Sure, of course economics is involved somewhere (even if historicaly), but this thread is not about consumer preferences in any shape or form. If you think it is, you so don’t get the topic of conversation that it is laughable.
I’ll probably be marginalized because most will either view my as “white apologist” or “privileged white in denial” but,
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
How anyone can say that there is not a privelege that comes with being white is simply beyond me.
Many of the people that have responded have themselves proved exactly what the article was trying to prove- “Its the blacks’s problem within their own group mentality”
Its humorous how nowadays, with white folks, its “Well, why are they making a big deal about skin color? Aren’t you supposed to judge by the man?”, when for the past three hundred years, it was probably the blacks asking, “Why the hell are they making such a big deal about skin color? Aren’t you supposed to judge by the man?”
Not too mention there are very few people who I think have any idea what white privelege has done for whites in the past hundred years, and how it has defined much about the socioeconomic status that each one of us deals with everyday right now. [/quote]
To be clear, I’m not saying “Its the blacks’s problem within their own group mentality.” As a matter of fact, It was Prof. X who said I would never understand because I don’t experience it on a daily basis. Even though, I don’t necessarily consider us to have that different a mentality.
My point was to address a post saying “white people are in denial of white priviledge.” is at best ineffectual and at worst detrimental. Like I said, it’s like yelling “You’re deaf!” at deaf people. Those who are deaf can’t hear it and don’t react (continue to justify/deny), those who aren’t deaf think you’re an idiot (or angry black/hispanic/other minority man), and those who are just hard of hearing get confused.
Additionally, and this is not to “write it off” but, whites can’t necessarily just give up white privilege, in some cases it must be taken. I can’t tell my kids to watch out for the dangerous ‘white kids’ at school (not that I should). My friends and neighbors can’t warn each other about the ‘white guys’ in the neighborhood like myself, even though lots of us fit the profile of a serial killer to a ‘T’. I can’t necessarily lock my car in certain circumstances without it being construed as offensive, nor can I wait around for everyone everywhere to be okay with me locking my car door, nor can I leave my car unlocked at all times. It seems all I can do is treat everybody equally and appropriately to the situation, teach my kids to do the same and let the fall on other shoulders. And maybe tell the people shouting at the deaf to give it a rest. Whatever, I guess we’re all deaf.
[quote]vroom wrote:
Grow up man! Dude, open your eyes, what do you think makes the world turn? Are you so naive to not know that most all political and social actions can be tied to economics? Open a history book once in a while Bro.
Sure, of course economics is involved somewhere (even if historicaly), but this thread is not about consumer preferences in any shape or form. If you think it is, you so don’t get the topic of conversation that it is laughable.[/quote]
Bro, you still aren’t getting it. This thread is about the slanting of the system to the majority. I’m just saying that it is because of economics that the majority has privilege, not because of the color of their skin.
Before I get into the responses in your post, I’d like to first thank you for your honesty in your posts. I may not always like or agree in what you post, but at least you are honest. I can appreciate and respect that.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
I think that this is a stand off that will not be addressed anytime soon. The scenarios you described in you original questions are from your point of view only. I was merely showing you that I see the same scenarios perptrated by the black community as well. Am I supposed to answer first? If I do, does that mean you will be forthcoming with an answer for why the black community doeas the exact same things?
[/quote]
First of all, I threw a little harmless dig in my responses just to make sure to get you a little fired up about responding. You are more interesting when you do. It was all in fun.
Now, in response to this “well, you do it in your community too” statement, I would like to point out the following. I have never denied that these things happen in the black community. The difference is the level of honesty that is involved with admitting these things happen. The black community has always had its warts and all exposed for public consumption since the creation of this country. This is nothing new for us. We are always expected to confirm these things for groups outside the community, specifically whites. The problem arises when the white community gets their warts exposed. Instead of the same treatment that is expected from us, we get the response of “well, you do it too!”. This doesn’t help with fixing problems in race relations when one side is expected to be honest about their faults (minorities) while the other side plays this game of deflection and denial (majority).
What does it prove to say that there are problems in the black community? They are constantly broadcasted for public consumption. Asking this is just a ploy to ignore the role that the majority has played to perpetuate this racist state. Asking our community to lay our cards on the table while your community still holds them to their collective chest does not work for healing the country. If there is to be TRUE equality for all, then everything has to be brought to light, not just one side.
As I said above, the black community’s warts are and have always been available for public consumption. You don’t need me to point them out. Every media outlet in the country has no problem putting them on display. As far as a two way street is concerned, I agree that it is. However, the version of the two way street so far is one side has a full four-lane highway with HOV lanes while the other side has one local side street that is under construction. The access is not quite the same, and that is the problem.
I am glad you were honest and admitted that you were at a loss on what “traditional white ideas” were. What you have demonstrated is that you are just as much a victim of the American white supremist society as I am and everybody else that lives here. You had no idea what you meant other that it was against what you think blacks believe. Instead of traditional american ideas, you have separated this out into black and white. Like the traditional ideas of the two groups are completely different. You probably didn’t even realize you did this. This is the brainwashing that has been done to all of us, white, black, latino, asian etc. in this country. It is a game that is older than this country.
Politics in America has always involved race relations and vice versa. It is the one of the cornerstones of the creation of this country. Think about it. This country was built off of the exploitation of non-whites, native americans and black mostly, but also asians, latinos and more recently those of middle eastern descent. The politics were and are as such that non-whites count less than whites. Any image of non-white being positive is a lie, they are always negative. Politics is a reflection of this.
Do you realize what you just said about these people applies to people like Louis Farrakhan? The power of the individual to rise above his current lot and better himself is something that he has always preached. In fact, most people in the black community also believe in the power of the individual to rise above their lot. Given the abusive-laden history of the black community, do you really believe that we would’ve survived this long if we didn’t? The difference is that he and most of the black community doesn’t believe in harming the community by doing it. We believe in building up the community. The reason why people don’t like those guys (Clarence Thomas, etc.) is because they don’t care about harming the black community to better themselves. It’s the “I got mine” syndrome.
I am not a follower of Louis Farrakhan, but I have listened to many of his speeches in person and then have gone back to the media outlets that reported on it and found that it is totally distorted from what he said. If you really took the time to see what he said and not rely on the media’s interpretation, you will be amazed.
What I am finding interesting is that you are using the MSM to formulate some of these opinions. Aren’t you one of the guys that always decrys “media bias” when it goes against your political beliefs? In this case, are you now willing to believe the media because it agrees with your own perceptions? Think about it. Shouldn’t you use the same jaundiced eye that you use for your politics?
Again, what I said is that you have demonstrated that you are also a victim of this racist society. This is why it is so destructive. Its hurts everybody, whether you realize it or not. It has become so ingrained into our society, that if you don’t question it, you would never realize it. The fact that there is a belief in “traditional white ideas” and “traditional black ideas” shows how far this goes. If you strip both sets of ideas, you will realize that at the core, they are not so different.
What you are saying is that you made an assumption about this person without data to back it up. Your reaction shows the brainwashing game that is indoctrinated in this society. Automatically, you assumed things about the author because it attacked what you think to be true. You didn’t say whether these things were true or not, instead you attacked the author. You attacked the messenger, not the message because what you have been taught that the ideas of the majority society are always right and should not be questioned. I’ve been taught the same thing and so has anyone who has been educated in this country, so you are not alone. This is the “Willie Lynch” process.
There is no other immigrant group that has come to this country they way that blacks have. There was a systematic design created to make slaves out of our race and to continue to perpetuate this slave mentality whether we were still slaves or not (again reference “Willie Lynch” and you will see the plan). No other immigrant race (I don’t include Native Americans because they were here before anyone, however they are the only race that has had it as bad as we have) has had their entire history eradicated and their society and source of pride stripped from them. So the fact that someone wants to say “Black people look at themselves as victims” and try to make it look like we are blowing things out of proportion, really doesn’t understand the devastation that was and still is placed on blacks in this country. It belittles the what, how and why of our presence in America.
Again, the bitterness of the phrase “special consideration” makes it sound like we ordered fries and got chicken nuggets instead. We were just inconvienienced a little bit. It shows a true lack of understanding of the effects of slavery on a race of people that reaches all the way into modern society. There was no plan to help freed slaves integrate into the society as free people because this society was designed with the idea that non-whites are less than human, beasts if you will. Because of that, as a people, we suffered and are still suffering.
This is absolute nonsense. First of all, this statement lends to the belief that blacks are not as qualified as whites so we need to have quotas to give us an advantage. There is not one black person in the country that subscribes to this notion. We subscribe to the notion of getting fair and equal treatment and consideration regards of our race. However, this does not always happen. This kind of statement is another piece of propaganda put out by people that don’t really want an equal system. People who want to keep the staus quo (white supremist society).
Second of all, there has never been any real evidence that this has occurred. Actually, the opposite has occurred. Blacks have always had to be more qualified than their white counterparts just to be considered for the same positions.
Third of all, whenever people have been questioned on this belief, there is no actual evidence to support it. It’s all heresay and perpetuation of racist beliefs.
The American society has been built off of white supremist propaganda. This propaganda says that in order to keep on top, we need to sow the seeds of mistrust. Not only between races, but between age groups, genders, religious beliefs etc. Through this society’s indoctrination process, lack of trust has been sown into every american, not just white vs. black. It is what fuels us from coming together and keep those who want to stay on top on top.
Actually, its the white supremist society that is the cause for all problems in this country. Blacks see a disproportionate amount because it was designed against non-whites. White people aren’t the problem. Some are good and some are bad. They are just as much a victim of it as the rest of us. It’s the society that was created to exclude those who aren’t white that is the problem.
I’ve already mentioned the fact that you believe the MSM in this case.
The emotion that you express here is exactly how most of us who are non-white feel. I think we are in agreement here.
We are both right. However, it has much less affect in the white community than the black community. The actions of 1 or 2 white people rarely affects the entire community. That is not true in our case.
Hold on here. I never accused you of anything. Remember, I am one of the ones that backed you up against others calling you a racist. This is not grandstanding. It is saying that since you feel so strongly about this, we would like your help on our side when it happens to us. Maybe if more people in the majority are on our side, their might be more weight placed behind our words.
[quote]
(2) How is this my side of the argument? It is a white person pointing out flaws in his own community. It is his own side of the argument which he sees having a great deal of truth to it whether you agree with him or not. It’s his version of the truth, much like you have your version.
Would you also be this objective if it were a black writer penning a scathing commentary on the black condition? Please do not think this is yet another deflection. I am trying to show you how one-sided these arguments usually are when there are obviously two-sides at a minimum. [/quote]
I understand what you are saying, but I still think you’ve missed a huge point. I’ve said this numerous times, this happens to our community all the time. When it does, the media coverage is all over the place. All of our warts are available to the public at any given time. This doesn’t happen in the white community. When it does, it is spun like it is no big deal, or it doesn’t reflect on the white community as a whole. The arguements are one-sided, but usually against the non-white’s side way more than not.
[quote]Bro, you still aren’t getting it. This thread is about the slanting of the system to the majority. I’m just saying that it is because of economics that the majority has privilege, not because of the color of their skin.
[/quote]
Lorisco, sorry man, but we aren’t talking about economic catering to the whims of the majority here.
We’re talking about social interactions between majority and minority segments of society, not how well served they are by products and services catering to them due to group sizes.
I haven’t forgotten about you.
[quote]Lorisco wrote:
This is a gross simplification of an entire group of people. It also illustrates your lack of understanding the black community. For your information, the black community has survived DESPITE the government, not because of it.
Then you are saying that GOVERNMENT programs like Affirmative Action did not help the Blacks?
You can’t say that Blacks survived in spite of the Government and then turn around and say a Government program like AA helps the Blacks. Make up your mind.
[/quote]
Your statement showed that you don’t understand the difference between getting help and survival. In addition, your statement was a huge insult to the black community. Your statement indicated that the only reason blacks survived is because of the government programs. This is the same government that inacted slavery, separate but equal laws, Jim Crow, allowed lynchings to occur and discrimination. Blacks survived, DESPITE these things. Having 30-40 years of Affirmative Action programs was an added benefit, not the reason for survival. So, I can say that affirmative action did help black people, but it is not the reason we survived. You tried to prove some sort of point here, but failed miserably.
Here is a perfect example of a person who has fallen for this white supremist game. The percentages you are talking about are relative to the race, not to the population of the USA. There are approx. 36 million blacks in this country, approx. 8 million that are living below poverty levels. Out of this 8 million, approx. 5 million have been reported to take government welfare. That is about 14% of blacks relative to the black population. Now, there are approx. 217 million whites in this country, approx. 20 million that are living below poverty levels. Out of this 20 million, approx. 15 million are reported to take government welfare. That is about 6.9% relative to the white population. But, if you base it against actual numbers, there are approx. 10 million more whites on welfare than blacks. Additionally, compared to the USA population, the percentage of white on welfare is greater. This is like saying 3 out of 10 (30%) vs. 1 out of 3 (33.3%). The 1 out of 3 is a greater percentage, but since the population is smaller to begin with, the actual number is smaller.
The percentage game you are referring to is used to make it look like there are more blacks on welfare than whites. The reality is that since there are more whites in this country than blacks, there are more whites on welfare. This is the game that is played and you fell for it.
If you paid attention to what I wrote, you’d see that I said that there were always opportunists in the black community. Where do you think the phrase “Uncle Tom” came from? Instead you took the exception and try to make it the rule to try to prove a lame point. Nice try!
There are plenty of examples of how this has happened. All you have to do is do the research. Take a look at the record of Clarence Thomas on anything to do with civil rights. Do the same with many of the others that you mention and you’ll see a common trend. Of course, you won’t recognize it as such, because based on your posts, you’ve already made up your mind.
I see that you are using the MSM to gain your information because these are the same talking points that are put out by them. How is it that the MSM is “biased” when it goes against the republican party, but it is accurate when it deals with issues related to the black community?
This is an idiotic example. First of all, I’ve have been to many other countries, so you made another stupid assumption. Again! Second of all, the example used happens to every immigrant to this country regardless of race. Just because a person has a skin color similar to a someone in this country doesn’t mean that they will understand the culture of that person.
American culture is different than other cultures. That’s basic knowledge that you obviously forgot. Your example was stupid and pointless. The predominant culture of the US is related to the race of the majority. This country was founded by whites and their exploitation of non-whites to build it. Non-whites were and are not part of the plan. It wasn’t designed to include non-whites because they were viewed as being less than human. Do some research for once instead of just spouting off.
Again, another pointless and flawed example. Pointless because we are not talking about another country, we are talking about the USA. The way the USA was designed is completely different than any other country in existence. It was designed to benefit a race of people (white). This is a historical fact.
It’s flawed because you proved my point. The majority race in your example is based on how they look. The majority in that case doesn’t look white, but they are separated out based on appearance. It is the exact same thing. The system in both Japan and the USA is slanted towards a race of people that are the majority.
This is BS. You are the one who mentioned forcing culture down someone’s throat. I was paraphrasing you. You are the one who made this a negative and I responded to you.
The only way the same rules should apply to all if the rules were made by all. That is not the case in the USA. In order for blacks to succeed, they are pretty much expected to not “seem black”. Phrases like “You’re not like other blacks” or “If all blacks acted like you, there would be no problems” are considered complements by whites. It denies the fact that blacks are diverse group of people and places negatives on any behaviors that are considered “black”. So in order to have this equal worlds, there has to be equal acceptance of people on their terms, not on terms that only whites understand.
You don’t have to agree with me to show your lack of education on the subject. Many of your posts illustrates that clearly to many of us.
There are many whites and latinos that disagree with you too. Does that make their opinion any less valid? Does that make them misinformed? Your position is not the only informed position either. Part of learning someone’s opinion also involves some trust that they might have some actual points. What you do is get an opinion and immediately try to argue against it. On occassion, you might agree, but it is very rare. You seem more willing to argue for arguement sake.
How am I forcing anybody to accept certain “traditional” views? Again, you are putting words in my mouth. If you are truly who you are, the black community will accept you. We are a diverse group of people that likes a variety of things. What we won’t abide by is someone who is destructive to the community. Again, you wouldn’t know any of this because you are not part of the community. You don’t have the common thread that bonds all of us. Even so, you stated yourself that you attend a predominantly black church. How do they treat you? Do you think that they would treat blacks that did follow the norm differently? I think you know the answer to this.
If they were, the community would understand. Your assumption says that the black community doesn’t have the mental capacity to understand this concept. Again, this is an insult to the black community. If you were so knowledgeable about the black community, you wouldn’t have made this statement.
[quote]Lorisco wrote:
Al, If you are going to quote me, don’t change the meaning and add your own words. It makes you look dishonest and manipulative.
Here is what I stated: “Why can’t people just be who they want to be regardless of what their racial community thinks?”
[/quote]
I wasn’t quoting you, I was paraphrasing. Sorry about the confusion. However, you don’t need anyone else make you look dishonest and manipulative. You do a good job of that on your own.
[quote]vroom wrote:
Bro, you still aren’t getting it. This thread is about the slanting of the system to the majority. I’m just saying that it is because of economics that the majority has privilege, not because of the color of their skin.
Lorisco, sorry man, but we aren’t talking about economic catering to the whims of the majority here.
We’re talking about social interactions between majority and minority segments of society, not how well served they are by products and services catering to them due to group sizes.[/quote]
Vroom, he doesn’t get that the privilege and economics that the majority enjoys is tied directly to the color of the skin in the USA. It is the way the country was formed and it has been that way ever since. A little bit of research goes a long way. I mentioned the “Willie Lynch” project before. If you start there and work outward, it is obvious to those not in denial.
[quote]Lorisco wrote:
I believe it is given based purely on the fact that they outnumber everyone else. Al and Pro X thinks it is racial as well, but they have yet to articulate why they think that is.
[/quote]
I have written numerous explainations but you can’t articulate something to someone that has already made up their mind. When someone wants to argue your points more than listen to what you are saying, what’s the point?
[quote]vroom wrote:
Bro, you still aren’t getting it. This thread is about the slanting of the system to the majority. I’m just saying that it is because of economics that the majority has privilege, not because of the color of their skin.
Lorisco, sorry man, but we aren’t talking about economic catering to the whims of the majority here.
We’re talking about social interactions between majority and minority segments of society, not how well served they are by products and services catering to them due to group sizes.[/quote]
LOL. It isn’t even funny, but pretty sad that an explanation is even needed. How disconnected does someone have to be to not understand the effects of racism or even understand what it is? Economics? “colored water fountains” were about “economics”? I suppose because I mentioned it, this means I have a “victim’s mentality” and that I am trapped because of it.
I had better never mention it or else this means I am I am benefitting from being a victim. Someone else can have these benefits whenever they want to take them.
Al Durr, you do deserve applause for what you have written. I have no doubt, however, that it either fell on deaf ears, or will be twisted in order to deflect any personal responibility.
[quote]ALDurr wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
Then why is a larger percentage of Blacks than other races taking advantage of the Government program of welfare if they are surviving outside Government and taxes?
Here is a perfect example of a person who has fallen for this white supremist game. The percentages you are talking about are relative to the race, not to the population of the USA. There are approx. 36 million blacks in this country, approx. 8 million that are living below poverty levels. Out of this 8 million, approx. 5 million have been reported to take government welfare. That is about 14% of blacks relative to the black population. Now, there are approx. 217 million whites in this country, approx. 20 million that are living below poverty levels. Out of this 20 million, approx. 15 million are reported to take government welfare. That is about 6.9% relative to the white population. But, if you base it against actual numbers, there are approx. 10 million more whites on welfare than blacks. Additionally, compared to the USA population, the percentage of white on welfare is greater. This is like saying 3 out of 10 (30%) vs. 1 out of 3 (33.3%). The 1 out of 3 is a greater percentage, but since the population is smaller to begin with, the actual number is smaller.
The percentage game you are referring to is used to make it look like there are more blacks on welfare than whites. The reality is that since there are more whites in this country than blacks, there are more whites on welfare. This is the game that is played and you fell for it.[/quote]
Can you please post where you obtained your welfare information from?
The calculations that I came up with are very different than yours. The data that I have included is straight from the US Government’s web sites. The most recent data that I found with regard to race and welfare is from 2002. I assume the data has not significantly changed since then.
On average, there are 5,150,000 total welfare recipients every month.
You stated 15 million white people and 5 million black people. Where did you get those figures from?
Out of ~5.2 million monthly welfare recipients, 2,046,850 (40%) of them are black and 1,482,550 (29%) of them are white.
It appears that more black people receive welfare every month than white people do.
There were approximately 288 million people in the US in 2002. 36,666,602 were black and 232,348,039 were white. From those figures, it apears that approximately 6% of all blacks are receiving welfare every month, and 0.6% of all whites are receiving welfare every month.
It appears that a higher percentage of black people receive welfare every month compared to white people.
Thus, from the data I looked at:
40% of welfare recipients are black.
29% of welfare recipients are white.
2,046,850 black people get welfare every month.
1,482,550 white people get welfare every month.
6% of all black people get welfare every month.
0.6% of all white people get welfare every month.
Then again, maybe my calculations and data are inaccurate.
[quote]ALDurr wrote:
c. There should be quotas at the expense of hiring, or admitting the most qualified.
This is absolute nonsense. First of all, this statement lends to the belief that blacks are not as qualified as whites so we need to have quotas to give us an advantage. There is not one black person in the country that subscribes to this notion. We subscribe to the notion of getting fair and equal treatment and consideration regards of our race. However, this does not always happen. This kind of statement is another piece of propaganda put out by people that don’t really want an equal system. People who want to keep the staus quo (white supremist society).
Second of all, there has never been any real evidence that this has occurred. Actually, the opposite has occurred. Blacks have always had to be more qualified than their white counterparts just to be considered for the same positions.
Third of all, whenever people have been questioned on this belief, there is no actual evidence to support it. It’s all heresay and perpetuation of racist beliefs.
[/quote]
Have you ever heard of the Hopwood case?
http://www.cir-usa.org/legal_docs/hopwood_v_texas_fifth.pdf
“The University of Texas School of Law is one of the nation’s leading law schools, consistently ranking in
the top twenty. See, e.g., America’s Best Graduate Schools, U.S. News & World Report Mar. 20, 1995, at
84 ( national survey ranking of seventeenth). Accordingly, admission to the law school is fiercely
competitive, with over 4,000 applicants a year competing to be among the approximately 900 offered
admission to achieve an entering class of about 500 students. Many of these applicants have some of the
highest grades and test scores in the country.
Numbers are therefore paramount for admission. In the early 1990’s, the law school largely based its
initial admissions decisions upon an applicant’s so-called Texas Index (“TI”) number, a composite of
undergraduate grade point average (“GPA”) and Law School Aptitude Test (” LSAT") score.(1) The law
school used this number as a matter of administrative convenience in order to rank candidates and to
predict, roughly, one’s probability of success in law school. Moreover, the law school relied heavily upon
such numbers to estimate the number of offers of admission it needed to make in order to fill its first-year
class.
Of course, the law school did not rely upon numbers alone. The admissions office necessarily exercised
judgment in interpreting the individual scores of applicants, taking into consideration factors such as the
strength of a student’s undergraduate education, the difficulty of his major, and significant trends in his
own grades and the undergraduate grades at his respective college (such as grade inflation). Admissions
personnel also considered what qualities each applicant might bring to his law school class. Thus, the law
school could consider an applicant’s background, life experiences, and outlook. Not surprisingly, these
hard- to-quantify factors were especially significant for marginal candidates.(2 )
Because of the large number of applicants and potential admissions factors, the TI’s administrative
usefulness was its ability to sort candidates. For the class entering in 1992–the admissions group at issue
in this case-- the law school placed the typical applicant in one of three categories according to his TI
scores: “presumptive admit,” “presumptive deny,” or a middle “discretionary zone.” An applicant’s TI
category determined how extensive a review his application would receive.
Most, but not all, applicants in the presumptive admit category received offers of admission with little
review. Professor Stanley Johanson, the Chairman of the Admissions Committee, or Dean Laquita
Hamilton, the Assistant Dean for Admissions, reviewed these files and downgraded only five to ten
percent to the discretionary zone because of weaknesses in their applications, generally a
non-competitive major or a weak undergraduate education.
Applicants in the presumptive denial category also received little consideration. Similarly, these files
would be reviewed by one or two professors, who could upgrade them if they believed that the TI score
did not adequately reflect potential to compete at the law school. Otherwise, the applicant was rejected.
Applications in the middle range were subjected to the most extensive scrutiny. For all applicants other
than blacks and Mexican Americans, the files were bundled into stacks of thirty, which were given to
admissions subcommittees consisting of three members of the full admissions committee . Each
subcommittee member, in reviewing the thirty files, could cast a number of votes–typically from nine to
eleven(3)–among the thirty files. Subject to the chairman’s veto, if a candidate received two or three
votes, he received an offer; if he garnered one vote, he was put on the waiting list; those with no votes
were denied admission.
Blacks and Mexican Americans were treated differently from other candidates, however. First, compared
to whites and non-preferred minorities,(4) the TI ranges that were used to place them into the three
admissions categories were lowered to allow the law school to consider and admit more of them. In
March 1992, for example, the presumptive TI admission score for resident whites and non-preferred
minorities was 199.( 5) Mexican Americans and blacks needed a TI of only 189 to be presumptively
admitted.(6) The difference in the presumptive-deny ranges is even more striking. The presumptive
denial score for “nonminorities” was 192; the same score for blacks and Mexican Americans was 179.
While these cold numbers may speak little to those unfamiliar with the pool of applicants, the results
demonstrate that the difference in the two ranges was dramatic. According to the law school, 1992
resident white applicants had a mean GPA of 3.53 and an LSAT of 164. Mexican Americans scored 3.27
and 158; blacks scored 3.25 and 157. The category of “other minority” achieved a 3.56 and 160.(7)
These disparate standards greatly affected a candidate’s chance of admission. For example, by March
1992, because the presumptive denial score for whites was a TI of 192 or lower, and the presumptive
admit TI for minorities was 189 or higher, a minority candidate with a TI of 189 or above almost
certainly would be admitted, even though his score was considerably below(8) the level at which a white
candidate almost certainly would be rejected. Out of the pool of resident applicants who fell within this
range (189-192 inclusive), 100% of blacks and 90% of Mexican Americans, but only 6% of whites, were
offered admission.(9)
The stated purpose of this lowering of standards was to meet an " aspiration" of admitting a class
consisting of 10% Mexican Americans and 5% blacks, proportions roughly comparable to the
percentages of those races graduating from Texas colleges. The law school found meeting these “goals”
difficult, however, because of uncertain acceptance rates and the variable quality of the applicant
pool.(10) In 1992, for example, the entering class contained 41 blacks and 55 Mexican Americans,
respectively 8% and 10. 7% of the class.
In addition to maintaining separate presumptive TI levels for minorities and whites, the law school ran a
segregated application evaluation process . Upon receiving an application form, the school color-coded it
according to race. If a candidate failed to designate his race, he was presumed to be in a nonpreferential
category. Thus, race was always an overt part of the review of any applicant’s file.
The law school reviewed minority candidates within the applicable discretionary range differently from
whites. Instead of being evaluated and compared by one of the various discretionary zone
subcommittees, black and Mexican American applicants’ files were reviewed by a minority
subcommittee of three, which would meet and discuss every minority candidate. Thus, each of these
candidates’ files could get extensive review and discussion. And while the minority subcommittee
reported summaries of files to the admissions committee as a whole, the minority subcommittee’s
decisions were “virtually final.”
Finally, the law school maintained segregated waiting lists, dividing applicants by race and residence.
Thus, even many of those minority applicants who were not admitted could be set aside in
“minority-only” waiting lists. Such separate lists apparently helped the law school maintain a pool of
potentially acceptable, but marginal, minority candidates.(11)"
[quote]Professor X wrote:
LOL. It isn’t even funny, but pretty sad that an explanation is even needed. How disconnected does someone have to be to not understand the effects of racism or even understand what it is? Economics? “colored water fountains” were about “economics”? I suppose because I mentioned it, this means I have a “victim’s mentality” and that I am trapped because of it.[/quote]
No, you should be written off because most of us haven’t seen “colored water fountains” in our lifetime. But I agree with you, it’s not just an economic issue. So I’m not misinterpretted as being in denial, I’ll offer (IMO) a better substitute for “colored water fountains”, serial killers. Money is (or should be) no object when you want to catch a serial killer. The profile? Overwhelmingly a serial killer is a white, male, 25-40, above average intelligence, usually employed and middle class, not publicly active but still a fixture in his community. The FBI will NEVER run that profile for several reasons. Your neighbors will NEVER profile/stereotype you like that for any number of reasons. Justify it all you want, but if you want to catch a serial killer or avoid being a victim, you need only look at serial killers and do whatever it takes.
[quote]lucasa wrote:
Professor X wrote:
LOL. It isn’t even funny, but pretty sad that an explanation is even needed. How disconnected does someone have to be to not understand the effects of racism or even understand what it is? Economics? “colored water fountains” were about “economics”? I suppose because I mentioned it, this means I have a “victim’s mentality” and that I am trapped because of it.
No, you should be written off because most of us haven’t seen “colored water fountains” in our lifetime. But I agree with you, it’s not just an economic issue. So I’m not misinterpretted as being in denial, I’ll offer (IMO) a better substitute for “colored water fountains”, serial killers. Money is (or should be) no object when you want to catch a serial killer. The profile? Overwhelmingly a serial killer is a white, male, 25-40, above average intelligence, usually employed and middle class, not publicly active but still a fixture in his community. The FBI will NEVER run that profile for several reasons. Your neighbors will NEVER profile/stereotype you like that for any number of reasons. Justify it all you want, but if you want to catch a serial killer or avoid being a victim, you need only look at serial killers and do whatever it takes. [/quote]
Since when have young white males all been stereotyped as serial killers? There is HUGE difference between the simple realization that most serial killers have been white and the social impact from everyone in society assuming every white male is a possible serial killer. Do you not see the difference? If I am followed around a store (as just happened two days ago at Walmart by a cop who was originally working the front door and followed me into the electronics section…mind you it was around 12AM so there were few other customers at all) it is not because they are looking for a specific thief on the loose. It is because they assume I am going to steal something because I fit a “profile”. How many times have people followed you or checked your background just to see if you were a serial killer? My guess is, not once in your life has your day been hassled because someone thought you “might” be a serial killer so quit the bullshit. Your example only shows the huge difference between society reaction between the majority and minorities.
[quote]doogie wrote:
ALDurr wrote:
c. There should be quotas at the expense of hiring, or admitting the most qualified.
This is absolute nonsense. First of all, this statement lends to the belief that blacks are not as qualified as whites so we need to have quotas to give us an advantage. There is not one black person in the country that subscribes to this notion. We subscribe to the notion of getting fair and equal treatment and consideration regards of our race. However, this does not always happen. This kind of statement is another piece of propaganda put out by people that don’t really want an equal system. People who want to keep the staus quo (white supremist society).
Second of all, there has never been any real evidence that this has occurred. Actually, the opposite has occurred. Blacks have always had to be more qualified than their white counterparts just to be considered for the same positions.
Third of all, whenever people have been questioned on this belief, there is no actual evidence to support it. It’s all heresay and perpetuation of racist beliefs.
Have you ever heard of the Hopwood case?
http://www.cir-usa.org/legal_docs/hopwood_v_texas_fifth.pdf
“The University of Texas School of Law is one of the nation’s leading law schools, consistently ranking in
the top twenty. See, e.g., America’s Best Graduate Schools, U.S. News & World Report Mar. 20, 1995, at
84 ( national survey ranking of seventeenth). Accordingly, admission to the law school is fiercely
competitive, with over 4,000 applicants a year competing to be among the approximately 900 offered
admission to achieve an entering class of about 500 students. Many of these applicants have some of the
highest grades and test scores in the country.
Numbers are therefore paramount for admission. In the early 1990’s, the law school largely based its
initial admissions decisions upon an applicant’s so-called Texas Index (“TI”) number, a composite of
undergraduate grade point average (“GPA”) and Law School Aptitude Test (” LSAT") score.(1) The law
school used this number as a matter of administrative convenience in order to rank candidates and to
predict, roughly, one’s probability of success in law school. Moreover, the law school relied heavily upon
such numbers to estimate the number of offers of admission it needed to make in order to fill its first-year
class.
Of course, the law school did not rely upon numbers alone. The admissions office necessarily exercised
judgment in interpreting the individual scores of applicants, taking into consideration factors such as the
strength of a student’s undergraduate education, the difficulty of his major, and significant trends in his
own grades and the undergraduate grades at his respective college (such as grade inflation). Admissions
personnel also considered what qualities each applicant might bring to his law school class. Thus, the law
school could consider an applicant’s background, life experiences, and outlook. Not surprisingly, these
hard- to-quantify factors were especially significant for marginal candidates.(2 )
Because of the large number of applicants and potential admissions factors, the TI’s administrative
usefulness was its ability to sort candidates. For the class entering in 1992–the admissions group at issue
in this case-- the law school placed the typical applicant in one of three categories according to his TI
scores: “presumptive admit,” “presumptive deny,” or a middle “discretionary zone.” An applicant’s TI
category determined how extensive a review his application would receive.
Most, but not all, applicants in the presumptive admit category received offers of admission with little
review. Professor Stanley Johanson, the Chairman of the Admissions Committee, or Dean Laquita
Hamilton, the Assistant Dean for Admissions, reviewed these files and downgraded only five to ten
percent to the discretionary zone because of weaknesses in their applications, generally a
non-competitive major or a weak undergraduate education.
Applicants in the presumptive denial category also received little consideration. Similarly, these files
would be reviewed by one or two professors, who could upgrade them if they believed that the TI score
did not adequately reflect potential to compete at the law school. Otherwise, the applicant was rejected.
Applications in the middle range were subjected to the most extensive scrutiny. For all applicants other
than blacks and Mexican Americans, the files were bundled into stacks of thirty, which were given to
admissions subcommittees consisting of three members of the full admissions committee . Each
subcommittee member, in reviewing the thirty files, could cast a number of votes–typically from nine to
eleven(3)–among the thirty files. Subject to the chairman’s veto, if a candidate received two or three
votes, he received an offer; if he garnered one vote, he was put on the waiting list; those with no votes
were denied admission.
Blacks and Mexican Americans were treated differently from other candidates, however. First, compared
to whites and non-preferred minorities,(4) the TI ranges that were used to place them into the three
admissions categories were lowered to allow the law school to consider and admit more of them. In
March 1992, for example, the presumptive TI admission score for resident whites and non-preferred
minorities was 199.( 5) Mexican Americans and blacks needed a TI of only 189 to be presumptively
admitted.(6) The difference in the presumptive-deny ranges is even more striking. The presumptive
denial score for “nonminorities” was 192; the same score for blacks and Mexican Americans was 179.
While these cold numbers may speak little to those unfamiliar with the pool of applicants, the results
demonstrate that the difference in the two ranges was dramatic. According to the law school, 1992
resident white applicants had a mean GPA of 3.53 and an LSAT of 164. Mexican Americans scored 3.27
and 158; blacks scored 3.25 and 157. The category of “other minority” achieved a 3.56 and 160.(7)
These disparate standards greatly affected a candidate’s chance of admission. For example, by March
1992, because the presumptive denial score for whites was a TI of 192 or lower, and the presumptive
admit TI for minorities was 189 or higher, a minority candidate with a TI of 189 or above almost
certainly would be admitted, even though his score was considerably below(8) the level at which a white
candidate almost certainly would be rejected. Out of the pool of resident applicants who fell within this
range (189-192 inclusive), 100% of blacks and 90% of Mexican Americans, but only 6% of whites, were
offered admission.(9)
The stated purpose of this lowering of standards was to meet an " aspiration" of admitting a class
consisting of 10% Mexican Americans and 5% blacks, proportions roughly comparable to the
percentages of those races graduating from Texas colleges. The law school found meeting these “goals”
difficult, however, because of uncertain acceptance rates and the variable quality of the applicant
pool.(10) In 1992, for example, the entering class contained 41 blacks and 55 Mexican Americans,
respectively 8% and 10. 7% of the class.
In addition to maintaining separate presumptive TI levels for minorities and whites, the law school ran a
segregated application evaluation process . Upon receiving an application form, the school color-coded it
according to race. If a candidate failed to designate his race, he was presumed to be in a nonpreferential
category. Thus, race was always an overt part of the review of any applicant’s file.
The law school reviewed minority candidates within the applicable discretionary range differently from
whites. Instead of being evaluated and compared by one of the various discretionary zone
subcommittees, black and Mexican American applicants’ files were reviewed by a minority
subcommittee of three, which would meet and discuss every minority candidate. Thus, each of these
candidates’ files could get extensive review and discussion. And while the minority subcommittee
reported summaries of files to the admissions committee as a whole, the minority subcommittee’s
decisions were “virtually final.”
Finally, the law school maintained segregated waiting lists, dividing applicants by race and residence.
Thus, even many of those minority applicants who were not admitted could be set aside in
“minority-only” waiting lists. Such separate lists apparently helped the law school maintain a pool of
potentially acceptable, but marginal, minority candidates.(11)"[/quote]
Doogie, I think you missed the point here. I never said that quotas didn’t exist. However, blacks did not set these quotas, nor are we forcing anyone to live with them. I am very familiar with this case and the very few others that pop up because they are used to by the “liberal” MSM to build cases against Affirmative Action. This is by design and part of the white supremacist society that we all live in. This is all done to marginalize the skills and abilities of blacks in this country and plant the seeds of doubt and mistrust. These institutions do the same thing. They are told that we can’t achieve, so they lower the standards so they can build cases later to say that we can’t achieve. Self-fulfilling prophecies are created in this country all the time. This is all part of the game that is done in this country. If the standards were the same, chances are that your numbers would not change very much because people who didn’t qualify wouldn’t apply. You would get a different pool of talent. But that would kill the ability of white institutions to claim that non-whites are not as capable than whites. We are all victims of this very game.
The reason that I said you missed the point is that my response was to a post that was related to what blacks believe should be their rights (I am paraphrasing, not quoting) and really had nothing to do with saying that it does or doesn’t happen.
Picking out one or two particular case(s) does not make this a rule. The problem is that the one or two exceptions are used in many people’s minds to say this is how everything works for blacks. This society is all too ready to accept negatives about non-whites, especially blacks.
I may have been on a slight rant because I have to live with this type of crap all of the time. The rant may have cause some generalizations that may not be completely accurate, but I, much like many blacks, grow weary of having to defend ourselves.
In this society, there has always been some doubt about my skills, abilities and knowledge simply because of my skin color. I know for a fact that my test scores and GPA that I earned to get into college and grad school were higher than many of my white counterparts. I’ve talked to them personally and we’ve compared notes. The same things have occurred at every job that I worked as well. Because I don’t fit perceived notions, I don’t get the benefit of the doubt. I have been in meetings where I am in charge of projects and have had people doubt me until a white person verified my position. I have also watch whites that were in charge of projects get the benefit of the doubt on a regular basis. So, yes it is a personal thing for me, and sometimes that comes out and it may not always be coherent.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Since when have young white males all been stereotyped as serial killers? There is HUGE difference between the simple realization that most serial killers have been white and the social impact from everyone in society assuming every white male is a possible serial killer. Do you not see the difference? If I am followed around a store (as just happened two days ago at Walmart by a cop who was originally working the front door and followed me into the electronics section…mind you it was around 12AM so there were few other customers at all) it is not because they are looking for a specific thief on the loose. It is because they assume I am going to steal something because I fit a “profile”. How many times have people followed you or checked your background just to see if you were a serial killer? My guess is, not once in your life has your day been hassled because someone thought you “might” be a serial killer so quit the bullshit. Your example only shows the huge difference between society reaction between the majority and minorities.[/quote]
Prof.,
1.) Calm down.
2.) I’m on your side in this regard. As you and ALDurr said, it’s not just/always an economic issue and I AGREE. You used “colored drinking fountains” as an example, I was merely saying that it was a poor example because most of the younger generations never experience(d) it. And your rant about cops following you into a Wal-mart at 12am is going to fall on deaf ears because once again, most of us never experience it. I used the serial killer example precisely for the purposes that:
1.)It applies directly to most of white men (or should).
2.)It largely/always doesn’t get applied to white men.
3.)It is completely independent (or should be) of economics.
You assumed I was saying I had been hassled. I wasn’t, I was saying that I fit the profile to a “T” and no one has ever hassled me. Even though, according to the profile, they should have.
BTW- In MY town, the cops don’t follow anyone into stores (that I know of) at any time of day or night and you’re more than welcome to shop there.
It is very interesting. The topic of this post was about a white person discussing the fact that whites in this country are in denial about the privileges that they enjoy being the majority in this (USA) country. It was put there to spark discussion about the things that were said in the article. But what do we have? Some whites (not all, but some) and some non-whites that have that mindset (not all, but some) responded with attacks on the author, statements that it only has to do with econimics and not race and that they are separate issues (a laughable concept in this country) and deflection from the topic to shift the focus to black people. The end result is that, once again, black people have to defend themselves against the white supremacist mentality and perception that we all have been regularly subjected to in this society.
There has been no real admission from these people that there might be some truth to the matter. There has been no true discussion on how to work on correcting these things so that all Americans can be included. Although there has been plenty of the “why can’t we just be who we are” and the “why can’t we just be Americans” or the “why do we have to constantly separate ourselves, this doesn’t help us at all” pat mentality. All of this is called avoidance.
One of the most destructive forms of racism practiced today is the very thing this article is calling out. It is this inherit privilege and abiity to deny. It can be summed up in two words: “white supremacy.” This has been the cornerstone of this society since its creation. From this type of racism comes the fear, frustration, misinformation, ignorance and confusion that is retarding and preventing us all from coming together and having constructive activity between us all as Americans. Ironically, the very people that have the ability and resources to help correct the results of this mindset (the majority), lack the will to do so. Conversely, those who are the targets of this racism (minorities), have the will to correct and destroy the negative results of racism, but because of the racist obstacles of this society, whether they are political, economic, social or psychological, do not have the ability or resources to do so.
People have been mislead to believe that racism is purely a white vs. a non-white issue. In reality, it is a fight of good vs. evil or right vs. wrong. Those that stand on the sidelines and say or do nothing to correct this situation are just as guilty as those who practice this evil. This includes all people regardless of race. However, due to the role that whites played in creating it and the privileges that they gained because of it, true justice demands that they play a key role in helping eliminate it. In other words, the denial needs to stop.
[quote]lucasa wrote:
Prof.,
1.) Calm down.[/quote]
Why would you assume I am not calm?
[quote]
2.) I’m on your side in this regard. As you and ALDurr said, it’s not just/always an economic issue and I AGREE. You used “colored drinking fountains” as an example, I was merely saying that it was a poor example because most of the younger generations never experience(d) it.[/quote]
But many of the older generation HAVE experienced it. My mother experienced it as a child, so why act as if there should be no emotional attachment? This wasn’t centuries ago, especially in the south.
[quote]
And your rant about cops following you into a Wal-mart at 12am is going to fall on deaf ears because once again, most of us never experience it. I used the serial killer example precisely for the purposes that:
1.)It applies directly to most of white men (or should).[/quote]
Well, not once is the profiling for serial killers used to describe “possible” serial killers when it comes to random white men. It is ONLY used to catch KNOWN serial killers making it no relation to what I experience at all.
Thus proving my point. That wasn’t an assumption on my part. I KNOW that whites are not grouped together and labeled with negatiuve stereotypes.
[quote]
BTW- In MY town, the cops don’t follow anyone into stores (that I know of) at any time of day or night and you’re more than welcome to shop there.[/quote]
I seriously doubt that as I have been in many cities and found most to be guilty of similar acts. Mind you, I used to work at a store while in college so I already know the “undercover” tactics so they are easily spotted as well. This particular cop was even more blatant. I know I surprised him as well by going around the other side of the aisle and catching him peeking around the other side.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Al Durr, you do deserve applause for what you have written. I have no doubt, however, that it either fell on deaf ears, or will be twisted in order to deflect any personal responibility.[/quote]
Thanks, my friend. Just remember though, just because it falls on deaf ears or people twist it, doesn’t mean we should stop speaking. The moment we stop speaking is when everything is lost.