Tyre Nichols beating: Race Theory vs CRITICAL Race Theory

I agree. This is why Affirmative Action is also called "Positive Discrimination". You discriminate IN FAVOR of poor children.

 

They are being discriminated against today. The fact that the origin of this discrimination is just historical background. The real problem is that systemic discrimination exists to this day.

Certainly the victims.

Sounds good to me. But that will certainly take a long time. And Trump set us back several decades in achieving it. So in the mean time, we compensate for systemic discrimination. And, in any case, even though ending overt discrimination would be a huge step, it doesn't necessarily solve systemic discrimination.

I do want to know your answer to my question. You said "It seeks to overcome systemic and overt discrimination by imposing the correction on an individual white applicant." Do you think it's better if the discrimination is imposed on the individual non-white applicant? Because that's what systemic racism does. So the two plausible options are to do something or to do nothing. If we do nothing (again, ending overt discrimination might help, but not any time soon) systemic discrimination has demonstrated that minorities are discriminated against. If we have affirmative action, we have positive discrimination in favor of minorities that, to a degree (and only a degree) compensate for the above. Which is better in your mind?

 

Yet another strawman.

 

By which you don't mean all poor children equally, do you? Unless you are now saying "black people" includes poor Asian and white kids. You said special treatment for "black people", not the poor. Most of us here favour help for the poor.

 

Why don't you call it racist when people are prejudiced against a whole race of people and treat them as a single entity instead of as individuals?

 

We can push for the end of overt discrimination because it isn't in the interest of employers. Attempting to push for the end of systemic racism with affirmative action in the private sector will get blowback from business.

Future victims, not past victims.

Maybe, maybe not. He could, like the Battle of the Bulge in WW2, hasten the end of the evil he represents, not the aspirations of people who put their faith in MAGA.

The principal compensation can be had through help based on need.

Overt discrimination should be stopped. Correcting systemic racism with quotas is problematic.

There is too much resentment to sustain a policy discrimination in favor of minorities.

 

Then what the hell do you propose!!

I don't think you have even thought this through. So now you just repeat the "that's a strawman" strawman.

 

ALL of them deserve special treatment. But even more so if they are in this condition because of government policies. For example, Hispanic children who were separated from their parents by Trump.

Anybody that was WRONGED by the government deserves remedies to bring them back to equal opportunity.

 

Why?

Present victims.

That would be great. But I'm focusing on immediate goals.

Not following. I don't know of any business that hires if they don't have a need.

What "quotas" are you talking about? Maybe we're confusing things. As I understand proposals for affirmative action for businesses, this means, for example, that if a company has an ethnic composition that is congruent with the ethnic composition of the general population where they operate, they get a tax deduction. If they don't have it, they simply don't get the deduction. There may be other models. But this one seems appropriate to me.

Especially after Trump. But that's doesn't mean it's not the right thing to do.

 

Disgust.

 

Systemic racism is essential to our society. Our society is based on meritocracy, not equity. Blacks lack the merit our society needs to function.

 

Homophobia. Chalk it up to something you don't understand.

 

An interesting view.

Systemic discrimination against racial and ethnic groups, women, homosexuals ... is a waste of talent.

 

Yes. And we all suffer for it.

 

No, not strictly. It’s in favor of the preferred ethnic group, usually black, without regard to income. Your assertion it only helps the poor is simply wrong.

 

Imagine how much better off we'd be if we had used the full talents of women and minorities, something we're still not doing.

 

Indeed. Imagine how much better off we would be if we could get everyone to stop pretending that race or gender have anything to do with talent or ability or merit or entitlement.

 

The system evovled to identify and promote talent. We didn't put a man on the moon or build the internet by wasting talent. That talent is unevenly distributed among the races is nobody's fault.

 

lac

Nobody is pretending about SAT scores except perhaps the woke who want to eliminate their use because blacks score poorly.

 

Why would you think one race would be less talented than other? Skilled, maybe, but talent?

 

IMO, that is exactly why there's a push to remove objective standards from primary and secondary education; they're producing the "wrong" results. Ironically, SATs were introduced to combat forms of prejudice in school admissions processes, much of it racial.

Alas, rather than discover -- and then address -- why some ethnic groups are scoring lower than others our friends on the left would rather sweep objectivity under the rug.

 

Correcting some systemic racism with affirmative action requires employers to take less qualified candidates who are less qualified by virtue of systemic racism (poor schools, family poverty, etc.). Overt racism is simply denying the job to the best candidate.

The help may be a better education and training or subsidized healthcare.

That's a quota. As well, there are cultural differences that might make a quota too small or too large given the interest in the position.

 

Systemic racism (and systemic discrimination against women, homosexuals) is about factors working against a person that isn't about their abilities. Poor kids, white and black, shouldn't be held back by lousy schools.

Why I'm opposed to quotas and other forms of playing favorite.

 

If mass testing made for better schools, we'd have the best in the world.

We don't want to know why racial and ethnic groups (and poor white kids) have trouble in school. Why not? Because the solution will cost a lot of money. Poor white kids will cost the most.

 

Actually no. Poor white kids outperform rich black kids on the SATS.

But there is a major flaw in the thesis that income differences explain the racial gap. Consider these observable facts from The College Board’s 2006 data on the SAT:

• Whites from families with incomes of less than $10,000 had a mean SAT score of 993. This is 130 points higher than the national mean for all blacks.
• Whites from families with incomes below $10,000 had a mean SAT test score that was 17 points higher than blacks whose families had incomes of more than $100,000.

https://www.jbhe.com/features/53_SA...,higher than the national mean for all blacks.