"white only" scholarship

**Zach L.** · 03-03-2004

I didnt say that the statistics were discrimination, I said your statement was discrimination ("why should I hire from a minority group that everyone knows is getting crappy education....")

ClownPimp, though I agree with you for the most part, I disagree with this. That statement wasn't discrimination, rather it was a sad statement of fact. The thing is, if education was handled properly, not much of this would be an issue. The portion of minorities that were better prepared, trained, or educated for these businesses would very likely start to bring the numbers closer together (becuase, more minority candidates would be more qualified), so this would not be much of an issue.

**axon** · 03-03-2004

STATISTICS are like a mini skirt....they show a lot, but the most important part remains hidden.

**Fountain** · 03-04-2004

Originally posted by DavidP
That has to be the greatest quote in this thread so far.

j/k

maybe we should blame the French instead...

See, I try to inject humour, and the thread is still going downhill as per usual.

And blame the French for everything else, except this!

**Hillbillie** · 03-04-2004

>>Again, businesses do not and should not have that right.<<

One of the fruits of my labors when I start a business in a free society is running that business how I--the owner--sees fit, provided I do so in a peaceful manner that does not step on other people's rights.

Denying a person employment solely because of their race is stupid, but it's well within the realm of a business owner's rights--it IS NOT infringing on the employment-seeking-person's rights: again, earning a living IS a right; however, compelling others to provide one's living is NOT a right.

>>I mean discrimination in the sense of choosing or not choosing someone because of their race.<<

That is the definition of "racism" more or less. I doubt enacting laws against racism will prevent it. And at the same time you're taking rights away from businesses that only want to hire the person best for the job. Congratulations, you're a jackass.

I reiterate: When the Government forces me to hire someone, it implies that it has a higher claim on my business than I do. Are you saying that the Government owns my business more than I do?

**ober** · 03-04-2004

0\/\/n3|)!

**Clyde** · 03-04-2004

I reiterate: When the Government forces me to hire someone, it implies that it has a higher claim on my business than I do. Are you saying that the Government owns my business more than I do?

There are numerous regulations governing what companies can and cannot do, how is a racial quota any different?

To rectify the negative racial discrimination that exists in a society some form of positive racial discrimination does not seem to me particularly unreasonable.

We have a scenario where minorities are more likely to be born into poverty and have a poor education hence minorities have a higher percentage of criminals which further pushes an already existing racism that reduces the job prospects which acts to reinforce the poverty and the poor education cycling on and on..

Positive discrimination whether in the form of quotas or ethnic specific grants is there to break this cycle.

**vasanth** · 03-04-2004

Wow.. an explanation i was not able to explain.. I agree completely with Clyde..

We tend to see many policies , rules etc from our viewpoint where we are the sufferers... We miss out the real intention behind them...

Society cannot afford to have one section move up the ladder and the other left behind.. The gap created will create havoc in the future.. A society will function well only if all the participtant are on the same scale of living..

**EvBladeRunnervE** · 03-04-2004

Society cannot afford to have one section move up the ladder and the other left behind.. The gap created will create havoc in the future.. A society will function well only if all the participtant are on the same scale of living..

the US is based on capitalism, which tends to leave some people behind. What you are describing is communism, which has societies that don't function well cause anything they do, they get the same money. Go to medical school and become a specialty surgeon which takes 12+ years after highschool, get paid the same as the person shovelling manure.

**vasanth** · 03-04-2004

Originally posted by EvBladeRunnervE
the US is based on capitalism, which tends to leave some people behind. What you are describing is communism, which has societies that don't function well cause anything they do, they get the same money. Go to medical school and become a specialty surgeon which takes 12+ years after highschool, get paid the same as the person shovelling manure.

well you have misunderstood me.. or my english is so bad i was not able to convey my thoughts...

I am talking about situation where one section is fully educated and the other is not.. leading to higher crime rate in a capitalistic economy..

**gcn_zelda** · 03-04-2004

My pointless irrelevant contribution to this thread is...

In California, everybody's a minority :P

EDIT:

To make it less pointless...

The reason that they would hire the minority in a situation is because of common racism lawsuits and other things.

They don't want to seem racist.

Thank you for watching today's episode of "Observing the Obvious."

**Hillbillie** · 03-04-2004

>>There are numerous regulations governing what companies can and cannot do<<

This is correct, and most of them are in place for a good reason: they prevent coercion. Affirmative action laws are not in place to prevent cooercion, as you continue to say:

>>Positive discrimination whether in the form of quotas or ethnic specific grants is there to break this cycle.<<

The part we disagree on, Clyde--you being a devout liberal and me being a devout libertarian--is government's role in breaking this cycle.

The sole role of government (force) in a free society, Clyde, is to prevent the initiation of force: coercion. The only acceptable forms of government (force) in a free society are defensive force and retaliatory force (a.k.a. justice).

If I were to rob you, I have initiated force against you--I have infringed apon your rights. Government can step in and take action against me using retaliatory force (justice), and this would be acceptable in a free society.

However, if you come to me asking for work at my PRIVATE organization/company/institution and I refuse to enter into a mutual contract with you (hire you), for whatever reason, I have not initiated force against you--I have not infringed on your rights. (Remember, it is not your right to compel others to provide your living.) Government, in a free society, has no business stepping in and taking action against me.

So...if you want to debate whether we live in a socialist society or a free society, fine. I'd personally rather live in a free society than a socialist one.

**vasanth** · 03-05-2004

Originally posted by Hillbillie
>>There are numerous regulations governing what companies can and cannot do<<

This is correct, and most of them are in place for a good reason: they prevent coercion. Affirmative action laws are not in place to prevent cooercion, as you continue to say:

>>Positive discrimination whether in the form of quotas or ethnic specific grants is there to break this cycle.<<

The part we disagree on, Clyde--you being a devout liberal and me being a devout libertarian--is government's role in breaking this cycle.

The sole role of government (force) in a free society, Clyde, is to prevent the initiation of force: coercion. The only acceptable forms of government (force) in a free society are defensive force and retaliatory force (a.k.a. justice).

If I were to rob you, I have initiated force against you--I have infringed apon your rights. Government can step in and take action against me using retaliatory force (justice), and this would be acceptable in a free society.

However, if you come to me asking for work at my PRIVATE organization/company/institution and I refuse to enter into a mutual contract with you (hire you), for whatever reason, I have not initiated force against you--I have not infringed on your rights. (Remember, it is not your right to compel others to provide your living.) Government, in a free society, has no business stepping in and taking action against me.

So...if you want to debate whether we live in a socialist society or a free society, fine. I'd personally rather live in a free society than a socialist one.

In a broder view if you are not hiring a person due to his color, race or any such reasons. you are then discriminating him/her... which is a legal offence..

Thoug the govt does not owns your business.. the govt has the right to see that you run your business in a fair manner.. So if the govt feels your running of a business is creating discrimination in a society it has every right to influence how you run it.. and i think that is happening now..

**ober** · 03-05-2004

Originally posted by vasanth
Thoug the govt does not owns your business.. the govt has the right to see that you run your business in a fair manner.. So if the govt feels your running of a business is creating discrimination in a society it has every right to influence how you run it.. and i think that is happening now..

This may be the case in India, but that is so far from the truth in the USA. I think several of you are missing one single word that HB keeps highlighting. "PRIVATE". This means no government funding/regulation. Most times any regulation in such a case would involve meeting regulatory requirements for products.

Again, I'll reiterate what HB said. If I set up a PRIVATE company and set out to hire a few people to help me, I am not obligated to hire ANYONE I don't feel like hiring. I'm with HB when it comes to what the government should and should not have its hands in.

**EvBladeRunnervE** · 03-05-2004

If I set up a PRIVATE company and set out to hire a few people to help me, I am not obligated to hire ANYONE I don't feel like hiring. I'm with HB when it comes to what the government should and should not have its hands in.

such as a religious organization that is private. If they are a Christian organization/business/church, they should not be required to hire muslims and jews just to balance things out. This is a type of discrimination...at the surface, but dig deeper, a muslim or jewish person is not going to contribute as well to the groups goals, be it evangelizing/maintenance of flock/etc.

There is no evening out in capitalism, people get what they can through competition, this is why getting into good schools is so hard, cause alot of people want to compete. You are telling me that some place like MIT(doesnt really fit as they have a large minority student population,mostly asian however) should set aside 50% of its student admissions to minorities, even if the minorities are not competent in the requirements? You will end up like the University of Michigan, where being black was more important than having perfect SATs(20pts to 16pts respectively before the change in policy).

Basic Overview: If you have the competency to compete for a job, you will get the job in this nation, rascism isn't half as prevalent as some people would have you believe. This is why at the very most, affirmative action should affect you BEFORE college. Make sure black kids get equal education as white children in K-12, which they are not currently. Do not wait till they can't read or write then give them a job that they cannot do.

**Clyde** · 03-05-2004

The part we disagree on, Clyde--you being a devout liberal and me being a devout libertarian--is government's role in breaking this cycle.

Funny you think of me as a devout liberal, over here atleast among my peers my views are usually seen simply as common sense.

So...if you want to debate whether we live in a socialist society or a free society, fine. I'd personally rather live in a free society than a socialist one.

There is stuff wrong with the world, the question is what can be done towards fixing it.

If taking action X removes (or more realistically reduces) problem Y, and the consequences of action X are not too horrible (ie. they are not worse than problem Y) then action X is worth considering.

Your "free society" versus a "socialist society" seems to me a caricature of the issues because it simplifies them to the point of absurdity, surely as with most political ideologies there is a continuum rather than a simple either or situation. I don't agree with your strict - free society - any more than i do with communism, though i dislike them for quite different reasons ultimately it comes down to having far too simple a political ideology superimposed on a highly complex human society.

I think we are far better off evaluating individual issues as they come rather than sticking blindly to an essentially arbitrary set of 'political principles'.

Why should governments only role be to prevent initiation of force when they could do so much more? Governments are the most powerfull institutions that exist they are the mechanism by which societies act as a group, they have the power to solve or at the very least improve numerous social problems, why waste that power?

Thread: "white only" scholarship

Thread Tools

Search Thread

Display

Similar Threads

Another "integer only" problem