Get off the AA, we have shown plenty of times that this program has not stopped one white man from being out in front of everyone else.
Where has anyone shown that affirmitive action doesn't discriminate against white men??? If affirmitive action doesn't discriminate against white men why isn't there affirmitive action in the NFL. African Americans make up 70% of the players in the NFL while they only make up roughly 12% of the population. I'm sure there are plenty of white guys who would love to be famous, making millions of dollars, playing a game, and working only six months out of the year. Why isn't there affirmitive action in the NFL. Clearly white males are an under represented group in the NFL-right??? So this must be a result of discrimination-right???
You know there were black and Arab slave traders too right? Not just white men. The Irish were slave too you know.
There are plenty of recent studies of the on-going discrimination in the United States today and, in fact, every study on discrimination today confirms that it is alive and well. For example the following study conducted in 2003 revealed that when all factors except skin color are the same a white male job applicant is 2.4 to 3,4 times more likely to be hired than a black man based upon "call backs" for additional interviews that are highly indicative of being hired.. http://www.epi.org/publication/webfeatures_snapshots_archive_09172003/ Fifty years after Martin Luther King Jr made his famous "I have a dream" speech little has change when it comes to economic discrimination in America even though there have been sigificant gains in education for blacks. Black children are nearing parity with white children when it comes to high school graduation rates and black college attendance is at its highest point ever but still significantly below the enrollment levels necessary based upon demographic representation. Dispite the advancements in education for African-Americans that has not translated into economic achievement as the average compensation for blacks is only 60% when compared to whites. When we compare blacks and white where both have demonstated jobs skills with an employment history and both are actively seeking employment a white man is over twice as likely to gain employment when compared to a black man based upon our official unemployment statitics and that has been the case for decades. Whites are not excluded from the anti-discrimination laws although cases of discrimination against whites are so rare that the anedotal cases are few. We can simply note the rare anecdotal cases where "racists" propagate a belief in "reverse discrimination" as an example of "Whites" filing lawsuits based upon discrimination (there isn't any such thing as "reverse discrimination" as in all cases regardless of the victim it is a case of discrimination and not reverse discrimination). The term "reverse discrimination" was coined by racist idiots as there is no such legal definition. We should note that while the anti-discrimination laws apply to everyone that the evidence requirements necessary to even file a lawsuit are so high that less than 1% of the cases of actual discrimination can even be filed. In the end what we don't have is any study or historical evidence that has every established discrimination against "White Anglo Saxon Protestant (WASP) Males" at any time in American history but we do have studies and historical accounts that reflect discrimination against everyone except WASP Males and current studies still reflect invidious discrimination agiants racial minorities, ethnic minorities, women, and even some religious groups in America today. A review of the FBI Hate Crime Statistics reveals those rare cases where the discrimination and prejudice actually results in a criminal act. Whites are also subjected to hate crimes but by shear numbers blacks are subjected to three times the number of hate crimes than whites and when this is adjusted based upon population demograhics a black person is 22-times more likely than a white person to be the victim of a race based hate crime. We can look at hate crimes based upon religion and find that only 2.6% of hate crimes are committed against Protestants in the United States. That can be compared to the fact that 62.4% are committed against Jews in America today. While hate crime statistics only reflect extreme cases of prejudice I would suggest reading these statistics because they are shocking. http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/hate-crime/2012/topic-pages/victims/victims_final .
That's interesting because when I applied for a job on an Indian reservation on the application it clearly stated, in big red letters, twice the size of the other letters on the application, Indian Preferance
How in any way are those true statements-LOL You're defending sexism and racism in this thread, and I'm speaking against it I'm an egalitarean. I believe sexism and racism are wrong regardless of how unfashionable a race or gender may be, and you believe racism and sexism are good as long as the race and gender are not fashionable??? You're insinuating I'm racist and sexist when you're the one who's racist and sexist- How is that not trolling???
I consider myself liberal and I don't hold this view point. I believe that white people should acknowledge the inherent privilege of being born in a white society and it's benefits over black people born in a black society. I believe white people should work on leveling the playing field. Not a Jesse Jackson fan or Al Sharpton fan by any means, but the perpetual notion that blacks are victims is partially true. Society was structured, as is evident by poverty levels experienced by minorities, to favor the white majority. And we all suffer because of it, because of this "I got mine so (*)(*)(*)(*) the rest of y'all" mentality.
For the simple fact over and over again you have been asked to show how AA discriminates against you and you have yet to produce any discrimination whatsoever. White men dominate in every industry in this country. You have the lowest unemployment rates, you have the highest college attendance, you are the CEOs of most major corporations in this country, etc., etc. What is the % of black owners in the NFL, NBA, MLB, NHL, etc.? Its kind of like college, you have a problem with the everyday black person attending college but we never hear you folks (*)(*)(*)(*)(*) and moan about the football team being 85% black or the basketball team being 95-100% black. Why is that? - - - Updated - - - Yea I can just see you wanting to work on a Indian Reservation.
how many white kids was denied admission to the college they wanted to go to because a minority was given admission instead even though they had a lower sat score? How many post office workers, fireman, and policeman didn't get the job or promotion and given to a minority even though the minority had a lower test score and or qualifications? If you are going to try to claim that doesn't happen your being purposely ignorant
When did I ever say I had a problem with African Americans attending University??? I never said I had a problem with African Americans attending University, anywhere, ever. That's your racist projection. The reason, quote, "white people," unquote, don't have a problem with a basketball team being 100% African American, or a Football team being mostly African American is because the opportunity to play on those team is based on MERIT, and those are the best players therefore they are the ones who get the opportunity, just as every opportunity in every industry should be based on merit and not race or gender. The fact that there is no affirmitive action in an industry dominated by African Americans(the NFL) but there is affirmitive action in other industries dominated by other races besides African Americans shows how racist affirmitive action laws really are.
I'm extremely skeptical of any conclusions from studies that are made by racists and/or sexists. The link you provided says hardly anything about the methods used to reach those conclusions. From the little your link does say about the methods used in that, "study," I can gleen from that information that the reasons for the ridiculous conclusions in the study are a result of confirmation bias. For example, if the participants in the, "study," where told about the objectives of the study, it would be beyond easy to act like an ass in an interview to get the results the, "researchers," where trying to achieve, beyond easy.
Watch superbadbrutha(LOL) is going to say you have been asked over and over again and you have yet to show how AA discriminates against white males and you have not. produced any discrimination whatsoever....watch-LOL even though you've just said how AA discriminates against white males...watch-LOL
Well, off hand, there are two, possibly three African American owners in the NBA, and there are 30 teams in the NBA, and African Americans make up around 10% of the population so that would mean 10% of the owners in the NBA are African Americans and that's roughly the same percentage of African Americans in the poluation of the United States so....
There is nothing wrong to be skepical but along with being skeptical we must also eliminate our personal prejudice where we would want to disregard the results of a study just because we don't want to believe that it's accurate. When it came to the study of racial discrimination in employment conducted in 2003 that study was done by EPI Research that is a marketing firm headquartered in Germany. It's not even a US company that might have bias in addressing issues related to racial prejudice in employment in the United States. Employing a foreign firm to address this issue is perhaps as "unbiased" as any study can be. I've actually taken the time to do further research on this study done by EPI and it was very well conducted although I've long since lost the link. I've also, in other posts, pointed out that to dispute the results of a scientifically conducted poll then we should be able to point to another study that disputes the results. In short, if we want to dispute the results it should be based upon unsupported opinion but instead it needs to be based upon empirical data that we can present that reflects a contradiction. There are no other studies I'm aware of that dispute the statistical conclusions presented by the 2003 EPI Research study of racial discrimination in employment. The same is true related to a study in 2012 that addressed anti-black racial prejudice. In addressing "explicit anti-black racial prejudice" the statistics were shocking especially for (self-identified) Republicans where 79% expressed explicit anti-black racial prejudice. Explicit is that which the person actually states as opposed to "implicit" which is based upon implied prejudice. If a person were to state, "A black person is inferior" that is an explicit statement of racial prejudice for example. We can sit back and say that the 79% number seems to be more than we could have possible imagined but that does not invalidate the conclusion of the study, It merely establishes that the number is shocking because we couldn't imagine that it would be so high. Now, if another study is done and it came back with a conclusion that only 50% of (self-identified) Republicans expressed explicit anti-black racial prejudice we would have grounds to be skeptical of the 79% conclusion. We could make an argument for the lower number but there hasn't been such a study and, in fact, the 2012 study actually validate a previous study performed on 2008 as the results were similar although slightly different over time. There was also the correlation of increases in the number of White Supremacy hate groups during the same time frame. Correlation does not establish "cause" but can reflect a possible connection between the two. In short we cannot allow our own unsupported prejudice to interfere with the conclusions of these studies. We need actual facts and data to support our opinions. We can be skeptical but that does not imply we can ignore the findings based exclusively upon our own opinions that are not supported by any empirical evidence. So like you I'm often skeptical but that does not prevent me from accepting the conclusions based upon the studies even when the conclusion might be shocking. What I do is try to find empirical evidence that the study is incorrect or flawed based upon another study as opposed to allowing a unsupported prejudical belief to prevail.
The issue was never the ability of a person to go to a specific college but instead was based upon the ability of a person to go to any college. The issue of "qualification" only addresses whether the person was "qualified" and unrelated to being more or less qualified. In all cases of Affirmative Action, regardless of whether it addresses college admission, initial employment, or promotion the person was qualified and that is what matters. Yes, there are always anecdotal cases that can be referenced but we must also understand that anecdotal cases are irrelevant from a statistical perspective. We can certainly ask "how many white men (or women) didn't get a job, or weren't admitted to a specific college or university, or that were passed over by a "qualified" black person" but that doesn't dispute the fact that qualified black persons aren't denied a job, any college education, or a job promotion thousands of times for every anecdotal case related to whites based upon statistical studies. In fact when it comes to employment often the black person is more qualified than the white person that gets the job but is deemed to be less qualified exclusively because of the color of their skin and the prejudice of the person doing the hiring. Statistical studies have shown that a black person has to be significantly more qualified than any white applicant to obtain employment or advancement and even then they are paid less than the white person statistically and more likely to be the first laid off during economic hard times.
problem with your absurd premise departments had to lower the requirements to qualify there for so more minorities would qualify Lowering test standards for police and firefighters Last night, March 14, 2011, Fox cable news had a short U.S. Department of Justice blip regarding lowering police written test standards in Dayton, Ohio. The police department had average requirements for recruits on written tests from 66 to 72 in numerical scale. The Justice Department forced the Dayton police to lower test thresholds to 58, supposedly because too few African Americans and minorities were passing entrance tests as well as the required academy material. Test standards were also challenged last year for fire department personell seeking advancement to an Engineer-Lieutenant position within a fire company in N.Y. The test requirements were considered too high for many minorities which is complete nonsense. Higher standards and test scores are set to attract and maintain the best qualified individuals for a department, police or fire service. Race, creed or color has nothing to do with obtaining a position. Pre-employment testing determines who is best suited to pass rigid requirements at city academies http://www.examiner.com/article/lowering-test-standards-for-police-and-firefighters why do liberals keep expecting to spew their crap and not get expected to be challenged
How do you know it was because of the minority kid, how do you know it wasn't a white kid with a lower SAT score? It may happen once in a lifetime, now flip that and tell me who many black folks have been denied a promotion or a job because a white man got it through the Good Ole Boy Network?
Whats the % of black coaches and players in the NBA. How many owners do we have in the NFL or MLB? What is the % of black managers and players in those leagues?
First and foremost anecdotal cases mean virtually nothing. We can find exceptions to virtually anything. Next is the fact that the "admission test" or "advancement test" score thresholds should be established based upon the minimum requirements. Any threshold requirement above that is both unnecessary and could be discriminatory. Colleges do have relatively high test score requirements where a percentage of students are assured of admission. They also have lower thresholds where the person is qualified to attend but where other factors can also be considered related to their admission. No one is admitted below the minimum thresholds so the claim that the standards are lowered is blatantly false. As far as employment tests the minimum standards need to be reflected on the tests and certianly other considerations other than the test scores are important. For example motivation could take precedent in evaluating the advancement of a person regardless of test score so long as the applicant met the minimum standard required.
Once again, East Asians, who have the highest IQ, have the highest rates of college attendance. LoL. AA obviously discriminates against Whites and Asians by rejecting better qualified applicants for lower qualified Black and Hispanic students, etc. Universities and employers have finite positions. Every student or employee accepted or hired by Affirmative Action is one where a more deserving White or East Asian was denied.
By posting a tongue in cheek reply like that can't you just imagine SBB's blood pressure momentarily maxing out?
