although I think the advantaged skin color varies depending on your field and location. It's not enough of an effect to worry me too greatly though.
On the other hand, if by "bearing" you mean there is a correlation between your race and your success, that is pretty obviously very true based on statistics. But that is to be expected in a society where racism once existed with great strength for hundreds of years. It doesn't indicate racism continues today. It indicates there black parents are disproportionately poorer than white partents, and therefor their kids are more inclined to be less successful, even if treated completely fairly.
If you have any evidence to the contrary I'd like to see it, but historically whenever I ask that I just get statistics showing a correlation between success and race rather than proof of racism still existing today.
[ October 21, 2003, 09:25 AM: Message edited by: Tresopax ]
Posted by Tristan (Member # 1670) on :
quote:What exactly are articles like this supposed to do I wonder?
Jacare, I do think articles like these are useful to encourage awareness of racist tendencies that otherwise would go unnoticed and, as you suggest, to "[p]romote dialogue to solve lingering racism". I don't feel any guilt on behalf of the white population in response to mr Pitt's criticism of the hospital staff, nor do I think that is the goal behind the article. What the article did was to make me think on how I would behave in a comparable situation. If I were a doctor, would I agree to an obviously racially motivated demand of a patient in order not to upset someone that may be in a highly critical physical or emotional state? How would I deal with my black collegues if I decided to make that decision? Do I further an institutional racism by such an agreement, or am I just temporarily humouring an obviously misguided patient and could go on to laugh about it with my black friends afterwards?
The questions and implications are numerous and I think many professionals, not just hospital staff, would do well to consider in advance what the most appropriate action would be when confronted with such a situation. I believe mr Pitt's articles are beneficial to such introspections.
Doug J,
quote:So if a black person asked for a black doctor and didn't want any white nurses working on him and the hospital obliged him would that also indicate institutional racism?
If the hospital staff agrees to his demands, then yes. Let us differ between the racism of the invidual and that of the hospital, as the former not reasonably can be called institutional (I think you're doing this, I just want to be clear).
quote:What about a Mexican immigrant asking for a Mexican doctor because the doctor understands spanish and makes the person feel better.
No. Not if the patient is satisfied with any spanish speaking doctor.
quote:Or is it only that way when it comes to white people?
No.
quote:And correct me if I’m wrong but being a racist isn't illegal.
Holding racist beliefs is not illegal. Acting on those beliefs in a discriminatory fashion is sometimes illegal.
Edited to fix stuff.
[ October 21, 2003, 09:53 AM: Message edited by: Tristan ]
Posted by Megachirops (Member # 4325) on :
I think that many of the posters here are absolutely misinterpreting the point of this article . . . it may be that some of these responses are knee-jerk reactions to perceived "reverse-racism," quite likely brought on by being unfamiliar with Leonard Pitts's work. He is not a rabid liberal; he is actually pretty balanced. His point in the secong article is NOT to say that white people are not responsible for his successes, but rather to point out by analogy why the claim that black doctors are not qualified is an absurd claim. In fact, his point is the opposite of what many posters here have interpreted it to be: not to say that whites don't deserve credit for their successes, but to say that, if whites deserve credit for their successes in a world where things are often slanted in their favor, then blacks and other minorities also deserve credit for their successes, and that the existence of affirmative action does not lessen that.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
Well he'd be right in that it would probably be harder for the average black to become a successful doctor than the average white. But the patient doesn't care how hard it was for the doctor to get where he is. The patient just cares about how good he is. And it is true that you have to be a better doctor to succeed as a white than as a black, if the sort of affirmative action program exists that favors blacks over whites. Therefore, choosing a white doctor gives you a better statistical chance of choosing a better doctor, even if it gives you a worse chance of choosing the doctor that had to work the hardest to get where they are.
Posted by Megachirops (Member # 4325) on :
quote:And it is true that you have to be a better doctor to succeed as a white than as a black, if the sort of affirmative action program exists that favors blacks over whites.
Well, this is where you and he would disagree . . . his point about the benefits that whites have enjoyed historically was to dispute this assertion.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
But it fails to refute it, because the history of blacks is irrelevant to the issue of how good you must be to succeed as a doctor in a given race. If affirmative action picks black doctors ahead of better white doctors, there is no getting around the fact that the average black doctor won't be as good. That necessarily follows.
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
To judge by any other standard than performance is folly. This is what happens with affirmative action, performance becomes second to race.
Posted by Megachirops (Member # 4325) on :
quote:But it fails to refute it, . . .
Directly, yes. But it refutes this idea (or attempts to) indirectly through the analogy: if white doctors were good enough to be trusted with your life thirty years ago when they were benefitting from a system that put white students ahead of minority students, then black doctors are equally trustworthy now.
Is his point stretched? Well, possibly. My only reason for posting in this thread was to refute the people who were interpreting his analogy as a statement that all white people were undeserving of their success.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
If only performance were easy to measure. And if only performance were never related to race (I bet that remark gets some undeserved replies ).
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote: If only performance were easy to measure.
It would seem that there is a long history of how to judge medical students.
quote: if only performance were never related to race
Suppose performance was linked to race. What would be the best way to address that issue? I say that changing the standards of medical schools is not the way to fix the problem. This is a symptom of other problems, specifically primary and secondary education.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I think you'd be surprised at how hard it can be to judge effectiveness in medicine. Is someone more effective if they cure more people but spend a lot of money doing so? What about someone with only a slightly lower rate of effective care, but a much lower rate of expenditure? How about someone so abrasive that patients often become stressed out dealing with him, extending their hospital stays, though he's very good at curing their physical woes? And maybe we can talk about the different areas of medicine -- should a very, very good young plastic surgeon be given more financial assistance than a very, very good young heart surgeon? The plastic surgeon will likely repay the investment much better monetarily, but the heart surgeon will save more lives.
If you think it's simple, you aren't thinking.
Performance can and does often relate to race. Not in the sense of one's race giving one better innate ability (though arguments can be made over that in certain fields), but because race can affect other people's perceptions. Say it's a clinic in the ghetto -- should a very high performing white doctor be stationed there over a only slightly less high performing minority doctor? How about if it's been statistically shown that people in that area are more likely to come in for treatment if the doctor is the same race as them?
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
Fugu said:
quote: Performance can and does often relate to race. Not in the sense of one's race giving one better innate ability (though arguments can be made over that in certain fields),
Robespierre said:
quote: To judge by any other standard than performance is folly.
---------------------------------------------
Fugu said:
quote: If you think it's simple, you aren't thinking.
Translation: "If you disagree with me, you're stupid." Robespierre said:
quote: It would seem that there is a long history of how to judge medical students.
edited to attempt clarity
[ October 21, 2003, 03:35 PM: Message edited by: Robespierre ]
Posted by Megachirops (Member # 4325) on :
Wow! It's the out of context thread!
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
No, I said if you think it's simple, you aren't thinking. I was being derogatory of an assumption you seemed to be making that measuring performace could be done simply, when putting a small amount of thought into it would quickly demonstrate numerous complications.
Feel free to address how each of my examples is simple to resolve in terms of pure performance. If you can't, then I was correct, that it is not simple, at least to the degree you seem to think.
[ October 21, 2003, 03:50 PM: Message edited by: fugu13 ]
Posted by Hazen (Member # 161) on :
quote:But it refutes this idea (or attempts to) indirectly through the analogy: if white doctors were good enough to be trusted with your life thirty years ago when they were benefitting from a system that put white students ahead of minority students, then black doctors are equally trustworthy now.
That would have been a better point, had he limited it to that. But he also says that whites today are receiving preferencial treatment, his evidence simply does not support his claim.
Even in the past, segregating against a minority group does not usually give any advantage to a member or a majority group. In fact, his line of reasoning gives credence to many racist arguments: That if XYZ minority group is let into a field, it will "take away" jobs/positions from the majority. Obviously, this type of thinking is backwards: The value of a position is not the jobs it provides, but the product of service it provides. In the case of doctors, had blacks been let into the medical field equally at the height of racism, the number of black doctors would have increased, but I don't think that this would have had a very pronounced effect on white doctors. Granted, there are exceptions: If Italian immigrants had been systematically excluded from the wine industry, it would never have developed near as much as it has.
If the artice really wanted to combat the attitude against black doctors, it should have done a head on assault, challenging the assumptions directly rather that just going for a weak analogy. As far as I know, there are very few affimative action type things involved in becoming a doctor. It may get you into med school, but I don't think it will help you graduate. On the other hand, if there really are policies that help minorities become doctors without being as fully qualified, he should have pointed out that the difference in qualification is likely to be tiny, so that racism would still be the real reason for refusing a black doctor. If that is also the case, he should have condemned the medical industry both for encouraging that type of attitude and for letting the standards slip.
Posted by Ryan Hart (Member # 5513) on :
There is a difference between nepotism and racism. People of any race can favor a relative. It has nothing to do with race, it has to do with trust and caring more for that person than someone else.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Even in the past, segregating against a minority group does not usually give any advantage to a member or a majority group. In fact, his line of reasoning gives credence to many racist arguments: That if XYZ minority group is let into a field, it will "take away" jobs/positions from the majority.
Unfortunately, your assumption is simple false. Consider for example a medical school. There are a fixed number of positions available for students. Let's assume that their are 100 slots. If segregation laws prevent blacks for attending the school, then all 100 slots are available to whites. If we ban segregation and allow in 10 black students, then their are only 90 slots for whites.
The key to ending racism isn't to perpetuate the myth that everyone can have it all but for those of us who are white to recognize that we have benefitted from an unethical system and to be willing to give extra help to those who are still suffering from that system. We must recognize that our priveleges have come at others expense and act to rectify that system.
Nepotism may not stem from the same motivation as racism but it often has the same effect. Only a few decades ago, racism was not only legal in this country, it was enforced by law. As a result, white people in this country are far more likely to have a family member in a position of power and wealth than people of color. Nepotism is not racist, but it perpetuates the legacy of our racist history.
We have all kinds of institutions in this country that are not explicitly racist, but which perpetuate the legacy of racism. For example, most if not all elite privite Universities in this country admit children of their graduates even if those children don't qualify on their own merit. (Our Pres. is an example). A few decades ago, nearly all of these schools did not admit people of color, therefore people of color who are looking to go to those schools today can't get in based on family connections. The policy of admitting children of grads, perpetuates the legacy.
Following World War II, VA and FHA loans were created to help middle and lower class American families buy homes. Prior to this, bank loans for homes were not available to most people. The families who bougth these homes were then able to obtain equity rather than simply paying rent. They were also able to move into new neighborhoods with many children and quality schools. Blacks were excluded by law from buying in most of these subdivisions and receiving these loans. As a result, Black's today are less likely to receive an inheritance from their parents, have less net wealth than whites whos parents and grandparents had comparable jobs, and less likely to live in suburbs with good schools.
We started this race ages ago at a time when the laws didn't allow many segments of the population to participate on equal ground. Now many think it is good enough to let these people start at the starting line even though we've already completed the first 10 laps.
The fact of the matter is that blacks and other people of color are still much poorer on the average than whites in this country. I can think of only two reasonable explanations for this.
1. Poverty among people of color is the legacy of a history of slavery and legally inforced racism.
2. People of color just aren't naturally as productive as white people.
If you believe the first, then you should feel an ethical obligation toward some form of afirmative actions.
If you believe the second, then you are racist.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Well said, Rabbit.
Robespierre, it's interesting that you keep getting upset when people interpret your words, and yet you keep doing it to others.
[ October 21, 2003, 09:38 PM: Message edited by: rivka ]
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
As to number 2, there are a number of black commentators who have noted some alarming statistics about black society--increased drug use, single parenthood, lack of time spent studying for school--that are evidence not of a failure of white society to accept black students into college, but a failure of black society to create a culture that promotes academic succes.
The assumption that black students have to have affirmative action because white people won't let them into school is false, imho. You show me instances of black students with scores comparable to whites not getting in (edit: within the last, say, 20 years. ) and we'll talk.
However, when black students consistently rank at the bottom of the 'race' ladder in terms of academic achievement, this to me signals that there is a problem within black culture itself relating to academia.
[ October 21, 2003, 10:30 PM: Message edited by: Storm Saxon ]
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
Stupid question from someone who hasn't totally followed this thread: What exactly is the point of the article? (The one from October 20, not the one that prompted it.)
It seems to me that the article doesn't really have a point. He's just saying, "Oh, yeah, well whites once had affirmative action, too." If there's some sort of thesis in that article, I'm totally missing it.
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote: Robespierre, it's interesting that you keep getting upset when people interpret your words, and yet you keep doing it to others.
Do you have anything to add to the conversation?
quote: If you believe the first, then you should feel an ethical obligation toward some form of afirmative actions.
Wrong. Afirmative action is wrong now matter how you excuse it. Judging people on their race is always wrong. Every race and ethnic group has had to deal with hardships in their past. Some in the distant past, some no so distant. Are you going to tell me that blacks in america have suffered more or less than Native Americans? More or less than catholics? More or less than jews? I don't think government should be in the business of deciding who has had a worst past.
The only moral way to approach the issue is to deal with the root of the problems. Schooling is one of these roots. To tell people they cannot have a job because they are of a certain race, is wrong, no matter what past injustices have occured.
[ October 21, 2003, 10:07 PM: Message edited by: Robespierre ]
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: Judging people on their race is always wrong.
Assumptions about individuals are always stupid, but it's very useful to look at *problems* in terms of race. For instance, rates of various illness, levels of poverty, divorce by race are very helpful to determine if problems exist in a certain, let's say, culture or ethnic group.
Posted by Hazen (Member # 161) on :
quote:Consider for example a medical school. There are a fixed number of positions available for students. Let's assume that their are 100 slots. If segregation laws prevent blacks for attending the school, then all 100 slots are available to whites. If we ban segregation and allow in 10 black students, then their are only 90 slots for whites.
If the people in the us in some year, say 1924, decided all of the sudden to treat Black people exactly the way they treated whites, the black people would become more prosperous and be able to afford doctors more often, which would compensate for the increase in the supply of doctors.
quote:The fact of the matter is that blacks and other people of color are still much poorer on the average than whites in this country.
The statistics that say blacks are poorer than whites need to take into account things like age and geography. Most fail to do so. Furthermore, there are many different explanations that could be given. The racism explanation has some problems. Black people were rising economically faster from the 50s to the mid-60s than they have since, dispite the fact that racism has been decreasing at a faster rate since the mid-60s. Furthermore, it has yet to be explained why this "legacy of racism" does not affect other groups who have experienced racism in the past.
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
quote:The tone varies from spittle-spewing bigotry to sweet reason, but they all make the same point: that affirmative action entitles white people to question black people's competence.
I like this quote, mostly because the author makes a good point, while not always true: When I went to my a magnet program that my county has, many people there assumed I was there because I was black. : |
Didn't matter that I was at the top of the class. Didn't matter that the program had no affirmitive action policy. The assumtion was that me being black in magnet program meant I was somehow less qualified to be there, regardless of fact. /That/ is my main gripe about affirmitive action in the United States.
[/offtopic]
[ October 21, 2003, 10:59 PM: Message edited by: James Tiberius Kirk ]
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
quote: 1. Poverty among people of color is the legacy of a history of slavery and legally inforced racism.
2. People of color just aren't naturally as productive as white people.
If you believe the first, then you should feel an ethical obligation toward some form of afirmative actions.
If you believe the second, then you are racist.
Rabbit- your post here points out a problem but the solution you propose doesn't follow from the problem.
We speak in terms of race as if the different races were some sort of monlithic entity, and yet nothing could be further from the truth. Do the admissions policies of the ivy league schools help me, as a white, in the least? No they do not. They benefit those who have connections, period. That those people happen to be white is irrelevant in the extreme. The fact that they are rich and powerful is what allows them their advantages. Are you seriously suggesting that creating a group of wealthy and influential blacks who also get their children into school via nepotism would somehow balance out the inequality?
The real answer is shown clearly in your first point above:
quote: Poverty among people of color is the legacy of a history of slavery and legally inforced racism.
If there is a higher proportion of poverty among minorities then establishing educational aid based solely on economic need will disproportionately benefit minorities. Race need not enter the question at all.
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
I think the only way to solve the problem is to all become the same color.
And when we enact a mandatory inter-racial mating program, I call dibs on Vanessa Williams.
That is all.
[/tangent]
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:1. Poverty among people of color is the legacy of a history of slavery and legally inforced racism.
2. People of color just aren't naturally as productive as white people.
If you believe the first, then you should feel an ethical obligation toward some form of afirmative actions.
This only true if you accept two assumptions:
A. That we have an ethical obligation to eliminate this 'legacy of racism'.
and
B. That affirmative action will achieve the elimination of this legacy.
I believe BOTH of these assumptions are false.
Firstly, we have no ethical obligation to eliminate the legacy of racism. Consider a poor white family that is poor because of the legacy of poor policies during the Great Depression. Or consider a poor white family that is poor because of the legacy of injuries recieved in Vietnam by a parent. Or consider a poor Native American family who is poor because of the legacy of colonialism. Do we have a responsibility to give the children of these families an advantage over the children fortunate enough to be born in more successful families? Apparently not, because we do not give them any such advantage. The fact is, there are thousands of children born into families that are poor due to legacies of unfair things in the past. It would be completely unfair to give the children of one legacy an advantage over the children of another legacy.
If we are going to begin correcting past injustices by giving special benefits to the descendants of those involved, then we must be fair and correct all of them equally. We actually have an ethical obligation to NOT give the children of one injustice advantages over the children of another.
Secondly, as to assumption B, I think affirmative action actually harms the cause of fixing the legacy of racism. For more on this, see this thread.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Getting back to the subject of the first column, not only was the man in the hospital racist, he was an idiot.
If my wife was in there, I'd want the best doctor available. There is absolutely no reason to limit the pool by something as arbitrary as skin color. The black doctor might be incompetent and got in through affirmative action or liberal guilt, or he might be the most amazingly skilled physician the hospital has ever seen. The white doctor could be Marcus Welby incarnate or he could be there only because his malpractice suits were covered up. What the hell would skin color tell you?
The fact that to him, "black doctor" meant "affirmative action" makes him racist. No logic was used, no investigation was attempted, no questions were asked to determine the actual skill of any of the doctors. And in so doing he may have put his wife in danger, especially if a black doctor was the only one available in an emergency. And that makes him an idiot.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: If there is a higher proportion of poverty among minorities then establishing educational aid based solely on economic need will disproportionately benefit minorities. Race need not enter the question at all. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree 100%.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
quote:Firstly, we have no ethical obligation to eliminate the legacy of racism.
Perhaps not. I'll accept the elimination of affirmative action in education if you also eliminate all legacy advantages. If you get into a college, you get there on merit only. Doesn't matter what color you are, who your daddy was, or how much your family gave for the new library, you earn your way in or you don't go.
Leveling the playing field doesn't have to mean giving everyone advantages, it could just mean taking them all away.
[ October 22, 2003, 05:39 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: If you get into a college, you get there on merit only.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Hat]](graemlins/hat.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
) and we'll talk.