Are you honestly trying to suggest that there is no racism? Do you have any evidence of this outside your own anecdotal experience to defeat the decades of evidence that would seemingly disagree with you?

Do you really think it's a good idea for blacks to be seen as getting a free ride, even if they aren't? Isn't that just going to create more racism?

Oh wow. There's no more racism in America? When did this happen?

I must have missed that memo. Gosh, I just hate when that happens!

One thing though: Could somebody go tell James Byrd Jr. and Amadou Diallo it's okay to stop being dead? Since there's no more racism Byrd wasn't really dragged to his death and Diallo wasn't really mowed down in a hail of bullets by NYC cops.

I feel so much better now that the playing field is level and I can make just as much money and enjoy all the same opportunities as a white man.

Because there is no more racism in America. What a great day this is.

And who said there was no more racism? I must have missed it.

Thank you. I never intimated racism ceased to exist. That's a ridiculous statement created by spinning my original statement. What I stated was:



Meaning, that being shut out simply because of race by a legitimate entity (school, job, etc) is not likely in this day in age. Is there racism? Of course there is. There are as many black bigots as white bigots. But the world is no longer being run by these bigots in case someone didn't get THAT memo.

The possibility of being shut out simply because of the color of your skin is as unlikely today as not being shut out 50 years ago.

This is the new millennium in the United States. Get over it already.

I still think statements like this should warrant at least one citation.

Instead of attacking me because you don't like my message, please provide me one recent example of institutional racism here in America...not Canada.

Name for me one school that keeps minorities out because of race.
Name for me one corporation that does not hire minorities.

For every Amadou Diallo anybody cites, I can cite one Reginald Denny. As horrific and despicable as the racist thugs are behind these actions, this is a far cry from institutionalized racism where minorities are denied an opportunity based on their skin color.

This debate was about affirmative action. My points have to do with the topic whether you agree or disagree with my views. As usual, if a person disagrees with race issues, then they are branded a racist and start demanding "citations".

Gee, that's funny. Mafumee whats-his-face, Al Sharpton, and Jesse Jackson can say and do anything they want, but they get a free pass. Trent Lott can make an inane comment or DaytonRocker can disagree with the mainstream race issue, and be taken out to the woodshed.

Now, that is racism. But it's not denying me an opportunity to succeed.

Chillax buddy... nobody called you a racist. You made the assertion:



That implies that there is no racism WHATSOEVER because, as I'm sure you aware, racism permeated everything fifty years ago.

Now I'm not saying that there is an organized system of racial exclusion, but the fact is that there is little doubt in my mind that there are people in positions of authority that behave in a racist fashion. And as long as that is true I believe that it must be compensated for by some sort of affirmative action.

I'll reitarate, since no one answered my question.

CP

Easy does it boys 'n girls. This is a hot topic and tempers can fly quite easily.

A few pages back, Quarkie made a comment about how nothing happening today could be compared with flat out denying minorites basic privledges. Like, white only drinking fountains, white only buses, etc etc.

How about this scenerio?

A black man and a white man approach a drinking fountain at exactly the same time..... who should drink first and why?

- The black man, because 60 years ago, this was a white only fountain?

- The white man, because racism doesn't exist?

OR... *drum roll please*

- Whoever is the most thirsty, or famished. Perhaps the person that should drink first is the person who was RUNNING to the fountain (if one was, and the other walking) because that person would have a higher heartrate, and probably needs the water to replenish.

Race should not apply. There is ALWAYS a better criteria for judgeing who gets what and why, than your skin color.

--cheers

And that is a perfect analogy for capitalism, no matter what race, creed or nationality if you work hard you succeed. That simple, well put DP.

CP

Thats all well and good, but it operates on the assumption that everyone thinks the same way. So I ask, do you honestly think that minorities aren't affected by racism (and by racism I am NOT referring to AA.)

Yes, Asian-Americans are being denied educational opportunities based on the fact of their race. Whoops, that is due to AA.

Howabout a direct and straightforward response to a sincere question? Would that be too much to ask for Hugo?

Yes, minorities are effected by racism. Yes, everyone of us is a minority, including white males. For some reason some minorities do much better than others. Usually you see a strong positive correlation between success and putting off having children until after marriage and a negative correlation between government assistance and success. Let us ignore the model minority, it does not jive with our racism is a widespread evil , that needs government programs to combat, theory.

I dont know if anyone else found this entirely ironic, that its stated that Black people have more oppurtunity, except that Dayton Rocker willnot hire black guys, and he knows many others who do the same.

But I guess maybe its because they have more oppurtunity than all the white guys he hires...

Well, since you've peeled out my comments to fit your argument, how about I supply the rest...

First, any black I interviewed had an opportunity. Just like every trailer-trash white loser I interviewed and never hired. For the record, this is not to equate the two. My point is there are as many white people who don't get an opportunity at times as some minorities.

Secondly, I never said my business partners would never hire a black. What I said was:



So, because I was afraid of how affirmative action (in case you haven't noticed, this is the debate topic) would affect me, that doesn't qualify my actions as institutionalized racism. Are there exceptions? Of course...but it is not the rule and you've attempted to twist my comments into the rule.

What I also said was:



Affirmative action prevents opportunity that minorities MAY otherwise have in this day and age. That was the point of my example.

Of course they are. And it's truly sad that it does still exist today. Though I'm not convinced it is as big of a problem as some would suggest.

But you can't legislate racism away. Attempting to force everyone to think the same way is called the "thought police". The more laws we make like this, the more resentment will grow within the communities.

Again, laws cannot change peoples minds. Time heals all wounds, not the gov't.

If it can be proven that the white man was given access to the water fountain, BECAUSE he was white, and BECAUSE the fountain operator was a racist, then yes the black man has a case. Yes the operator should go to jail, etc etc.

But you can't prevent racism by attempting to stay one step ahead of it.

--cheers

Has anyone heard about the Affirmative Action Bake Sales going on across the country?

University of Michigan:

The purpose of the bake sale was to exemplify the University's 150 point-based system admissions process in another setting, Michigan Review Editor in Chief James and LSA senior Justin Wilson said. The University awards 20 out of a possible 150 points to underrepresented minority students.

The bake sale offered bagels and muffins at different prices for different students according to their race. Non-minority students - including whites, Asians and Middle Easterners - were charged $1 for each baked good, while minority students - blacks, Native Americans and Hispanics - were charged 80 cents. Engineering senior Matt Franczak said the bake sale's purpose was to raise awareness about the University's race-conscious admissions policies, which he said are "ridiculous."

http://www.michigandaily.com/vnews/display...8/3e51d27e2b3e2

UCLA:

Not all college students support racial preferences and some UCLA students made their feelings known in a highly innovative way. In early February, Bruin Republicans organized a campus cookie sale, but not your ordinary cookie sale. They offered cookies at different prices depending on the customer's race and sex. Black, Latino and American Indian females were charged 25 cents for a cookie while their male counterparts were charged 50 cents. White females were charged a dollar. White males were charged two dollars. Asian males and females also were charged two dollars a cookie.

Students selling the cookies assigned themselves name tags. Some of the name tags read "Uncle Tom", "The White Oppressor" and "Self-Hating Hispanic Race Traitor." Chris Riha, third-year business economics student participating in the Affirmative Action Bake Sale, said that the students decided to one up their detractors by assigning the names themselves. That's what minorities who disagree with racial preferences are either called, or thought to be, an "Uncle Tom" or self-hating black or Hispanic.

Chairman of the California Democratic Party, Art Torres, voiced his disapproval saying, "I am deeply saddened and disheartened at the activities of the Bruin Republicans." He accused them of having been emboldened by Senator Trent Lott's remarks that led to his ouster as the Senate majority leader. Art Torres' condemnation was joined by many of UCLA's racial preferences supporters.

Here's my question for those who condemned the event. Why be offended by a money version of racial preferences? After all it's identical in principle to admission practices sanctioned by university communities across America. In fact, that's what the University of Michigan case before the U.S. Supreme Court is all about - treating people differently by race.

http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/w...3/bakesale.html

The original intent of AA was noble and needed but AA was never intended to produce racial harmony and in fact in many cases has lead to reverse discrimination. I don’t think AA should be abolished but it definitely needs an overhaul.

The idea listed below is a good, no a great idea and I think this has been tried on a very small scale.

We need a study to try to determine to what extent we still have discrimination. The remarkable fact and the hope for the future is that mainstream Right and Left both strongly abhor discrimination. Americans come together on this point. We could do tests where you have a white and a black try to rent the same apartment, try out for the same job, or get a loan from the bank, and see how they're treated. Give them identical resumes. If it turns out these individuals are being treated the same, then we might not need affirmative action anymore. If it turns out there are a lot of differences, then we need something and affirmative action could be that thing. A debate on the best way to eliminate unfair discrimination is much more productive than just debating affirmative action. John David Skrentny

A test was administered a while back using typical white, e.g. John vs. typical black, e.g. Tyrone, names on job applications. The results were very unsettling. Does anyone have any info on that?

On the face of it, Affirmative Action seems unfair. We look around us and see this wonderfully diverse culture in the US. We see blacks, Latinos, and women in business offices, as professors, in Congress (at least in the House). It's easy to conclude that Affirmative Action programs are obsolete. For me, though, the idea of ending Affirmative Action programs leads me to some other questions and thoughts...

1. If we get rid of AA, do we keep laws against discrimination in hiring? If so, how do we regulate that? How do we police it? Whether we support AA or not, it provides a measurable method of observing compliance with laws guaranteeing equal opportunity. What measurable way is there to tell if companies or schools are complying with equal opportunity laws?

Right wing libertarians might go so far as to say that even equal opportunity laws should be stricken. If a private business wants to discriminate and not hire anyone except for South Korean male midgets, that should be their right. However, the charter of incorporation is granted by the state. If the government is of, by, and for the people, why should they not have a say in the rules which govern corporate charters?

2. The "Asian" issue.

In this thread, some have pointed to the success of Asian students and businesses. It may be germane to point out that most Asian cultures practice (at the very least on a family level) exactly the type of collectivism that many on the right here are railing against. They practice several key beliefs - that success is defined collectively, not individually, and that the general success of the extended family over the long term is more important than the individual's short term success and liberty. I've known a lot of Indians and Vietnamese who came to this country one by one. The first guy works hard to be able to afford to bring his family. They work hard to bring the extended family, one by one. Eventually, they gain enough collective capital to buy businesses and make a decent living. But it's not done using the "lone star" approach.

Now, this may seem off topic, but I see it as a contrast to the systematic and very intentional decimation of the family structure of the Africans who were brought to this country as slaves. Their families and their culture were forcibly destroyed. In the scope of history, it hasn't been very long since slavery ended. It's been even less time since blacks were guaranteed civil rights in this country. It's incredibly obtuse, in my opinion, to think that centuries of purposeful repression can be erased in 40, 50, or 100 years. The family structure and the cultural identity of African Americans is still reeling from the institutionalized repression that went on for so long. How can anyone pretend that all of a sudden, African Americans are at the same starting line, in the same condition, as whites?

Fewer black families own homes. A much higher percentage of blacks live below the poverty line. Blacks have lower net worth, fewer assets. I say, if you see blacks as having equal opportunity to succeed, how do you explain these facts without coming to a racist conclusion? I believe, and science agrees, that intelligence and its associates are not prejudiced in regards to race. There is a fairly even distribution of intelligence, drive, greed, and sloth among all races of people. Therefor, logic tells me that the economic disparity between whites and blacks as a group, must have some other cause, some external factor.

If the cause of that disparity is external, and its effect is still felt by blacks across the board, then what's so wrong about applying external aid in rectifying that? When the economic disparity disappears, Affirmative action will make itself obsolete. That time is not yet.

Since analogies have been used here, allow me another one:

A black man and two white men are going to run a race. The white men have been working out, training. The black man, though he's been training, still suffers from injuries he received several months before the race - when he had the snot beat out of him. So they show up at the starting line. And their off! But the black man is limping, he's not running very fast.

One of the white men slows down and says, "hey, let's run this race later. We should get you to a doctor. We can always race again once your leg is healed."

The other white man looks back over his shoulder as he pulls away toward the finish line. He says, "Hey, we all started at the same chalk-marks! It's his own fault he's not running fast enough! That beating was months ago! Get over it! Besides, why should I stop running? After all, I wasn't the one who beat you up!"

Why?

I'm not buying

No one should still be whinning about their grandparents mistreatment. If civil rights were granted yesterday, I would agree with you Quark. While, in the whole scope of history, it has indeed been a short time....it was still several generations ago.

Injuries impacting our grandparents/forefathers/ancestors have no bearing on our abilities, or on us at all, today

--cheers

DP, I probably should have avoided the analogy completely. It's too easy for people to attack the inadequacies of the story instead of focusing on the point at hand. What I was trying to get at was this:

The type of discrimination enacted against Africans in America was somewhat unique (in the history of the US). By separating families, changing their names, barring any African cultural practices, what was damaged was the infrastructure of identity and culture. This kind of damage ripples through generations, and it is not helped by the racism which continues today.

Perhaps I should present some data to support the idea that there is currently inequity between the races.

In 1960, 8.1% of whites completed at least four years of college, compared to 3.1% of blacks.

In 1999, 25.9% of whites completed at least four years of college, compared to 15.4% of blacks, and 10.9% of hispanics.

Full time wage and salary workers' median weekly incomes:

white men: $694
white women: $521
black men: $518
black women: $451
hispanic men: $438
hispanic women: $385

If affirmative action were leading to reverse discrimination, one might expect unemployment rates for whites, blacks, and hispanics, to be getting closer together. More whites losing their jobs to blacks, women, and hispanics. But that isn't happening.

From 2000 to 2001, the unemployment rate for white men went from 3.4 to 4.3, an increase of .9
for white women, from 3.6 to 4.1, an increase of .5
for black men, from 8.1 to 9.3, an increase of 1.2
for black women, from 7.2 to 8.1, an increase of .9

So. Whites have higher paying jobs. They get fired less often. Minorities fill a disproportionately high percentage of menial labor jobs, and are under-represented in executive and managerial jobs.

Physicians, for example: 29.3% are women, 5.6% are black, 4.6% are hispanic.

But hey! They've got better numbers when it comes to domestic servants! 96.1% are women, 13.5% are black, and 39.5% are hispanic.

* * * * * * * *

Now, I know that this data is not news to anyone. But if the problem here is not inequity in opportunity, what is it? Are women, blacks and hispanics congenitally lazy or stupid? Obviously I don't think they are. I guess that what I DON"T see in any of these arguments against AA, is a plausible cause for this disparity if it is NOT racism/sexism. Plus, the fact that these types of data are not reversing, and moving toward each other, would seem to fly in the face of the idea of reverse discrimination being at all a problem. While reverse discrimination may occur, isn't there a lot of straight-up discrimination to take care of first?

(statistics from the US Dept of Labor)

Quark, there's no quarrel about the stats or that racism exists. Not from me anyway. But I don't see the solution in AA because AA is applied at the wrong end of the spectrum. College and workplace giveaways only serve to make the problem worse.

Take the time, energy and money and spend it at the elementary education level. Then, and only then, do you have a chance to provide an eventual cure. That 'eventual' is the hard part.

Those in position to make change are only willing to do something in the short-term. No credit comes for long-term results until after they're dead!

You cannot solve this problem with quick fixes or gifts.

So if AA is in place it will look like this?

White woman: $500
White men: $500
Black men: $500
Black women: $500
Hispanic men: $500
Hispanic women: $500

CP

It never ceases to amaze me that a program that has existed just over 30 years (affirmative action) is seen as some sort of pernicious and corrupting evil while the institutions of slavery and segregation which endured, persisted and were legally codified for hundreds of years have magically vanished like the morning dew.

What it comes down to is some white men dislike being discomforted while they are indifferent to the discomfort of non-whites. Thank goodness that the mindset of those people seems to be becoming a minority view with the majority of white Americans.

Past acts of racism have no bearing upon anyone living today? What a fanciful notion! Totally absurd, but fanciful all the same. It would be delusional and a outright lie to say the issue of race and racism is as virulent in 2003 America as it was just 50 years ago.

It is equally delusional and a outright lie to say racism no longer holds anyone back and has no lingering effects upon the lives of people of color in America. Racism still lives, still thrives and still exists.

Do blacks obsess over race? Sure they do! Do whites myopically deceive themselves that racism no longer exists? Sure they do!

Somewhere in that murky middle ground between your beliefs and [/i]my[/i]beliefs, there's a cold hard truth that neither one of us is quite ready to accept. People tend to be selective in what information they will accept and process and usually it's only the information that confirms what we already believe.

I'm not going to convince anyone who's mind is closed on the subject of whether racism exists and persists. My mind is open if you've got the intellectual energy to make the case that racism is no longer the problem and that the lack of individuals taking responsibility to make their on way in the world is.

"I opened my eyes and said, 'I don't understand' instead of closing them and saying 'I don't believe.' "
IF you're willing to make the effort.

http://www.ferris.edu/news/jimcrow/index.htm

http://www.jimcrowhistory.org/home.htm

I am not a racist. I am against every form of racism and segregation, every form of discrimination. I believe in human beings, and that all human beings should be respected as such, regardless of their color. --- Malcolm X

[QUOTE]It never ceases to amaze me that a program that has existed just over 30 years (affirmative action) is seen as some sort of pernicious and corrupting evil while the institutions of slavery and segregation which endured, persisted and were legally codified for hundreds of years have magically vanished like the morning dew.[/QUOTE]
I've never seen anyone who has gone through these evils of slavery, have you.

[/QUOTE]What it comes down to is some white men dislike being discomforted while they are indifferent to the discomfort of non-whites. Thank goodness that the mindset of those people seems to be becoming a minority view with the majority of white Americans.[QUOTE]

I'm 25% african american, I just think it is insulting that people want to give black people something that they can earn and be a happier person for it. If racism is such a problem, how will promoting it end it?

CP

No mention in this article on how at least one angry student opposed to this style of protest tore apart the bake sale banners and stand. I guess diversity and tolerance are reserved for the enlightnened few.

Daily Bruin Article

Walter Williams provides an interesting perspective on AA.

I have a world of respect for guys like Mr. Williams.

Walter Williams on Affirmative Action

I disagree with affirmative action but I also disagree with those who feel we don't have an inequity problem in the country. We need to replace affirmative action with an economic based program.

In hiring, corporations need to be smacked with major and intrusive penalties for using racism or sexism as a reason for denying employment.

Racism still exists but affirmative action is no longer a helpful tool in fighting it.

Well, there's the crux of the problem. I don't agree that affirmative action is a promotion of racism. I think it is a remedy for racism.

And people haven't "given" anything to black people. Black and white people got it in their heads that racism, segregation and white supremacy were bad things and set out to end it. My previous signature was Frederick Douglass's famous quote as how power concedes nothing without a demand.

It was applicable back in his day and it's even more so now.

Perhaps you're insulted by affirmative action based on race, but I'm equally outraged by the "acceptable" kinds of affirmative action such as the kind that benefited George W. Bush when he got into Yale with his unremarkable test scores.

Then again, the American people have always taken offense at the very notion that a person should profit on anything other than individual achievement and merit----unless said person is part of the aristocracy and monied elites. Then those reservations go right in the trash.

Dubya got AA to get into Yale?? Puleeze....

I have as little use for Dubya as the next liberal (and I'm not even a liberal), but that is ridiculous.

Some people get in on their names because it makes the school money! I know how liberals hate profits and all that, but Yale is not Yale from letting people like me in their school. They are Yale because they have some of the most brilliant AND well-known people that go through their doors. Basically, if it's good enough for the Bush's, Bill Clinton, Nathan Hale, Bart Giamatti, Clarence Thomas, Gerald Ford, Paul Newman, William F. Buckley, and all those other unknowns, it's good enough for my kids type of thing.

It's not racism or affirmative action. It's marketing. Sheesh.

Agreed



Also...agreed. BUT, not this white guy. If that's how you've taken my words, fine. But that is certainly not the opinion of this "great white oppressor"


I am not a racist. I am against every form of racism and segregation, every form of discrimination. I believe in human beings, and that all human beings should be respected as such, regardless of their color. --- Malcolm X

As am I. I am against EVERY form of racism. Giving ANYONE ANYTHING SIMPLY because of their skin color is flat out 100% wrong. Likewise, DENYING ANYONE ANYTHING SIMPLY because of their skin color is equally as wrong.

In my book, giving anyone of a particular race, a handout, is racist if not all races are included in this handout. It doesn't matter who gets it and who doesn't. If they specify, its called racism...

--cheers

Daytonrocker, you made a point some posts ago that your state has employment laws that require to to demonstrate a reason (other than racism) if you sack a black employee, but there are no similar requirements for white workers - you can 'fire them at will'. You cited this as a reason why employers in your area tend to prefer to hire white workers - they are easier to get rid of if they are no good, or if the job becomes redundant, or if the employer just doesn't want to have them around any more because their brother-in-law has just got out of prison and needs a job, or whatever.

I was fairly shocked by this, I admit - mainly because I think it's a damned good reason for white workers to be given the same protection from arbitrary unemployment as their black colleagues. In my book, there are only two reasons to remove someone from employment:
1) they are not good at their job
2) their job no longer exists, in which case, the employee having taken it on in good faith, and the employer later decides that the job is no longer necessary, the employee should be compensated, precisely to discourage quixotic hiring and firing.

I trust that your reasoning including this implicitly, and that you weren't arguing that employers should be able to hire and fire indiscriminately. Let's face it, if you hire someone and find you have to fire them within less than, say, a year, then the fault may well lie with your faulty recruitment procedure, may it not?

So my on-topic point is, if the racial differences in employment protection are that blacks in your state get some and whites don't then, far from ending affirmative action, I think it should be extended to include everyone.

This does not necessarily interfere in the operation of a free employment market, since you are still free to hire and fire who and when you want - you only have to be able to demonstrate that you followed procedures (essentially you would have to keep records and apply a standardised disciplinary procedure - legal requirements in the UK jobs marketplace, which is now held to be even a little freer than the US by many objective observers) and prospective employees but it amends the consequences of doing so.

Bad assumption. Lot's of factors go into who you hire and why. I may be more inclined to hire a person quickly I'm not so sure about because my biggest customer has an order to be filled right now. It's rare for a company to give any type of information about an ex employee other than the dates when that employee worked there. Any negative information will get them sued. And face it, references are almost useless.

So no, there are far too many variables to make that assumption.





What you want is equality. We all do. Equal protection for everyone is not affirmative action. You've delved into a "hire-at-will" debate that is completely separate from this issue. I agree that a person should have some protection from being fired. Meaning, there should be "cause". And that should go for everyone. But the reality is, it doesn't.

Again, the color of their skin is not denying them an opportunity to work. The crap that surrounds it is. Affirmative action is hurting minorities more than it is helping them.

Well while we're at that, why doesn't Great Britain give Catholics easier access to college after descriminating and killing them in the 1500's? It just doesn't make sense. Plain and simple, makes it leagal for people to be hired/accepted based on race, that it wrong no matter what race is affected.

CP

What do you base this on besides your personal opinion? Do you have any studies or statistics to back up this extremely broad claim?

The same arguments were made when the issue was ending segregation. It wasn't a valid contention then. Where is your evidence that affirmative action has hurt minorities and in what way?

I have a question, don't you think that it is insulting to be given something, as if you couldn't earn it yourself? I would. And again I will ask, do you know of one person affected by slavery?

CP

In America for every one dollar white people have black people have 11 cents. That is the problem. If you compare whites and black of the same income they have the same college admission and crime rates. Affirmative action will end when blacks have a dollar too.

Well, I'd say that was a bad analogy, as the Catholics got their turn at persecuting protestants (anyone there heard of Bloody Mary as something other than a cocktail?).

Whereas American blacks have never really had the upper hand over whites the whites have over blacks.

As an outside observer, I'd say that giving black Americans a leg-up (i.e. affirmative action) is sort-of reasonable, in that they are clearly disadvantaged by (largely, but not exclusively, white) racism, and that it is the least worst solution to rapidly i.e. in a few generations equalise the disadvantage. What I do find beyond the pale is the demands of some black activists not only for extension of AA but for some kind of direct financial reparation as well. Frankly, as we say over here, that's just taking the mickey.

Erm, are you talking about Bloody Sunday?

--cheers

Nope. Thirteen Catholics were killed when Parachute Regiment soldiers opened fire on a civilian protest march in the early 70s.

Several thousand Anglicans were burned or beheaded by Mary Tudor (Henry VIII's elder daughter, and Elizabeth I's half-sister) during her short 16th Century reign. Rather fewer Catholics were actually executed by Henry himself or by Elizabeth, although many were imprisoned or exiled.

I was responding directly to Conservpat's analogy that AA doesn't work because it would be like Britain making reparations to the Catholics for the persecutions in te 1500s. It wouldn't because the Catholics already had their payback, which black Americans have not yet had in return for slavery. A better point might have been that African Americans should pursue modern day Britain through the courts, since it was largely British ships that sailed their slave ancestors across the Atlantic.

But in case you knew that all along, and were just trying to make a fun point at the expense of Britain off the back of Bloody Sunday, I don't think that it was very funny, and I doubt any of the relatives of the thirteen victims, nor any of the families of the three or four thousand victims of the IRA's bombing and shooting campaign that it precipitated would think it was a very good joke either.

How about letting people work, so when those numbers are equal, black people can say they earned it, why not that?

CP

Nope, not at all. I've never heard of Bloody Mary (except the cocktail) I've only heard of Bloody Sunday...

I admit the whole Irish/Brit conflict is probably the most unknown to me out of all of them. I really should do some more research on the subject.

No offense was intended.....

--cheers

No, the problem is that almost half of all blacks drop out of high school.

You want to hold us white guys accountable for our ancestors actions, but you won't hold the blacks accountable for their current actions.

Tell you what, get the graduation rate close to whites, and then compare all this "opportunity" garbage. Until blacks start finishing school, the results will always be skewed.

I see what you're saying, CP. But that's precisely what most AA programs do. The problem is, and this is still true (see my above link to dpt of Labor), women and minorities earn less money than white men, even in the same types of jobs. They are underrepresented in management, way over-represented in service work. The problem isn't that they aren't earning something. The problem is, their opportunities for receiving that which they earn are not there.

A quote from this article:



Note this passage:



(edited to respond to Daytonrocker)

Yes, it's a problem. But how does that account for the fact that blacks, hispanics, and women get, on average, less pay for the same work than white men? One can assume that a black lawyer graduated from law school, right? If you take high school dropouts out of the equation, if you take those who graduated HS but did not attend college out of the equation, the playing field is still not even. How do you propose rectifying that?

I see where your coming from quark, and I do think that some of that is racism, however, it also could have to do with performance, work ethic, ect. Plus, I haven't really heard much about gender AA.

CP

Even though I disagree with you about this, let's assume for a moment you are correct. You are saying, as an example, that Hispanic lawyers don't perform as well as white male lawyers. Or that they have a poor work ethic. Even if this were true, it would lead to really only two conclusions - either there is something inherent causing it, which leads to a frankly racist conclusion, or there are external factors at work, as I said a few posts back. I will assume you are not going to come to the racist conclusion. What, then, are the external factors? How can they be addressed?

The problem with the argument against AA is that it:

1. Ignores the non-level playing field which DOES exist, and

2. Proposes no alternative mechanism for ensuring equal protection under the law.

I didn't say that that was the case all of the time. And for the few times that I believe racism is the problem, should those few times cancel out all of the instances where race is not an issue? Also, what about the white people that are being victimized for...being white.

CP

Sorry, CP, but a "few" instances of performance and work ethic being the problem would not pull the average salary down and cause a general inequity. After all, wouldn't there be a comparable few cases of the same thing in white workers? No, first you mentioned performance and work ethic as alternative explanations for pay differences. Now you're just backtracking to say those are the exception, which still leaves my question unanswered. Then of course, to top it off, you attempt a redirect with victimized white males. OK, back it up. Show me these victimized whites. Who are they? Are there as many "victimized whites" as there are "victimized minorities," even with AA in place?? I doubt it.