[Old Man G Funk]

Yup. But using race as an economic indicator is more than just pointing out the correlations.

I'm not even exactly sure what you mean by that. How does one use race as an economic indicator?

 

[BurlyShirley]

Considering the correlation between being poor and being a minority, I'm not surprised there would be a public outcry. Let's face facts here, blacks are much more likely to be born poor, attend poor school districts, etc. So, poor whitey is oppressed now because we are trying to level the playing field? Oh please. Should I go get a violin and start playing a sad tune for you now?

Also, based on this, Im assuming your a proponent of racial profiling in criminal investigations?

 

[BurlyShirley]

Go ahead and look it up then. Support your argument. You might also want to correlate it with the percentage of each population. So, even if there are more whites that are poor, if they only make up 25% of the white population, while poor blacks make up 75% of the black population, it would still be a problem.

The point is, you're leaving more people out in the cold, and you're playing racial favorites, not favorites based on need.

 

[binary visions]

Why do you assume that it has to be at the expense of all others?

Do you really think that it's not at the expense of others?

I don't really like the original email, but the money and education spots are coming from a finite pool.

I'm not disagreeing with an organization's right to spend its money how it wants to, but money invested in a "black" scholarship is money that's not going to an equally deserving <insert race here>. An educational spot granted to a minority because a school has to maintain a certain percent of minority students is a spot not granted to a potentially more deserving non-minority. Same thing with jobs.

My girlfriend will sure tell you it's a lot easier getting into med school with a name like Abu Zingwabi than it is with a name like Mike Smith, even if Mike Smith has superior academic credentials.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

Also, based on this, Im assuming your a proponent of racial profiling in criminal investigations?

Why would you say that? There's a distinct difference between the two. Yeah, you could look at how many blacks are on death row vs. whites, but you would be neglecting the criminal justice system that leads up to it.

Either way, this is a complete red herring. Whether I support racial profiling or not has no bearing on this particular argument.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

The point is, you're leaving more people out in the cold, and you're playing racial favorites, not favorites based on need.

It's a quick and easy solution that isn't perfect, but what is? It's a percentage game.

Still, why does a minority organization necessarily have to be divisive? Why does it necessarily entail an us/them dichotomy?

 

[BurlyShirley]

Why would you say that? There's a distinct difference between the two. Yeah, you could look at how many blacks are on death row vs. whites, but you would be neglecting the criminal justice system that leads up to it.

Either way, this is a complete red herring. Whether I support racial profiling or not has no bearing on this particular argument.

You're saying that because a significant amount of blacks are poor, that its fair to judge all blacks' educational standards by those of the poor blacks. Fine, then since a significant amount of blacks are criminals (there's your correlation) wouldnt it make sense to check blacks more closely for committing crimes?

you're digging quite the hole for yourself here.

 

[BurlyShirley]

It's a quick and easy solution that isn't perfect, but what is? It's a percentage game.

Still, why does a minority organization necessarily have to be divisive? Why does it necessarily entail an us/them dichotomy?

Becuase it's an us vs. them mentality that allows such legislation to prevail. Because its NOT FAIR, and in the US, you know, if youre a hard worker, stay out of trouble, etc.. youre SUPPOSED to get a fair shot. Not a racially biased shot.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

Do you really think that it's not at the expense of others?

If I establish a scholarship today that I say will only go to someone of color x, how is it at the expense of anyone else? It's simply not.

I don't really like the original email, but the money and education spots are coming from a finite pool.

I'm not disagreeing with an organization's right to spend its money how it wants to, but money invested in a "black" scholarship is money that's not going to an equally deserving <insert race here>. An educational spot granted to a minority because a school has to maintain a certain percent of minority students is a spot not granted to a potentially more deserving non-minority. Same thing with jobs.

My girlfriend will sure tell you it's a lot easier getting into med school with a name like Abu Zingwabi than it is with a name like Mike Smith, even if Mike Smith has superior academic credentials.

As far as I know, I've only ever seen anecdotal evidence of this. People are convinced that Abu didn't deserve it as much as Mike. Test scores are not the only factor, however, in how schools select applicants. It's a pretty complicated process.

As for maintaining a certain percentage, I believe that aspect was called the "quota system" and was outlawed?

 

[Old Man G Funk]

You're saying that because a significant amount of blacks are poor, that its fair to judge all blacks' educational standards by those of the poor blacks. Fine, then since a significant amount of blacks are criminals (there's your correlation) wouldnt it make sense to check blacks more closely for committing crimes?

you're digging quite the hole for yourself here.

I fail to see how I'm digging a hole when it is you who is using a logical fallacy.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

Becuase it's an us vs. them mentality that allows such legislation to prevail. Because its NOT FAIR, and in the US, you know, if youre a hard worker, stay out of trouble, etc.. youre SUPPOSED to get a fair shot. Not a racially biased shot.

What legislation prevails that allows minority groups to self assemble? Oh, you mean the first amendment?

 

[Westy]

Do you really think that it's not at the expense of others?

I don't really like the original email, but the money and education spots are coming from a finite pool.

I'm not disagreeing with an organization's right to spend its money how it wants to, but money invested in a "black" scholarship is money that's not going to an equally deserving <insert race here>. An educational spot granted to a minority because a school has to maintain a certain percent of minority students is a spot not granted to a potentially more deserving non-minority. Same thing with jobs.

My girlfriend will sure tell you it's a lot easier getting into med school with a name like Abu Zingwabi than it is with a name like Mike Smith, even if Mike Smith has superior academic credentials.

So do you think there should be something done about it? Would you donate money for a scholarship that was based strictly on intellect and went to a millionaire studying interpretive dance because they were clearly the most brilliant interpretive dancer to grace the earth?


My personal experience as a generic white boy was that finding scholarships wasn't that tough. I got about $14K/year.

 

[BurlyShirley]

What legislation prevails that allows minority groups to self assemble? Oh, you mean the first amendment?

talk about your red herrings.

here's an example.

While filling out scholarship apps from the state of TN, black students with a GPA of like 2.8 are eligible for the same money as white kids wiht a 3.5. SERIOUSLY.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

talk about your red herrings.

here's an example.

While filling out scholarship apps from the state of TN, black students with a GPA of like 2.8 are eligible for the same money as white kids wiht a 3.5. SERIOUSLY.

OK, so somehow this thread turned into a discussion about groups that form to advance minority interests into a discussion completely about affirmative action? Fine.

Show me some resources to back that up.

 

[BurlyShirley]

OK, so somehow this thread turned into a discussion about groups that form to advance minority interests into a discussion completely about affirmative action? Fine.

Show me some resources to back that up.

No. I dont care if you believe me, because we all know you're wrong and its not worth my time to show you something you already know is true.

 

[binary visions]

If I establish a scholarship today that I say will only go to someone of color x, how is it at the expense of anyone else? It's simply not.

If the scholarship would not exist otherwise, that's true. But take an example like, say, McDonald's. They offer an African American Future Achievers scholarship.

This is a non racially motivated business offering a scholarship that excludes a large amount of the population but not because of merit. Just because of race. How is that money not at the expense of another deserving student who is not black?

As far as I know, I've only ever seen anecdotal evidence of this. People are convinced that Abu didn't deserve it as much as Mike. Test scores are not the only factor, however, in how schools select applicants. It's a pretty complicated process.

As for maintaining a certain percentage, I believe that aspect was called the "quota system" and was outlawed?

Believe me, I know what a complicated process it is. And I know that test scores aren't the only factor, but I've also seen numerous examples directly from my girlfriend's graduating class of minorities who did not excel as much as other students (from an overall perspective, not simply test scores: extracurriculars, community service, work experience, and writing/personal skills) yet were granted seats.

It is desirable for schools to maintain a diverse student body for a lot of reasons. It's why many of the top schools in the country won't accept more than one student from an individual school.

Westy, not really suggesting that there's an extreme lack of scholarships available, just that the thought that giving to one doesn't take away from another isn't really correct.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

If the scholarship would not exist otherwise, that's true. But take an example like, say, McDonald's. They offer an African American Future Achievers scholarship.

This is a non racially motivated business offering a scholarship that excludes a large amount of the population but not because of merit. Just because of race. How is that money not at the expense of another deserving student who is not black?

No, it's still not at the expense of anyone. They are giving away money of their own volition. They can give it to whomever they choose. By this standard, anyone who doesn't receive the scholarship for any reason can make the same argument, that the scholarship was awarded to someone else at the arguers expense. I just don't see it though. It doesn't matter what the qualifications are (and just about EVERY scholarship has requirement qualifications).

Believe me, I know what a complicated process it is. And I know that test scores aren't the only factor, but I've also seen numerous examples directly from my girlfriend's graduating class of minorities who did not excel as much as other students (from an overall perspective, not simply test scores: extracurriculars, community service, work experience, and writing/personal skills) yet were granted seats.

It is desirable for schools to maintain a diverse student body for a lot of reasons. It's why many of the top schools in the country won't accept more than one student from an individual school.

Westy, not really suggesting that there's an extreme lack of scholarships available, just that the thought that giving to one doesn't take away from another isn't really correct.

I can't speak to your specific anecdotal evidences. But, knowing that it is desirable for schools to maintain diversity I think we can see why some seemingly less qualified students might be accepted to a school. I've heard of people being rejected to Kansas University's medical school, but being accepted at Harvard. It's a weird process, and every school is different. I don't think you can make the case that there is something insidious going on.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

No. I dont care if you believe me, because we all know you're wrong and its not worth my time to show you something you already know is true.

I didn't say that I didn't believe you, I simply asked you to back yourself up. That's what grown-up people do when they debate.

Also, it's pretty self-explanatory that I "don't know it's true," especially since you've had to resort to logical fallacy. It's generally frowned upon to make fallacious arguments, and it generally doesn't make someone "know [it] is true."

 

[sanjuro]

I hate when people point this out, but they are right: there is a difference between bigoted and racist: anyone can be bigoted towards another racial group, but a racist is someone who discriminates.

Some dude on the street can you a cracker, but is he making decisions about your job status, housing, or anything else that is important? Turn it around, do you think blacks and Latinos have to deal with discrimination in these areas?

As for no "white" organizations, there are plenty of Italian-American, Irish-American, English, French, German, etc, societies.

As a further comment, there is no "white" ethnic group, but the reason why there is a black ethnic group, as opposed to Kenyan-Americans, Nigerian-Americans, etc; is because when blacks were sold into slavery, one thing they lost is the connection to their homelands.

 

[ohio]

My girlfriend will sure tell you it's a lot easier getting into med school with a name like Abu Zingwabi than it is with a name like Mike Smith, even if Mike Smith has superior academic credentials.

It's also much easier to get in to Business School as a woman than it is as a man. This is because there is a a dearth of women that are suitable for, and want to go to, business school, but the schools want them and can barely eek out a 70/30 M/F ratio.

It's not sexism, it's supply and demand. Schools WANT more black (and latino, and native american) students. The school is essnetially willing to pay a higher "price" for a good that is in short supply.

 

[ohio]

As far as I know, I've only ever seen anecdotal evidence of this. People are convinced that Abu didn't deserve it as much as Mike. Test scores are not the only factor, however, in how schools select applicants. It's a pretty complicated process.

Don't kid yourself, it's not just anecdotal.

I'd give schools the benefit of the doubt though, and say what they're mostly interested in is assembling a diverse CULTURAL background. So someone from a unique background is going to get more leeway for test scores and grades, because they round out the social dynamic of a class. I don't mean that in a derogatory way. A good example is my friend Tony - I'm fairly certain he was below the class average in terms of scores and grades, but was Black/Korean and raised by a single mom. He had a very unique outlook/perspective that added a ton to the campus as a whole. He brought something that no amount of 1600 SAT white kids from Connecticut could have contributed, and every student that got to know him learned more about the world around them, than if they spent their days with a 1000 photocopied over-achievers.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

Don't kid yourself, it's not just anecdotal.

I'd give schools the benefit of the doubt though, and say what they're mostly interested in is assembling a diverse CULTURAL background. So someone from a unique background is going to get more leeway for test scores and grades, because they round out the social dynamic of a class. I don't mean that in a derogatory way. A good example is my friend Tony - I'm fairly certain he was below the class average in terms of scores and grades, but was Black/Korean and raised by a single mom. He had a very unique outlook/perspective that added a ton to the campus as a whole. He brought something that no amount of 1600 SAT white kids from Connecticut could have contributed, and every student that got to know him learned more about the world around them, than if they spent their days with a 1000 photocopied over-achievers.

I'm sure there are cases where a seemingly less qualified student gets admitted, but for a reason, as your case suggests. What I mean by it being anecdotal is that I haven't seen any studies that suggest it is endemic. There may be studies and I simply haven't seen them. I'm not arguing with you about this, because I think your story is representative of what I was saying. Most of the complaints you hear is that whitey got a higher test score, so he feels that he should have been let in and the minority was obviously underqualified, based on those test scores, when in reality there's a lot more to consider for the school.

Edit: Just to be more clear on this. The "anecdotal" part comes in because there is no study that suggests minority candidate with a lower test score is really less qualified (for what the schools are looking for) than whitey.

 

[ohio]

Don't kid yourself, it's not just anecdotal.

I just realized I stated it's not anecdotal, and then argued my point by offering an anecdote.

Duh.

 

[Silver]

I just realized I stated it's not anecdotal, and then argued my point by offering an anecdote.

Duh.

No worries. The definition of anecdotal on the internet seems to have a large exception for "It happened to someone I know!"

Now sit in the corner, and think about what you've done...