Positive Discrimination

[sebbysteiny]

Originally Posted by InfiniteNow

Does a moral compass work using the geomagnetic north, or true north? Which way is north? What does that mean?

A moral compass shows what direction is the North pole. Perhaps you should follow it and stay there .

[TheFaithfulStone]

Originally Posted by stebbysteiny

You have no reasonable basis for those suspicions. You must address the concerns of the white community who feel themselves at a disadvantage or you will be yourself racist.

I've got plenty of "reasonable basis" for those suspicions stebby.

Discrimination requires the power to be discriminatory.

TFS

[sebbysteiny]

Originally Posted by TheFaithfulStone

Discrimination requires the power to be discriminatory.

I think I'll answer on behalf your your imaginary friend 'Stebbysteiny'.
That makes no sense. What power? It does not take much to have an all black employment policy for a business which would be racist.

[TheFaithfulStone]

Sorry about getting your name wrong, - it doesn't have a T does it? Damn, I'm illiterate.

Sebby have you ever, because of your race:
1) Been followed around in a store?
2) Not been allowed to see a girl?
3) Had the police called on you for stolen credit cards (that belonged to you.)
4) Answered to "boy"?
5) Ever actually been discriminated against in a meaningful way?

What I'm saying is that "reverse discrimination" is a rare creature indeed. So when people make claims like "I think white people are discriminated against in college admissions," yeah, I start getting suspicious of them.

Because they don't even know what that word means

TFS

[sebbysteiny]

Sorry the Faithfulstone, but minorities can be racist against majorities just as easily as majorities can be against minorities. Why don't you take a walk around a black neighbourhood? I'm sure you will get a similar response as if a black person were to go for a walk around a white neighbourhood.

[TheFaithfulStone]

Being "a racist" and being "discriminated against" are not the same thing.

And I think you may be making some unfounded assumptions.

TFS

[munch]

**All quotes taken from previous posts by TheFaithfulStone. Used without permission.**

Being "a racist" and being "discriminated against" are not the same thing.

That's true, but you have to agree they have a cause and effect relationship. Although a racist may not have the opportunity to discriminate, he will, given the chance.

Or try this: whatever "ism" is motive, the end result is discrimination; the deciding factor is opportunity.

You mind sharing what said "unfounded assumptions" are?

And finally, a few days back to my last post.

Statistically speaking, African-Americans need more "help" in getting to college than white people.

Then they'll, statistically speaking, get more need-based scholarships, won't they?

I have a fundamental problem with handing out cash based solely on skin color. Or whatever PC term the scholarships use. If the money for race-based scholarships was changed to need-based, for most black students, the amount of money recieved would drop very little, if at all.

I think the amount would increase, because wealthy black students would no longer be elegible. This would solve the problem of the brown-haired students who start with a dollar getting another dollar, and increases the number of dollarless students who get one.

Keep in mind, too, that wealthy black students are more able to make a convincing argument for a scholarship than are poorer students.

And with that final sentence, he submitted his post, turned off his computer monitor, and rested from a hard day's non-work.

[TheFaithfulStone]

Originally Posted by munch

Then they'll, statistically speaking, get more need-based scholarships, won't they?

I have a fundamental problem with handing out cash based solely on skin color. Or whatever PC term the scholarships use. If the money for race-based scholarships was changed to need-based, for most black students, the amount of money recieved would drop very little, if at all.

I think the amount would increase, because wealthy black students would no longer be elegible. This would solve the problem of the red-haired students who start with a dollar getting another dollar, and increases the number of dollarless students who get one.

Keep in mind, too, that wealthy black students are more able to make a convincing argument for a scholarship than are poorer students.

You make a cogent argument that certainly addresses one (probably the) major problem with the current system.

Moving to an entirely need based system would help, and I don't think it's a bad idea, but there are a few more issue that need to be addressed.

1. With few exceptions, schools which are predominantly blacks are simply not as good as predominantly white schools. They have less "college prep" courses, fewer opportunities, etc. Even if you gave every poor kid in America a free ride to college, the ones from those schools would still underachieve because they are not prepared to the same level as kids from "white" schools.

2. Standardized tests measure two things A) How good you are at taking standardized tests and B) Your level of richness and whiteness. Relying on them as heavily as we do results in a system that privileges an utterly useless skill.

So, I think that your idea of passing out only need based aid, is certainly a good one, but how do you account for the wildly differing starting conditions.

TFS

I don't want to type this story again, because it's depressing.

[sebbysteiny]

Originally Posted by TheFaithfulStone

Being "a racist" and being "discriminated against" are not the same thing.

And I think you may be making some unfounded assumptions.

Originally Posted by Munch

That's true, but you have to agree they have a cause and effect relationship. Although a racist may not have the opportunity to discriminate, he will, given the chance.

Munch is right. Also, just because you are in a minority does not mean you lack the means to impliment your racism and discriminate against the majority. Apartheid South Africa for example.

[TheFaithfulStone]

Sebby, you're trying to change the subject.

Discrimination requires the power to be discriminatory.

You need the most guns, the most money, or the most bodies. I didn't say it required you be a majority.

In any case, I said I was suspicious when white people talked about being "discriminated against" because I would wager that most of them don't have any real experience with it.

TFS