PDA

View Full Version : "white only" scholarship



Pages : [1] 2

DavidP
03-02-2004, 01:42 AM
http://www.cnn.com/2004/EDUCATION/02/15/whites.only.ap/index.html

What are your thoughts?

Fountain
03-02-2004, 02:10 AM
"Evidence of bleaching will disqualify applicants," says the application, issued by the university's College Republicans.

Lol, like Michael Jackson.

I think its unusual just because it is for 'whites' but not racist.

There are it seems grants, loans, funds for people of other ethnic backgrounds which exclude white people.

I think it is probably the word 'whites' as you dont see it often.

nickname_changed
03-02-2004, 02:38 AM
I think they do make a good point, where I live they pay minority groups to simply go to school, but not white families which may be even poorer than those in the minority. The payments should really be made based on incomes, not on whether they are in the minority or not.

I think the way the went about making the point was perhaps the wrong way of doing it.

ober
03-02-2004, 07:15 AM
bout time.

Silvercord
03-02-2004, 07:20 AM
I read that before. I thought it made a good point. I don't think they should base scholarships on race, only on how scholarly you are, and how much money your parents make.

EDIT:


I think the way the went about making the point was perhaps the wrong way of doing it.

I thought it was perfect. Its only a $250 scholarship, so it's not like it's anything big that non whites would be missing out on. It's just to make a point.

axon
03-02-2004, 07:47 AM
thats great!

Iamien
03-02-2004, 07:57 AM
Where i am, there a lot of ethnic only scholarships. Black only, jewish only etc, but you never see a white only one. Personaly i think its fine, its there money so they can do with it as they see fit.

scrappy
03-02-2004, 08:49 AM
Wow, I've been waiting for that scholarship to come around for a long time.

It's so hard for white, middle-class males to get scholarships. Together, my parents make decent wages, disqualifying me for many need based scholarships. However, they are also sending my two sisters through college, paying for most of their tuition, taking out loans, etc.. College stuff sucks, it should be free.

spoon_
03-02-2004, 11:05 AM
echo ober

DavidP
03-02-2004, 01:04 PM
i also echo ober

master5001
03-02-2004, 01:13 PM
You realize that affirmative action was put into place to offset white injustices with above equal compansation to minorities. That said I think the question is when has the dept to minority groups been paid? When will all of America see people as just people not "black people", "white people", et cetera.

Even though affirmative action may not seem fair it is merely trying to accelerate the process of giving minorities back theirs.

This subject is a touchy one so approach it with great care. I just look at getting shafted for being white as equal to a small group of minorities being shafted for being black or mexican or native american or chinese or japanese or whatever some time ago.

Thantos
03-02-2004, 01:29 PM
Scholarships should be based on need and not race.

when has the dept to minority groups been paidIt can never be repaid. Taking away's one freedom is not something you can go "oh sorry" and throw some money at.
IMO as long as there is AA there will be a sense of entitlement with some minorities.

master5001
03-02-2004, 01:35 PM
My main concern with affirmative action is that may stir up some problems with younger generations of Americans since they may grow to have a dim view of races that have priority over them. Now I realize this isn't necessarily the case but lets face it all of us talking here are more or less the intellectual type, which isn't an accurate judge of what everyone else thinks. But I've see (white) people become very ........ed off do to the inability to get something (i.e. a scholarship) do to the ethnicity.

axon
03-02-2004, 02:16 PM
>>Even though affirmative action may not seem fair it is merely trying to accelerate the process of giving minorities back theirs.

back theirs what?? what are you alluding to that is theirs?

Affirmative action is no longer appropriate in our society. It is an oxymoron of the struggle for equality at this time and day.

ober
03-02-2004, 02:20 PM
echo axon. Give me a break. Special treatment for certain groups is just as much racism as what happened to minorities 20/30/40 years ago.

It's over. I'm sick of minorities today thinking they need to be "repaid" or recieve some kind of benefit for what happened to their ancestors. STFU.

master5001
03-02-2004, 02:44 PM
Originally posted by ober
I'm sick of minorities today thinking they need to be "repaid" or recieve some kind of benefit for what happened to their ancestors. STFU.

Agreed. And in reponse to axon 'theirs' is just a placeholder for what ever it is that they have been deprived of. Some groups were slaves while other groups were robbed and slaughtered.

However, the reason for affirmative action isn't necessarily to give back something for some past injustice, rather its to show that despite past injustices its not too late to accept sed group. Of course, I think using an overtly racist techinique to show that we as a society aren't racist is a little much, but if you understand why the system is in its current state you can perhaps see it as a necessary evil.

vasanth
03-02-2004, 02:47 PM
hmm i am not implying anyhting.. but this is similar to the benifits given to the dalits(the so called lower cast) in my country(India)...

A dalit student get a lot of scholar ship etc etc even priority in government jobs..even if he can aford education.. But what the academics say is that they deserve some kind scholar ship for another 10 years.. the reason.. our ancestors kept them down, never gave them the proper freedom and stuff which made them loose out in the race to be equal with the rest of the people..

SO we are paying for our grandfather mistakes... But our constitution will says this reservation will be removed after some time .. by then according to them the dalits should have reached equality with the general population...


THough i am angered that a dalit student gets more benifit i feel its right when i think in his terms.. He dint get a fare chance since his parents were not educated due to my ancestors fault.. so my tax money goes to educate him for free..

something to think about...
and sorry for my vauge english.

master5001
03-02-2004, 03:14 PM
Actually your english is fine. Its nice to know our country isn't the only one that applies such backward logic. At least in India there is a finite time frame. As for the US I'm sure the only way to stop it would be to initiate some sort of ammendment to the constitition. But if I haven't already made it perfectly clear what would we ammend it to? I know that paying for past mistakes isn't completely fair but I think the only reason it is done is because it is the simplest way to try and be fair without anyone paying large amounts of money to a group.

Simply put I am not a fan of affirmative action. Though my comments may make it seem like otherwise is true I am not. However, I truly don't see what else could be done. If affirmative action were to be removed this very second I am sure there would be backlash. And I'd prefer being screwed from time to time over living in a divided nation where people may assume because you don't want affirmative action you are a racist. I don't believe it really has an intellegent place in our country today but I think it would be stupid to say that removing it would be a seamless act that everyone would be okay with.

Food for thought though, my moms family is Irish and immigrated here during the potato famine. The Iris are a poor group of white people who were treated just as badly as many other minority groups but in all truth this doesn't make me mad nor do expect people to treat me differently nor do expect anything that I didn't earn myself. The bottom line is that for every one of me there are at least (and i'm being conservative) two people who will "say you should fight back!"

sean
03-02-2004, 03:56 PM
I've got a couple of short points to make.

First of all, another echo to ober, I was thinking the exact same words.

Second, I never had slaves. I never forced segregation. I shouldn't be excluded from scholarships and college application benefits because I'm white. That's just more discrimination.

Third, having been to Africa very recently, and having seen how the blacks live there, anyone who is expecting repayment for having been taken out is an idiot. Yes slavery was tough, but that was for the ancestors of today's African-Americans. Where they are now, they're way better off. If anything, you should only be asking for repayment on things that happen now.

Four, about things that happen now. Don't expect legal immunity because you're black. As soon as a black celebrity is arrested for something like child molestation, the race card is played inevitably EVERY time.

Thantos
03-02-2004, 04:13 PM
Thank you to those of you (axon, sean, and ober) who stated my thoughts in a much better way.

*ClownPimp*
03-02-2004, 06:41 PM
http://forums.about.com/ab-atheism/messages/?msg=27434.120

I suggest all of you that "echo[ed] ober" should read this post made in response to a thread on the same topic, in particular the last half. It is quite long so I will qoute the relevant portions here



In an ideal world, what one wants is equality both in procedure and in outcome -- we want people to be treated the same, and we want them to end up getting the same level of goods. But we're not in an ideal world, and the historical record seems clear that if we implement race-blind policies, we don't get race-neutral outcomes. Instead, we get harm done to minorities -- fewer blacks in the top universities, fewer blacks in important positions in companies, fewer blacks owning their own businesses, fewer blacks voting, fewer blacks living in better neighborhoods, and so on.

Those are bad outcomes, and presumably we think they are outcomes which wouldn't occur in an ideal situation. We thus want to make those outcomes stop happening. That requires abandoning race-neutral treatment for a time, in order to achieve race-neutral outcomes. The manner of abandonment, as Adrian has rightly stressed, can be very different in different situations. In some situations, we admit to universities minority applicants whose manifest academic record is less strong than the average admittee, on the theory that the latent intellectual capacities of the minority applicant may not be well-expressed by the academic record, since the applicant has had to deal with an inferior educational background and greater extra-academic obstacles. In employment, we treat as prima facie evidence of discriminatory hiring practices simple numerical disparities in racial makeup of a company's employees. In government practice, we make available business startup funds to minority applicants that aren't available to the general population.

I don't see why it would be surprising for such actions to reduce discrimination in outcome. It seems to me that the reduction of discrimination in outcome is of greater importance than the reduction of discrimination in procedure and attitude, both because people frankly suffer much more from discrimination in outcome than they do from discrimination in procedure and attitude and because discriminatory attitudes typically piggyback on discriminatory outcomes -- so long as, and largely only so long as, blacks are poorer, segregated, and less well educated, they will be treated as socially inferior by many people.

The thought that perfect legal neutrality in treatment will lead to neutrality in outcome seems to me to be a simple historical fantasy. If you take all the cultural goodies and give them to one person, and then tell everyone "OK, now play fair, and don't take more than your share", then the one initial beneficee is just going to keep doing better -- in fact, better and better over time, as he reaps the benefits of his starting capital.

There are, of course, legitimate questions to be asked about the propriety of particular implementations of the general strategy of affirmative action, and there is a genuine need for a careful statement of the underlying rationale of affirmative action (I hope I've at least gestured in that latter direction here). But I admit to finding it distressing that such a simple-minded and misguided critique of affirmative action as the "whites only scholarship" represented could win any support at all from intelligent people (a CNN poll showed that over 65% of people thought it made a good point). I'm left thinking that we leftists have failed terribly in making our case properly to the American people.

Silvercord
03-02-2004, 08:21 PM
oh just shut up, no sane rich white land owner is going to read that.

Zach L.
03-02-2004, 08:48 PM
The purpose of affirmative action was to speed up the process of bringing equal chances to minorities. It was supposed to be a temporary measure, but was found to be too good of a political tool. The result is that it has become a purposeless initiative that is used to win votes. It should not be used to "repay for trangressions against the ancestors of minorities" or what have you, but rather to bring equal opportunity. Once that goal has been achieved, it should be eliminated... Unfortunately, as I said it is too good a political tool.

As for the whites only scholarship, I think that their attempt at a protest is rather stupid, but then again, stupidity is their prerogative.

DavidP
03-02-2004, 10:06 PM
In an ideal world, what one wants is equality both in procedure and in outcome -- we want people to be treated the same, and we want them to end up getting the same level of goods. But we're not in an ideal world, and the historical record seems clear that if we implement race-blind policies, we don't get race-neutral outcomes. Instead, we get harm done to minorities -- fewer blacks in the top universities, fewer blacks in important positions in companies, fewer blacks owning their own businesses, fewer blacks voting, fewer blacks living in better neighborhoods, and so on.


Well duh...when well over half of America is white, of course there are going to be more white people at a university.

I don't know the exact numbers for America as a whole, but I do know the numbers for Houston, TX, which are about 50% white, 25% hispanic, 12% black, 12% asian. Texas is particularly diverse, it would be much different in other states.

So I will assume (don't take this number as a reality) that 66% of America as a whole is white, and the rest is hispanic, black, and asian. Of course there will be more white people at universities and businesses, etc., but that is simply because of the proportions of the population, not because of racism at all.

(Anybody have the actual percentages on ethnic proportions in America as a whole?)

*ClownPimp*
03-02-2004, 11:55 PM
>>Well duh...when well over half of America is white, of course there are going to be more white people at a university.

Oh dear.... I think you know good and well he meant in proportion.

DarkViper
03-03-2004, 01:39 AM
bleh, no matter if its good or not, its still racial in my opinion...

everyones equal, why cant the world just see that -_-'

Hillbillie
03-03-2004, 02:23 AM
>>It seems to me that the reduction of discrimination in outcome is of greater importance than the reduction of discrimination in procedure and attitude<<

It seems to me that the reduction of all coercion is more important than reducing discrimination.

If I own a business, it is my right as a business owner to hire whoever I please based on credentials I establish; if I'm a racist bigot who doesn't want a Mexican working for me, the Government shouldn't force me to hire and work with Mexicans in my business.

If some people own/manage a private college, it is their right as a college to accept whoever they please based on their own credentials; if they run KKK University, the Government shouldn't coerce them into accepting a certain proportion of blacks or Jews (or anyone else for that matter).

The only real place there is any room for the argument for affirmative action is in Government and Government-financed jobs. I personally believe the Government should hire its employees based on merit and leave race out of it.

Fountain
03-03-2004, 02:32 AM
See, I would just blame the British.

It is OUR fault people were slaves, and now OUR fault we do give too much precedence to ethnic minorities.

In England we can say black, but not white, in a whole load of scenarios.

I guess we are sick of it.

So the original question stands, my original reply stands, and most people agreed until someone, someone implied there may be racial motives.

Get real, how can it be racist when 'Ethnic minority' people are awarded the same stuff, which excludes white people?

Its all bollocks.

Somebody said STFU. We ALL should do.

If we dont-many more law abiding, decent people in UK will vote for the BNP at next election. I cant stand their policies, but hey-lets dish out our hard earned tax money equally.....ie not favour ethnic minorities who have not paid a fraction of the taxes 'the whites' have.

Western countries are too soft......

*ClownPimp*
03-03-2004, 09:43 AM
>bleh, no matter if its good or not, its still racial in my opinion...

Perhaps, but as was stated earlier, racism in procedure is much more desirable than racism in outcome. And at the present time no racism in procedure will not produce no racism in outcome

>if I'm a racist bigot who doesn't want a Mexican working for me, the Government shouldn't force me to hire and work with Mexicans in my business.

One of the purposes of government is to protect the rights of minorities. And one of those rights is to not be discriminated against when looking for employment. So the government has a duty to force business owners to not discriminate in their hiring practices.

As the saying goes, "one persons personal freedoms end where another's begins" (or something like that)

>If some people own/manage a private college, it is their right as a college to accept whoever they please based on their own credentials

I do think private colleges do actually have that right

Thantos
03-03-2004, 09:48 AM
>If some people own/manage a private college, it is their right as a college to accept whoever they please based on their own credentials

I do think private colleges do actually have that right
How many all white colleges do you know of? Yet there are all minority schools. So yes they can setup their own credentials but only to a degree.

ober
03-03-2004, 10:20 AM
Originally posted by *ClownPimp*
One of the purposes of government is to protect the rights of minorities. And one of those rights is to not be discriminated against when looking for employment. So the government has a duty to force business owners to not discriminate in their hiring practices.
That duty also includes ensuring that said businesses have qualified personnel. Forcing a company to hire someone that is less qualfied than someone else applying for a job is WRONG. Plain and simple.

EvBladeRunnervE
03-03-2004, 12:43 PM
hat duty also includes ensuring that said businesses have qualified personnel. Forcing a company to hire someone that is less qualfied than someone else applying for a job is WRONG. Plain and simple.

exactly, you know what the problem is in America? It is that everyone expects to get their "fair share". The constitution gives the right to pursue happiness, not obtain it always.

Everyone faces prejudice at sometime in their life, for example computer programmers, who are often the nerds of school, who are picked on etc., I don't see an affirmative action plan for nerds. If I don't hire minorities, it is my business. why should I hire from a minority group that everyone knows is getting crappy education, when over 80% of them cannot read by the time they get out of highschool, a group that although it represents 12% of the US population as a whole, commits 59% of the homicides, and represents around half of all welfare recipients. I would not be rascist, I would be logical, would you hire a white person who: could not read or write, was a convicted felon, and was a beggar? I don't think so.


One of the purposes of government is to protect the rights of minorities. And one of those rights is to not be discriminated against when looking for employment. So the government has a duty to force business owners to not discriminate in their hiring practices.

This is pretty easy to beat. If I have two people, woman A, women B, competing for a business administration position:

Women A is a graduate of harvard university, obtained a 4.0 GPA, and worked with Alan Greenspan during the course of a year internship.

Women B is a graduate of the University of Arkansas, obtained a 3.0GPA there, and has no internship/employment records.

This is often what is on people's resumes in summation. Who am I going to choose, or even interview? Woman A, or woman B? It does not matter what race they are. However, by affirmative action rules, if I have a place that has only 30% blacks working, and Woman B is black, I have to HIRE HER over Woman A, or not hire at all. How does that make sense?

*ClownPimp*
03-03-2004, 02:33 PM
>How many all white colleges do you know of?

who in their right minds would want to go to a "all white" (by design) college. It would not succeed.

>Yet there are all minority schools.

I dont know of a single school that rejects applicants simply becuase they are not of a particular minority race. Please give some examples.

>Everyone faces prejudice at sometime in their life, for example computer programmers, who are often the nerds of school, who are picked on etc.

Thats not prejudice.

>why should I hire from a minority group that everyone knows is getting crappy education, when over 80% of them cannot read by the time they get out of highschool, a group that although it represents 12% of the US population as a whole, commits 59% of the homicides, and represents around half of all welfare recipients

Now this is! Firstly, where the hell are you getting these stats from? Secondly, attitudes like this is why we still need AA today.

No one is asking you to hire an illiterate person for a job that requires one to be able to read.

> That duty also includes ensuring that said businesses have qualified personnel.

>This is pretty easy to beat. If I have two people, woman A, women B, competing for a business administration position:...

You are citing an extreme case. A much more likely senario is given two qualified applicants for a particular job, one minority and one not, a business would have to hire the minority if their workforce didnt meet a certain race distribution.

ober
03-03-2004, 02:42 PM
>>A much more likely senario is given two qualified applicants for a particular job, one minority and one not, a business would have to hire the minority if their workforce didnt meet a certain race distribution.

And you're trying to tell me that that isn't racist? C'mon! Given the two equals, a business should not be "forced" to pick one or the other. The decision should then move onto other characteristics of the individuals (attitude, presentability, etc.)

I'm going to take a wild stab in the dark and say you're a minority. Am I right?

Have you ever been in debt from college while a less deserving (in terms of financial need) minority recieves scholarships that you could have gotten if they had been open to you? That's not affirmative action, but it's the same damn concept.

STFU.

Clyde
03-03-2004, 03:42 PM
Echo Clownpimp.

axon
03-03-2004, 04:33 PM
echo ober



:D

Silvercord
03-03-2004, 05:00 PM
The decision should then move onto other characteristics of the individuals (attitude, presentability, etc.)

Well, I thought you already said they're equal...if they really are equal, then you've already weighed all of the possible qualifications to determine that they're equal, and subsequently if you need to meet a race distribution then I could see, in this case, why it is somewhat reasonable to pick the minority person. Otherwise they're unequal, and they should be chosen by the superior qualifications.

STFU

hehe, jk :)

EDIT:
I just want to re-iterate (after re-reading your college scholarship example) that I really do think merit should be based on performance and qualifications, not race (either for or against any race)

vasanth
03-03-2004, 05:22 PM
Originally posted by sean_mackrory
I've got a couple of short points to make.

First of all, another echo to ober, I was thinking the exact same words.

Second, I never had slaves. I never forced segregation. I shouldn't be excluded from scholarships and college application benefits because I'm white. That's just more discrimination.

Third, having been to Africa very recently, and having seen how the blacks live there, anyone who is expecting repayment for having been taken out is an idiot. Yes slavery was tough, but that was for the ancestors of today's African-Americans. Where they are now, they're way better off. If anything, you should only be asking for repayment on things that happen now.

Four, about things that happen now. Don't expect legal immunity because you're black. As soon as a black celebrity is arrested for something like child molestation, the race card is played inevitably EVERY time.


Hmmm.... isnt this a bit rude... And i agree with some of your points.. but if i am right.. wasnt the legal system biased against the blacks for some time....

i might be worng...

Hillbillie
03-03-2004, 05:28 PM
>>One of the purposes of government is to protect the rights of minorities.<<

Actually it's not. The purpose of government is to prevent coercion. If I hold a gun to your head and say "Let me work for you, for at least $5.25 an hour, or I'll blow your brains out." that is a form of coercion and I have no right in doing that.

Whether its me or the government, it's wrong.

>>"one persons personal freedoms end where another's begins"<<

This is absolutely correct; apparently you don't know what this quote means.

We live in a capitalist society, not a socialist one. If I start a private business or institution, it is well within my rights to conduct that institution how I see fit.

If people don't like the services or products I offer, then they do not conduct business with me. If potential employees do not like the terms I set forth in my business (rate of pay, rules of conduct, etc.) then they do not apply for employment. If, for any reason, I do not like a potential employee it is well within my right to not hire that employee.

It is not within the government's right to tell me how to run my peaceful, private business/institution.

>>The constitution gives the right to pursue happiness, not obtain it always.<<

This is a very good point. I have the right to free speech, but I do not have the right to compel others to provide my forum. I have the right to earn a living, yet I do not hold the right to compel others to provide my living.

*ClownPimp*
03-03-2004, 06:12 PM
>And you're trying to tell me that that isn't racist? C'mon! Given the two equals, a business should not be "forced" to pick one or the other. The decision should then move onto other characteristics of the individuals (attitude, presentability, etc.)

As I stated in my first post to this thread i agree that it is a form of racism. But racial bias in procedure is much more preferrable than racial bias in outcome.

>I'm going to take a wild stab in the dark and say you're a minority. Am I right?

Yup.

>Have you ever been in debt from college while a less deserving (in terms of financial need) minority recieves scholarships that you could have gotten if they had been open to you? That's not affirmative action, but it's the same damn concept.

Well, no. Minority only scholarships are created by private organizations. AA is enforced by the federal government. There are scholarships for all kinds of things: being disabled, knowing how to fly a plane, being the child of a member of a certain organization, being an avid square dancer, etc. Minority only scholarships are no different.

>STFU.
calm down d00d.

>Actually it's not.

Actually it is. Why do you think we have the Bill of Rights?

>If I start a private business or institution, it is well within my rights to conduct that institution how I see fit.

Yes, but you dont--and shouldnt have the right to discriminate.

>It is not within the government's right to tell me how to run my peaceful, private business/institution.

It is if Congress says it is =P

DavidP
03-03-2004, 06:29 PM
See, I would just blame the British.


That has to be the greatest quote in this thread so far.

j/k :D

maybe we should blame the French instead... ;)

Hillbillie
03-03-2004, 06:45 PM
>>Why do you think we have the Bill of Rights?<<

I'm sorry; I suppose I mislead you. Of course the Government should protect rights of minorities. But they should protect the rights of everyone else also...and equally I might add.

(BTW, Madison--the chief author of the Bill of Rights--believed adding the Bill of Rights was redundant; he thought every right the BoR affords to Americans were already embedded into the Constitution. Just some food for thought.)

>>and shouldnt have the right to discriminate.<<

Are you kidding me? People forget that not all discrimination is bad. Discrimination is why we have women bathrooms and men bathrooms. It's why we catch many criminals; witnesses are able to say "It was a white short dude." or "It was a tall black dude."

We Americans have the right to discriminate.

If I have a business, and you come to me asking for work, I have the right to not hire you because you're a minority. (I wouldn't ever do that, mind you; I'd assess your employment based on merit alone, but I'm trying to prove a point here.) Besides, you wouldn't even be at my doorstep in the first place if it wasn't FOR ME OWNING THE BUSINESS.

You're crazy if you don't think I should be able to hire who I please based on what I please. You also insult me as a business owner myself.

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?

>>It is if Congress says it is =P<<

I assume you're joking; in that case, funny. However, if you're serious, Congress once upheld the assertion that slaves were not citizens, had no rights, and were the rightful posessions of slaveowners.

EvBladeRunnervE
03-03-2004, 08:20 PM
cloudpimp :
Now this is! Firstly, where the hell are you getting these stats from? Secondly, attitudes like this is why we still need AA today.


where did I get it? the US statistical Abstracts by the US Census bureau, of course I guess they are rascists...
http://www.census.gov/statab/www/

EDIT: PS I was slightly wrong, it is close to 42.8% for homicide

Zach L.
03-03-2004, 08:38 PM
why should I hire from a minority group that everyone knows is getting crappy education

Congratulations on finding the root of the problem.

*ClownPimp*
03-03-2004, 09:30 PM
> People forget that not all discrimination is bad.

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

>the US statistical Abstracts by the US Census bureau, of course I guess they are rascists

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....")

>If I have a business, and you come to me asking for work, I have the right to not hire you because you're a minority.

Again, businesses do not and should not have that right. You need to look back 100 or so years and see what practices like this did to minority groups, specifically blacks.

Zach L.
03-03-2004, 09:45 PM
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, 10:51 PM
STATISTICS are like a mini skirt....they show a lot, but the most important part remains hidden.

Fountain
03-04-2004, 01:31 AM
Originally posted by DavidP
That has to be the greatest quote in this thread so far.

j/k :D

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, 02:00 AM
>>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, 07:15 AM
0\/\/n3|)!