A small screed on pc vs. reverse discrimination....

[catnhatnh]

Both exist.As a "white male" born in '53 I got none of the "fun" part (subjugation of blacks, females, and minorities-not EVEN a chance to harp on gays...)yet most of the disadvantages-hiring dispreference,assumption of my attitudes,and a vocabulary taught in my youth that can cause me problems.PC sucks,but is neccesary-this relatively short (30-40 year) period of legally endorsed endorsed pedulum swing against my personal best interest is the best way I know to rebalance our society. Somewhere, in my older age I expect a more just society to emerge, but I find it specious to say the swing never worked to my disadvantage.For my children (4 daughters, one son, and one of them a daughter of mixed racial heritage (and only one is bisexual) I am happy. But for myself and a generation of non-abusing white males I would say, "We did not cause or endorse it, Why are we the bad guys???
Sincerely
Confused

[alcibiades_mystery]

1. You're right

That is small.

[Warpy]

2. Reverse discrimination?

Nah. All that changed is that mediocre males saw their entitlement get challenged.

[beaconess]

3. Bingo!!!

"Reverse discriminaion" claims are one of the last refuges of white men who don't understand why they have to actually compete for positions they thought were automatically theirs in the past.

[On the Road]

32. I Assume You Were Never Told

when the promotion you wanted was given to a twit: "There's no way I could promote a white male into this job."

[beaconess]

33. No - I have never been told such a thing. And if you were told that, you should've raised questions

since, unless your employer was operating under a consent decree to remedy specific cases of egregious discrimination in public employment (such as fire or police departments), such a practice is illegal and is certainly not affirmative action.

I have a couple of questions:

1) Were you told this personally or are you relaying an anecdote passed on to you by someone else?
2) What kind of job was this?
3) What qualified the other person as a "twit?" Did they fail to meet the qualifications required for the job? If so, how so?

While I've never been told that I didn't get a job because "there's no way I could promote a White male into this job" (which would have been weird, since I'm Black), I have been denied numerous employment opportunities that have gone to clearly less qualified Whites. I have a number of White friends and co-workers who have also been denied jobs given to less qualified Whites. I have also had White friends and co-workers who were told that they were passed over for jobs in favor of less-qualified Blacks when in fact the Black person was actually more qualified but their employer claimed otherwise to try to save face.

The notion that affirmative action is causing White men to be knocked out of jobs by unqualified Black people is bull. Most of these claims are apocryphal, but revealing. The underlying assumption of most such claims is that Blacks are simply less qualified than Whites and less deserving of employment and educational opportunities than their White counterparts. Affirmative action NEVER requires the hiring of less qualified Blacks - it simply ensures that qualified Blacks are given a full and fair opportunity to compete. When that happens, it is likely that in many instances, the Black person will get the job. Sadly, too many Whites have a sense of entitlement AND a sense of superiority that presupposes that, if a Black person gets a spot that a White person sought, the Black person MUST have been given unfair advantage.

In actuality, a Black applicant who gets a fair chance to get into the pool through affirmative action and then beats out White applicants for a particular position is just more qualified and prevailed fair and square - a concept that seems very difficult for some people, even those who think they're open-minded and liberal, to swallow.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

34. I Assume You Were Never Told...

that "you're a twit because you're not a white male."

[JerseygirlCT]

17. Right. Removing entitlements isn't the same thing

as reverse discrimination.

Unstacking the deck, perhaps.

[beaconess]

21. And therein lies the problem

The same people who bleat about affirmative action being reverse discrimination against White men don't seem to have any problem with other measures that work against White men - as long as those measures benefit OTHER White men, they seem to think they're no big deal. But the minute it looks as if the White man entitlement is being interfered with, all hell breaks loose!

[beaconess]

25. Justice Stevens knows the difference . . .

He described the difference between discrimination and affirmative action as the difference between a "No Trespassing" sign and a "Welcome" mat.

[JerseygirlCT]

26. Yes, that makes sense. nt

[Jeff12]

4. Double standards

Confused, you are right, but political correctness has at its core that everyone should be treated equally. Almost socialistic or unionistic in its concept. No allowance for a person's content of their character, initiative, ambition or drive.

As an HR person, I believe that the person best suited for the job, be it through experience, skills, knowledge, aptitude or attitude or some other such relevant attribute should get the job. Gender, nationality, race, disability, or other status should not affect my hiring decisions.

Therein lies the conflict. You mention "rebalance." One trouble I have with affirmative action quota programs is that there is no end date.

At what point do we believe that everyone has at least started with a level playing field, and that people rise through the content of their character, skills....?

[beaconess]

6. Quotas are illegal - and are not affirmative action

Affirmative action and quotas are two entirely different things.

As an HR person, you sound as if you are already practicing affirmative action - which is simply ensuring that everyone who is qualified has an equal opportunity to compete for available positions. That often means making a special effort to make sure that qualified minorities and women are included in the potential hiring pool since for many reasons, the pool is far too narrow, homogenous and non-inclusive. Affirmative action does this, but it does not require the hiring of unqualified people based on race or gender. It does recognize that, once everyone has a fair opportunity to compete and be considered, there will naturally be a diverse workforce since, unless minorities and women are being intentionally turned down, a reasonable number of them will end up being hired purely through merit.

If you have any specific knowledge of any "quota programs," you should report them to the EEOC since they are against the law.

[Bill McBlueState]

18. i like things that are unionistic,

although I've never heard the word before.

Do you have some kind of a problem with the right of workers to organize?

[beaconess]

5. Dear Confused: Perhaps I can explain it to you . . .

You aren't the bad guys. You're just being forced to share the pie you've had all to yourself until recently.

You're not a victim. And that "I didn't own slaves, so why do I have to . . .?" argument just doesn't hold water. You didn't do a damned thing to build this country either (since you weren't around then), but you probably have no problem enjoying the fruits of the labor of the Founding Fathers and those who helped make this country what it is today.

This country was built on the backs and lives and deaths of African Americans who got next to nothing in the bargain and were forced, generation after generation after generation, to watch White men (and women) reap enormous advantage that was then passed on to their children and their children's children to the point that White folk just accepted the privilege they didn't earn as the way the world is supposed to be. The advantages that have been passed on to Whites - regardless of class or economic status - are now so deeply engrained that many Whites don't seem to even realize that it's there - they just think it's their due.

This country has never been a meritocracy. And that has always been accepted by most people. I don't see White men bitching and moaning when undeserving Whites get special preferences in college and employment and business and politics - legacies, good-ole boy networks, geographic preferences, family connections, etc. But as soon as it appears that a Black person may have gotten some additional consideration (whether they have or not - usually just their presence in the classroom or office is enough to lead some Whites to assume they don't deserve to be there), all hell breaks loose and some White folks start screaming about "reverse discrimination" and reminding everyone within earshot that they never personally lynched anyone or made any Black person give up their seat on the bus, so why should they "suffer" now!?

Well, I don't buy it. That argument is based on an assumption - infused in White folks for centuries in this country - that while life isn't fair and the playing field isn't even, White people will always have a floor below which they cannot fall. And below that floor will always be someone whom they can look down on and feel superior to - i.e., Black folk. That explains why, despite all of the other abject unfairness in this society that results in all manner of less qualified White people taking spots from other, more qualified Whites (most of which is met with complete silence and acceptance by Whites) when it appears that it might be even remotely possible that a BLACK person has filled a spot a White person thought THEY should have, that White person starts hollering about reverse discrimination, blah blah blah. Yet, they wouldn't have uttered a peep if another White person - no matter how unqualified - ended up in that spot since, after all (shrug), life's not fair and that's just the breaks. In other words, the attitude seems to be, "I know life isn't fair and that I'm not going to get everything I want. But at least I'm supposed to always do better than YOU!"

So, don't expect to cow or guilt-trip people into backing off of their support for affirmative action because some White men don't want to give up some of their exclusive privilege. It is just one, small way to start trying to level America's playing field. And since it opens up the field of opportunity to more people who were previously kept out, that means that some other folks will be squeezed out. There are now more people competing and if some White folks can't keep up and hold their own when there's real competition, them's the breaks.

And as for your concern about not being able to use the vocabulary taught in your youth, don't worry about it. You have every right to say whatever you damned well please. The only difference is that, unlike in the past, your more offensive vocabulary will not go unchallenged. Say what you like, but if it offends other people, they're not going to keep their mouths shut to make you more comfortable. Deal with it.

[Bunny]

7. Well said!

:applause:

[Judi Lynn]

8. This is the 1st time I've ever wanted to stand up & cheer after reading a post!

There wasn't one wasted or ineffectual word in the entire response. I am only too pleased to stash this thread away for future reference.

I can't imagine the O.P. has even more complaints to air. Looks as if you covered ALL the bases very well in advance! Thank you.

[Llewlladdwr]

9. All I know is this...

Everytime an affirmative action hire is made that means some white guy didn't get hired. Next time I go to look for a job that white guy could be me.

Why should I support a policy that is against my own economic interests?

[beaconess]

14. You probably don't even realize that you're proving my point

Attitudes like yours are one of the reasons that affirmative action is still necessary.

1) What actual experience do you have with affirmative action? And please don't give me that, "I know somebody who didn't get a job because a Black guy got it instead" anecdote. Be specific.

2) On what are you basing your assertion that "everytime" an affirmative action hire is "made that means some white guy didn't get hired?"

3) How do you define "an affirmative action hire?" Do you assume that every Black person who gets a job instead of a White person is "an affirmative action hire?"

4) How do you know that a particular person is "an affirmative action hire?" Do you have access to their employment records?

5) Do you make a similar assumption whenever you see a White guy in a job - do you assume that his hiring means that some Black person didn't get the job?

Affirmative action ensures that everyone gets a chance to compete fairly for the job. When a Black person gets a job over a White person, the Black person was probably more qualified. Certainly, there are rare instances when that isn't the case, but those instances aren't anywhere close to the number of instances in which unqualified White people are hired over more qualified Blacks (not to mention you and other White folks, who don't seem nearly as concerned about being passed over in those cases). So, if you're going to get your shorts in a bunch about unfairness, maybe you should fight harder FOR affirmative action, which makes this less likely to happen.

And if you think you need to oppose affirmative action because it's against your economic interests, that's really your problem. If it's all about your personal economic interest, perhaps you should lobby to bring back Jim Crow, the poll tax, or maybe even slavery, since those policies would be much more favorable to your and other "white guys'" pocketbooks.

[Bridget Burke]

23. Which companies do "affirmative action" hiring?

I've heard AA used for school admissions & for hiring companies owned by "minorities"--which include white women.

But--what specific job are you talking about? Every time a smart, qualified man or woman is hired, it means that some dumbass was neglected. (Although I'd like to remind you that plenty of dumbasses still have jobs--sometimes in supervisory positions.)

[lumberjack_jeff]

11. You perceive him as trying to cow and guilt-trip you?

Here's the reality as seen by one rural white guy who was born a liberal democrat and will die a liberal democrat.

Your post was well-written, but full of absolutely false generalizations.

First: Living within a 20 minute drive each compass direction from four native american nations, I recognize that institutional racism has had a tragic impact on minorities. Further, I recognize that even though the insitutional racism is gone, the social and cultural racism remains.

Second: I came from a family of coal miners, none of whom ever went to college. I had dysfunctional parents. The better-half was an alcoholic, epileptic, violent, shell-shocked disabled veteran father. As a 5 year old, I lived in the hispanic projects of LA. Suffice to say, learning to fight was a useful life skill. I never perceived, or benefitted from any kind of floor support. My wife was raised by a single mom after her truck driver father died when she was three. This white privilege that you see is not universal. There wasn't a network of skull-and-bonesmen there to pick us up when we failed. The benefit of knowing this is that you recognize early that you are the only one you can count on. You don't fail. Trying interesting, stimulating and personally enriching things is a luxury. College fell into this category.

Third: Be clear; affirmative action is the disadvantage my sons face to atone for sins, not those of my short-lived coal miner grandfather, but those of the rich white guy who employed him. Unlike me and mine, his descendants are insulated from the ramifications of that policy. His grandkids don't need the scholarships. His grandkids, by virtue of legacy admission, don't need to have the best grades. Justified or not, it is collective punishment that more often than not is poorly targeted. As I try to help my kids prepare for college, I find it increasingly difficult to rationalize the idea that, other factors being equal, they should be rejected from college on the basis of the race they inherited from me. They are being punished for corruption of blood.

Are we ready for a color-blind society or not? As the rich white guy you alluded to would surely understand, it's hard to say yes when one benefits from a society that is not.

[beaconess]

15. A few things

1) institutional racism is NOT gone. It is alive and well. That is one of the reasons that affirmative action is still necessary.

2) I certainly sympathize with your situation. But you are still White. And that confers certain advantages that you may not even be aware that you have.

3) Affirmative action, contrary to popular, but erroneous, belief, is not limited to Black people. In fact, you and your children fall right into the category of people that many affirmative action programs benefit.

For example, did you know that the University of Michigan's affirmative action policy, which was attacked in court but ultimately upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court included, for lack of a better word, preferences for applicants from Appalachia and other areas of the country heavily populated by poor Whites? It also gave special consideration to White students who were minorities in their own communities - such as White students who attended predominantly Hispanic or Black schools.

Affirmative action does not punish Whites for "corruption of blood" any more than athletic scholarships punishes non-athletes for corruption of athleticism.

I wish we were ready for a color-blind society, but we are not. While it may sound paradoxical, we cannot fully remedy and get beyond the race problem without taking race into account. I hope we'll be there soon, but we're definitely not there yet. Affirmative action helps us get closer, though.

[lumberjack_jeff]

19. Can you give me an example...

... of a socially-sanctioned racist institution in this country?

The closest I can come up with (in the sense you intend) is the fact that some ethnic groups have a disproportionate number of people in jail implies an institutionally racist cause. A better case can be made that poverty and cultural/social racism is a more proximate cause.

The racism remaining in this country is primarily social and cultural, not institutional.

... with one notable exception. I can only think of one legal and government-sanctioned way that you can legitimately and in good conscience, reject an applicant for a job or education on the basis of his skin color.

BTW, my descendants are from appalachia, but my father stayed on the west coast after he left the army hospital. I live about 2 hours from Seattle. Another nail in the coffin of all-encompassing generalizations.

[beaconess]

20. You obviously don't understand what "institutional racism" is . . .

"Institutional Racism" is not the same as a "socially-sanctioned racist institution." Institutional racism (also known as "structural racism") is defined as forces, social arrangements, institutions, structures, policies, precedents and systems of social relations that operate to deprive certain racially identified categories equality.

Institutional racism depends upon biases embedded in social structures and in institutions for effect, not on specific beliefs or biases of particular individuals. Because of this, institutional racism is self-executing and does not require individual or intentional actions to inflict discrimination. In fact, one of institutional racism's principal characteristics is that it appears race-neutral on its face, yet the institution's policies result in discrimination of one particular race. Affirmative action helps to root out that kind of discrimination.

An example is the common practice of legacies in college admissions. Many colleges - particularly Ivy League and other elite institutions - give special preferences to the children and grandchildren of previous graduates. Since most of these schools refused to admit even the most qualified Black applicants for most of their history, this means that almost all of their graduates were White. The result is that a disproportionate share of their legacy admissions will be White because Blacks were artificialy excluded. Thus, legacy admissionsm, although neutral on their face (i.e., they don't specifically state any preference based on race), overwhelmingly and unfairly benefit less qualified White students over more qualified Black students, solely because they had an ancestor who attended the school. THAT is an example of institional racism. And it also affects plenty of White students, too, who are passed over in favor of less qualified White legacy students, purely on the basis of ancestry. In fact, legacy admissions are much more prevalent than affirmative action on the basis of race - why aren't the opponents of race-based affirmative action screaming about that?

In reality, college admissions are not a cut and dry, objective process. They involve any number of subjective criteria beyond test scores and grades: geography, athletic or musical talents, legacies, "his dad is a friend of the dean," "her mom made a big contributions to the building fund," "we need more in-state students," etc. But, for some reason, the only time anyone seems to object to a subjective criteria is when they think that a Black person may benefit from it.

And, contrary to your assertion, affirmative action does not discriminate against White males. It simply makes the competition tougher because it ensures that the pool is expanded to include qualified persons who otherwise would not have been included.

For example, you insist that somehow you and your children are being harmed by affirmative action. Can you demonstrate that any of you have actually been denied a job or an admission to a less-qualified Black person solely because you were White? Have you ever been denied a job or admission in favor of another White person? If so, has that other White person, in every instance, been more qualified or deserving than you? Or do you believe that the only time a White person can be deemed to be treated unfairly is if a Black person does better than they do?

[lumberjack_jeff]

27. If "structural racism" is synonymous with "institutional racism"...

... and by your definition, structural racism encompasses overt institutional racism ("Colored people to the back of the bus by government order") covert social racism ("Sure, there's no law against minorities riding in the front of the bus, but if they don't know their place, we'll quietly remind 'em") or precedents and social relations ("Ride at the front of the bus? Well, I suppose I could, but I've never really considered it since my friends are all back here.")

And since the overt institutional racism is largely gone that leaves the social and cultural components. Exactly the argument I was trying to make. If you'd prefer different terminology, that's fine by me.

Don't use legacy admissions as a rhetorical lever to push affirmative action. Legacy admissions discriminate in a colorblind way against the proletariat everywhere. If legacy admissions is the disease, cure it, not something else. I AM screaming about that.

Affirmative action (in this context) is not a subjective criteria. It's as objective as the color of ones skin.

"In reality, college admissions are not a cut and dry, objective process. They involve any number of subjective criteria beyond test scores and grades: geography, athletic or musical talents, legacies, "his dad is a friend of the dean," "her mom made a big contributions to the building fund," "we need more in-state students," etc. But, for some reason, the only time anyone seems to object to a subjective criteria is when they think that a Black person may benefit from it."
And, contrary to your assertion, affirmative action does not discriminate against White males. It simply makes the competition tougher because it ensures that the pool is expanded to include qualified persons who otherwise would not have been included.

Unless the college is drafting people who didn't apply to go to school, your theory does not hold water. "The pool" is the people who apply. In the college's choice between actual applicants, one of the criteria they use to make a decision is ethnicity. And since the tool used to judge if a school is in compliance with this policy is a calculator, it's a quota system. The college admissions process can and should use diversity objectives like geography and socioeconomic background in addition to grades to judge who should get life's gold ring but I question that race should. I also agree that aristocracy should not.

"For example, you insist that somehow you and your children are being harmed by affirmative action. Can you demonstrate that any of you have actually been denied a job or an admission to a less-qualified Black person solely because you were White?"

I haven't made that case. I do make the case that, to use a sports analogy, the hurdles are set slightly higher for the kids which (due to skin color) are stereotyped as probably posessing better shoes.

Does the absence of ever having been drafted preclude me from having an opinion on the draft? I know enough of the experience of Vietnam draftees to know that this is not a future I'd choose for my kids. Further, I know enough about institutionalized racism from the experience of those who lived it to know that it's also not a future I'll quietly accept - for anyone.

FWIW, one thing I've learned is that I usually have a pretty weak argument if the first thing I feel compelled to say in response is; "you obviously don't know...". Condescension is a refuge.

[beaconess]

28. You really don't understand and don't seem to want to

Your ignorance about institutional racism, as evidenced by your bizarre definition of it, despite my clear explanation of what it is, along with your distorted idea about how affirmative action really operates (for example, it does not involve quotas, which are illegal, and no educational or business institution that I'm aware of uses them, although it's a popular strawman for people who don't have a clue about how affirmative action really works) is less of a problem than your apparent lack of interest in actually learning anything about it that might conflict with your preconceived notions (shared by most RWNs) that it's a zero sum game that hurts YOU.

But I'm not going to waste any more of my time trying to explain it to you further. If you want to keep thinking that you and other White people are being victimized by affirmative action, that's your little red wagon.

[lumberjack_jeff]

30. It's your ball. You can take it and go home if you want.

Missing from your screed is any attempt to correct "my ignorance and distorted ideas" about what AA is except to say that it's a useful, necessary kind of racism, and to make unwarranted personal speculations about me.

That tuition to the Bill O' Reilly school of debate paid off, apparently.

If I were a college dean facing a lawsuit for being out of compliance with affirmative action, a reasonable question to ask is; "what is required to be in compliance?". The answer to that question will undoubtedly be expressed in terms of a percentage.

But I guess that's just another "bizarre definition" of quota.

[JeffR]

22. Kick-ass response

:woohoo:

[Maddy McCall]

10. Define PC.

I see so many people talking about it, but it seems that NO ONE who bitches about it knows what it is.

[Debs]

12. PC is the excuse those WITH power

Use to attack those who point out their attacks on those without power are tawdry. They have every RIGHT to be racist, sexist, mean spirited bullies. That however isnt enough, they want to demonize those who POINT OUT when they are acting like racist, sexist, mean spirited bullies so when you do so its all about you being so politically correct. Excuse me for having a concience and a heart.

[Maddy McCall]

13. ....

:applause:

[beaconess]

16. Exactly right - they're usually pissed off because they USED to be able

to say whatever they damned well pleased with impunity, but now those uppity {fill in the blanks} have the temerity to CALL them on it and make it so much less fun and convenient to spout off.

Life is SO much harder for White guys today. Not only do they actually have to compete with more people to get the spots they thought they had a lock on, they can't even say nasty things about those people anymore.

Case in point - Bill Bennett's outrageous racist comments about how the crime rate would be lowered if all Black babies were aborted. Not only did the RWM INSIST that Bennett's comments weren't out of line, they then attacked those of us who had the nerve to criticize him, accusing us of unfairly picking on poor Bennett by "playing the race card!"

[Bridget Burke]

24. How, specifically have you "suffered"?

What jobs have you lost? What words do you miss using?

[beaconess]

31. Reminds me of something Richard Pryor said . . .

when asked by a White journalist why Pryor so freely used the n-word but the journalist couldn't say it.

"Why would you WANT to say it?!"

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

29. Apparently some people today...

are confusing racial hatred with hatred of the white patriarchy.

Chronic failure of people not being about to put themselves in another man's shoes.

In all my years, I've never met a racist black person.