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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tejek who wrote (158317)	1/17/2003 8:25:58 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1586547

The whites are the predominate race in this country. There have been laws passed that prohibit discrimination against all races. Those laws are not obeyed as evidenced by demographic statistics. In many cases the laws are obeyed. Demographic statistics can't really show this. Even absent discrimination not all groups will participate equally in different things or have the same income. In fact some statistics seem to indicate the opposite. Admissions at major universities are tilted towards blacks. One way of showing this (other then turning up information about point systems like the one at UM) is to see how at the top schools blacks don't do as well as the whites there. If you take in a group by applying lower standards to them then you get people who are less capable of dealing with the situation. An even better example of this is mortgages. For all the claims that blacks are discriminated against in home lending the evidence doesn't support this conclusion. If blacks where treated unfairly and only got loans if they demonstrated a greater ability to pay back the loan then that required of whites then their default rates should be lower. However their default rates are higher. Every group gets discriminated against. Blacks face discrimination more often but its not a simple case of massive unjust and illogical discrimination against blacks. Most of their statistical under performance in terms of income and other things would probably be explained from things like a higher percentage of illegitimate births, and more difficult conditions growing up, and perhaps a greater percentage of young black people who find themselves in a subculture that discourages the behaviors that are needs for achievement. Racism probably accounts for some of the disparity as well by not IMO the majority of it. As TigerPaw pointed out in his post, AA is one way to even out years of neglect and wrongdoing. If Bob abused Mary, punishing Bob's daughter Jane and giving benefits to Mary's son Dave, neither punishes the wrong doer or compensates the victim. In any case affirmative action would discriminate against white immigrants who never kept blacks down in America, in favor of black immigrants who never where kept down in America. If you want justice you will have to target things better. But even that doesn't work well as most of the "criminals' are dead", and even if they were not the attempt to even out all past injustices could very well cost more then the price paid by the victims of the injustice, and would encourage an a sense of entitlement and a race to present yourself as the biggest victim. The only way to move our of a racist battle for the best position is simple to stop having positions determined by race. Should the son of Colin Powell get bonus points over some white person from a poor backwater in apalachia? Should whites who are under represented in most sports get bonus points (but non-whites would get a bonus in hockey)? You are being naive......its simply not true. The glass ceiling exists for a number of minority groups. AA is the only way I've seen that insures all groups get a piece of the pie. With black CEOs, a black secretary of state that had a shot at the presidency if he went for it, a black supreme court justice, I don't see any ceiling. That doesn't mean individuals are not discriminated against, or even that such discrimination doesn't happen a lot, but it does mean that black people can and do experience "the general benefits of society." AA is not the same thing. AA is giving out a job, or a position at a school or whatever on the basis of skin color or sex or other condition other then that of merit. It is judging someone by the color of their skin rather then the content of their character. What about the incompetent white people who are put into positions because they are a part of the ole boy network? Why are conservatives so concerned with only minorities and AA? Why don't you clean it all up? Incompetent people put in place because they are part of the old boy network is bad, but it isn't directly racial discrimination (unless all whites are part of the "old boy network" in your opinion). More importantly it is not mandated by law or an official government policy. If private institutions want an old boy network or affirmative action then I think they have a right to it, even if I think it is the wrong decision to make. That's true and it happens every day in this country with both whites and people of color. And AA intentionally increases the consideration by race rather then by merit or other fair basis for making the decision. "Its not a matter of me thinking that blacks are less qualified, whatever group you favor with AA will have more non or under qualified people getting the position." Why? The two things don't follow. Assuming the qualifications that are considered actually have some relationship to performing the job then you will get the best candidates when you hire based on merit. When you limit or distort the decision by considering race, sex, ect. then you reduce the average qualifications of the person you accept. The main reason that blacks have lower qualifications is the poorer education when they are younger. If your looking for an alternative. If you want to make the races have more equal results, then look at the poor and failing schools and do something about them. And it can't just be throwing money at them. They often have gotten worse as more money has been thrown at them. Mr. Bush agrees with you and is telling the Sup Ct how to rule on this issue. Aside from the fact he is overstepping his bounds Not at all. The executive branch of the government, or even private organizations, all the time submit briefs on or make public statements about how a case should be resolved. It's routine. It's a big part of the solicitor general's job. It would only be over stepping his bounds if he tried to use law enforcement or the army or some legal sanction to compel the court to go along with him. it will be very bad for this country if a conservative Sup.Ct rules against AA and encourages its dismantlement. It will be a first step towards treating people according to the content of their character (and their qualifications) rather then the color of their skin. Tim