Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: epicure who wrote (32016)	10/11/2001 6:26:50 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

Standardized tests are especially biased. Do you thing they are created to be racially biased or do you think that they just have differing results because the lower average social and economic status of minorities puts them at a disadvantage, or do you think there is some other significant factor that produces the disparity in results? "Do you believe that Colin Powell could never become president, owing entirely to a racially biased electorate?" I don't know. Can you explain 200 years of absolutely no people of any color other than white occupying the Pres and Veep slots? I think a big chunk of that 200 years is due to racism. For much of that time few people would have even seriously entertained the idea of a black president. However this is no longer true. Colin Powell probably could have become president had he gone for it, and ran a good campaign. This is not to say that no racism still exists but the majority of people would atleast consider voting for a black candidate. We might be at the point where it would take a strong black candidate to beat out an average white candidate, but the amount of people who would never vote for a black person might not be much above the amount of people who would vote for a candidate just because he is black. To be really fair there ought to be at least 100 years of blatant reverse discrimination. That would not be fair at all. The people who suffered discrimination 100 or 200 years ago are not still alive. Giving benefits to those who didn't suffer the harm (or suffered far less) and the expense of those who didn't create the injury would not be fair. What would be fair is ending unjust racial discrimination and prejudice but it might never go away completely and even making a significant dent in what is left of it doesn't happen over night. I think if you look at things over the long run you can see that almost every decade in the 20th century things got better then they where the decade before, or atleast every decade since WWII. Tim

To: epicure who wrote (32016)	10/11/2001 7:40:43 PM
From: J. C. Dithers	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

Thanks for the response, X. Yes, I am a retired professor with all the requisite initials after my name. I don't make a big thing of it. I take comfort in your impression of me, as I not an elitist and always prefer to be thought of as one of "The People," as it has been put so charmingly on this thread. Your staccato answers suggest that you are not interested in too much further discussion of my questions. I wasn't intending to offer you "anecdotes" about my experiences. I was a member of the university rank and tenure committee for most of my career, and chairman of it several times. Our committee passed on all hiring above the Assistant Professor level, and all promotion and tenure decisions. So I would be in a position to speak with some authority about the issue of what role race played in these decisions. You may, of course, still regard that as anecdotal. I taught in the Business Administration area, and lectured and gave seminars throughout the world, including less developed countries where attendees were often of color . So I would be able to speak with a degree of authority on the issue of racism in that context, also. However, since I don't have any experience except my own, you might regard that as anecdotal also. Your comments weave in and out of what exists now and what existed 40, 160, or 200 years ago. It would be hard for me to know in what era I should engage you in further argument. So I won't take on the task. As to 200 years of no people of color as president or vice-president ... African nations have been independent for one-quarter of that time. Do you expect to see white people being elected as presidents of those countries in the relatively near future?