The Center for Equal Opportunity has created an “Antidiscrimination Hotline,” a web site where whistleblowers can report programs and policies that engage in “negative action” (my term, not CEO’s), i.e., discrimination on the basis of race, sex, ethnicity.
As just described by Roger Clegg in NRO,
It divides the kind of abuses we typically see into three categories. The first
Companies and organizations need to be reined in with respect to preferential treatment of women as well. This is the largest growth area for the “diversity” racket (just ask Lawrence Summers at Harvard).
The coercion and extortion in the name of “equal opportunity” and “diversity” must end.
Kudos to Roger Clegg and the Center for Equal Opportunity. I urge everyone to use the above-reference web site to bring these outrageous abuses to CEO’s attention.
Cicero
I work for a large financial services company. There are very, very few blacks employed here and are mostly lower level staff positions. There are many women in positions of leadership, but zero blacks.
Apparently, they’re appeasing regulators with the female positions. I think blacks are in demand in the financial industry as a whole, however.
I can point you to several websites that deal exclusively with minority recruitment in the financial sector. They’re constantly complaining that they can find enough qualified blacks to fill all the “set asides” they need to satisfy the government bean counters.
One prominent example of an African American at the top of the financial world is Franklin Raines, who headed Fannie Mae for several years.
Will weigh in on this.
How would you like to be the poor schmuck who patronizes the doctor who got into med school via the quota route?
Little discussed in relation to the quota mongering is the promotion of incompetents that goes along with it.
We’re super rich in the U.S., and this tends to disguise the effects of this constant promotion of incompetents.
And, John, you might want to consider this for your sister site about the liberal media. The constant burping up of PC twaddle in the MSM is not just ideological. It’s also the result of incompetence. Journalism schools practice the quota system, too, and the newspapers editors and guilds operate under fixed quotas. The result is the hiring of incompetents who know how to do nothing but burp up PC bilge. And, they get rewarded endlessly for doing just that.
At some point in the future, this policy of promoting incompetents at the expense of the competent will begin to cause functional breakdowns of institutions. Watch for it. It’s in the works.
Looking at today’s news reports, I have a feeling that this hotline is going to ringing off the hook.
>>>White men with prison records receive far more offers for entry-level jobs in New York City than black men with identical records, and are offered jobs just as often – if not more so – than black men who have never been arrested, according to a new study by two Princeton professors.
The study, the first to assess the effect of race on job searches by ex-convicts, also found that black men who had never been in trouble with the law were about half as likely as whites with similar backgrounds to get a job offer or a callback.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/17/nyregion/17felons.html
The results of this study reinforces the research done by Devah Pager, which I first referenced here: http://www.discriminations.us/storage/002796.html
They might have to put some overtime in on that switchboard, LOL.
–Cobra
Cobra, you’ve avoided the obvious here.
1. The level of educational achievement between black and white men is stark, to say the least. I’ll bet the level of educational achievement among ex-cons reflects this, too. White men get hired before black men because, at every level, they achieve better results within the educational system. Bet the white men had better jobs than the black men before they went to jail. I’ll bet the house.
2. Don’t know for sure about this, but I’ll bet that the severity of crimes for which black men are incarcerated is also much worse than for white men. That’s why black men, who are what (?) 6% of the population, comprise half the prison population. They commit a lot of violent crime.
You haven’t uncovered an injustice. You’ve just uncovered another dimension of the dismal failure of black men. Congratulations. Employers hire better qualified, better educated men with less violent pasts. Imagine that!
There is hope. I see more and more young black men rejecting the role of victim that white liberals have ascribed to them. I see them working in Starbucks and McD’s, instead of dismissing these jobs as “chump change.”
You’ll see greater change when young black men begin to return to church, reject the welfare culture and take being a father seriously. Of course, refusing to pay black women welfare for producing illegitimate children would be the greatest boon to the black community.
Cobra likes to pose as an avenger of black injustice and a stalwart defender of black advancement. The policies that he favors are the policies that led to the destruction of the black family and to the wholesale imprisonment of black men. Cobra, you not the solution, you’re the problem.
Stephen writes:
>>>1. The level of educational achievement between black and white men is stark, to say the least. I’ll bet the level of educational achievement among ex-cons reflects this, too. White men get hired before black men because, at every level, they achieve better results within the educational system. Bet the white men had better jobs than the black men before they went to jail. I’ll bet the house.”
Maybe you’re not reading the SAME study I’m reading.
>>>”WHITE men with PRISON RECORDS receive far more offers for entry-level jobs in New York City than black men with identical records, and are offered jobs JUST AS OFTEN- if not MORE so – than BLACK men who have NEVER BEEN ARRESTED, according to a new study by two Princeton professors.”
That means that even in your rare instance of comity towards African American males here: “I see more and more young black men rejecting the role of victim that white liberals have ascribed to them. I see them working in Starbucks and McD’s, instead of dismissing these jobs as “chump change.”
Those young black men without criminal records you mention are STILL at a disadvantage to white ex-felons when it comes to hiring. This must be part of the “Color-blind Ameritocracy”, some posters allude to here.
As an experiment, I’m going to send a link to this story, and to that of the Devah Pager research to this “Center for Equal Opportunity”, and see what kind of response they’ll give.
–Cobra
I think a company would be foolish to sign any document about discrimination except when compelled by law.
Internal policies should protect the company by following the law.
But what does the company gain from signing papers for advocacy groups?
Cobra:
The black male high school dropout rate for 2001 (U.S. Census figures) was almost 30%. That significantly lowers the number of qualified black males right off the bat. Add a criminal record especially a violent felony) and tell me what percentage remains “qualified” for high-paying jobs…
“Criminal record” is vague. A simple larceny is quite different than an aggravated assault or homicide charge. Are we comparing apples to oranges with respect to this blanket “criminal record” category??
Cobra,
Don’t think I misread.
The Times hired Jayson Blair as a star reporter, although he hadn’t finished his undergraduate degree in journalism. You consider the NYT a reliable source for anything? You think that the NYT has no axe to grind in the arena of racial quotas?
I like the “your rare instance of comity towards African American males here” language. This is one of the most interesting and phony tactics of the PC crowd. It is often asserted that, if one doesn’t agree with this or that PC policy, one is hostile to blacks or women. This is transparent nonsense. The only thing that really matters in this life is how one treats the individual black or woman they know and associate with.
You consistently contend that those who do not agree with your political views exhibit some sort of hostility toward blacks as a group. I gather that you consider yourself the spokeman for all blacks. You’ve never told me exactly how you attained this position. Elected? Self-appointed? Agreed to by your circle of friends?
This tactic is absolute nonsense. I can turn it on its head. No group has done more damage to the interests of black men than white liberals, who constantly seek to rationalize and excuse criminal behavior and gangsterism among black men. Yet, white liberals claim to be particularly sympathetic to the interests of black men.
Sure they are.
KenS:
I think a company would be foolish to sign any document about discrimination except when compelled by law.
Probably wise. No telling how much trouble you could get into these days promising not to discriminate on the basis of race, sex, or ethnicity.
John, so often when I read your blog, I think to myself, “John has it exactly correct!”
And then I’m so saddened that you do indeed, but our country today is so upside down. I feel like Alice through the Looking Glass… Didn’t we fight to ensure equal rights, and for people to be judged by their character and not their exterior?
Yet it sometimes seems that, more and more, the exterior is all…. And yes, even our Supreme Court doesn’t seem to “get it.”
Anyway. Thanks again for your continued battled against what should be a no brainer – but what sometimes makes me think that my brain is non-functioning it’s all so illogical.
Cobra’s study results are sad, if true, and remind me of the one where identical resumes got “Amanda” calls for lots more interviews than “Lakeisha”.
PegK writes:
>>>And then I’m so saddened that you do indeed, but our country today is so upside down. I feel like Alice through the Looking Glass… Didn’t we fight to ensure equal rights, and for people to be judged by their character and not their exterior?”
Apparently, according to this Princeton Study, we have quite a ways to go.
Cicero writes:
>>>The black male high school dropout rate for 2001 (U.S. Census figures) was almost 30%. That significantly lowers the number of qualified black males right off the bat. Add a criminal record especially a violent felony) and tell me what percentage remains “qualified” for high-paying jobs…
“Criminal record” is vague. A simple larceny is quite different than an aggravated assault or homicide charge. Are we comparing apples to oranges with respect to this blanket “criminal record” category??”
First of all, I’m not comparing anything, but I’m fairly sure that Devah Pager, http://www.princeton.edu/~pager/dpager_cv_0305.pdf. took those factors into account.
>>>White job applicants with criminal records seeking entry level work were more likely to receive an offer of employment than blacks with no prison record, a landmark audit of 1,500 employers in New York City has found.
Using undercover
cobra – The difference between us, as I see it, is that I would enthusiastically support going after those New York “employers” for violating Title VII, as I assume you would, but I also would not allow colleges or employers to discriminate against people people of other races as well, which they routinely do under the guise of “affirmative action.” You, on the other hand, support discrimination against whites, Asians, and other non-preferred minorities, presumably on some theory of compentation or retribution or leveling the playing field or something. To you, the racial discrimination presumably practiced by people like the employers in this study, which I take it you don’t like, justifies the racial discrimination you do like.
Cobra,
The researcher makes the very typical racist assumption that the people doing to hiring have no interactions with African-Americans and are making all of their hiring decicions based upon irrational prejudice.
An equal assumption is that the employers interact with african-americans every day as customers, employees, suppliers, government officials. These interactions with african-americans could have had so negative to possible employers due to the prevailing culture of black american that they are adverse to hiring african-americans.
John is accurate in his statements. Assuming the findings of this study to be true, then those employers who are violating the law should be charged and tried for such violations. (I know that there are testers in Minneapolis for Realtors who break fair housing laws – and I applaud vigorous enforcement of the law.)
But the answer isn’t more discrimination somewhere else. Indeed – I would argue that, ultimately, discrimination in other areas, like allowing less qualified minorities to get places in school actually feeds the type of behaviors that you describe, Cobra. (Even though it is against the law.)
When you have discrimination FOR unqualified or less qualified people in some areas, then others will not unreasonably assume that many of those minority groups aren’t as capable as non-minorities.
Doesn’t justify breaking the law … but makes a modicum of sense.
I will state, however, that I think the drug laws in this country are utterly senseless and need total revamping – and do contribute to the numbers of minority people we see in jail for non-violent crime. I do believe that this is one part of our system that does have inherent prejudice against minorities – and for this reason, among a number of others, we should work diligently to rehaul it all.
Cobra:
Read this law school scenario below and then try to defend the “affirmative action” applied in that situation:
http://www.tallahassee.com/mld/democrat/news/opinion/11554771.htm
Superdestroyer writes:
>>>An equal assumption is that the employers interact with african-americans every day as customers, employees, suppliers, government officials. These interactions with african-americans could have had so negative to possible employers due to the prevailing culture of black american that they are adverse to hiring african-americans.”
Um…ok…let me get this straight, so I’m not accused of misinterpreting what you’re trying to say. You seem to imply that hiring discrimination is justified because the potential employer may not “like” black people.
…
Supe, there are witnesses here. People actually READ some of these posts.
Now onto the arguments that make more sense.
Peg writes:
>>>I will state, however, that I think the drug laws in this country are utterly senseless and need total revamping – and do contribute to the numbers of minority people we see in jail for non-violent crime. I do believe that this is one part of our system that does have inherent prejudice against minorities – and for this reason, among a number of others, we should work diligently to rehaul it all.”
Peg, I can’t agree with you more on this statement. You understand the evidence laid out before your very eyes.
My points at “Discriminations” have been consistant:
1. There is rampant racial discrimination against African-, Hispanic-, and Native Americans.(Cobra Argument #1.)
2. There is “Selective Outrage” in viewing racial discrimination in total.
When I first started posting here I would data-dump PAGES of research, statistics and studies covering nearly every aspect of American life in regards to racial discrimination, from housing, lending institutions, law enforcement, education, wage gaps, etc.
It got to the point that John asked me to cease and desist, because the findings were not in contention. It’s his blog, his rules, so that’s no problem.
Both yourself and John, correctly suggest that ENFORCEMENT of existing laws is needed to begin to address the results of endemic racism that undeniably exists in our system. The problem is, more than “suggestion” is needed. If a person votes for or supports Executives (Mayors, Governors, Presidents) who have no inclination or motivation to make enforcement of existing anti-discrimination laws a priority, OR Legislators (Councilmen, Representatives, Senators) who draft or support laws LIKE the afforementioned drug-policies, OR support the nomination of Judges (local,District, Circuit, Appellate, Supreme) who take anti-civil rights stances–
Then those words are just that. “WORDS”–empty, bereft of action, with no potency, and fewer results.
Nels Nelson so vividly depicted this scenario in his sage posts, describing the elimination of Affirmative Action as being the “low-hanging fruit.” Hey, I’ll admit myself it’s certainly EASIER, and less PAINFUL to first look at racial discrimination as a white majority greivance issue, easily rectified by think-tank funded initiatives and lawsuits. The truth is that there is far more fruit hanging on higher branches of the American tree.
“Words” alone won’t get that fruit down. It will take a determination that we may have to CLIMB that tree, or procure a LADDER, FRUIT PICKER, or at least a long stick to shake those bitter fruits down. That’s called ‘ACTION”, and we all know what speaks LOUDER.
If all things were “EQUAL”, I would have an arduous, if not impossible task of defending AA. Since all things are NOT equal, it’s child’s play.
–Cobra
Cobra,
I guess you do not or cannot understand. You have a group of people applying for a job. A white male (who is a distinct minority in NYC) applies for a job. A black male applies for the same job. If the black male reminds the employers of all the problems in his store, then the employer will use his experience to make a decision.
The question I have for you, is making decisions based upon personal experience discrimination, racism, or bigotry?
Also, I do not recall If I have ever seen a whites only sign at the Borders bookstore so I wonder how you use racism as an explanation of why blacks read so much less than whites (on average).
Superdestroyer writes:
>>> If the black male reminds the employers of all the problems in his store, then the employer will use his experience to make a decision.”
Like I said before, Supe…people actually read these posts. You’re saying that employers (assuming they are not black like the applicant) use their past experiences (“all the problems in his store”, you denote) to make a decision. I won’t address the OBVIOUS problems I have with your supposition, but move ahead to your question:
>>>The question I have for you, is making decisions based upon personal experience discrimination, racism, or bigotry?”
Main Entry: dis
Cobra:
Here it is in a nutshell:
I think that the entire “white” category is bogus from the start. Do you know that in 1909 Southern courts declared Sicilians “nonwhite”?
We have John Conyers advocating reparations for lynching victims, but what about the many Jewish and Italian lynching victims? For example, the largest single mass lynching in U.S. history was the lynching of 11 Italian-Americans in New Orleans (1891). Must Jews, Italians and others now pay these proposed reparations because they’re now considered part of the “Caucasian conspiracy”?
Prior to 1964, these ethnic groups weren’t given anything close to full membership in what you seem to believe is a “white country club” of privilege. It’s interesting that in the post-1964 affirmative action era, they’re now considered monolithically “white”, especially when it works against them in affirmative action schemes.
The race baiters and affirmative action proponents have played fast and loose with the historical facts, which aren’t starkly black and white. They’re mainly varying shades of gray. To say that I’ve enjoyed more privilege than Colin Powell’s son based strictly upon race is laughable, and quite frankly, insane.
Cobra:
Are all “whites” viewed as equals? You decide:
ARE ITALIANS WHITE?
In Rollins v. Alabama (1922), as we have seen, a Sicilian woman was not deemed “white” enough by an Alabama court to legally prevent a “black” man from mating with her. Italians in Louisiana were also deemed unworthy of full “whiteness” and its privileges.
Source: http://www.webcom.com/~intvoice/powell11.html
Essentially, the answer to racism and discrimination is: changing bad laws where applicable, prosecution for those who have allegedly broken civil rights laws, and punishment for those who have been found guilty of same.
The answer is NOT to discriminate against groups “x” and “y” because groups “a” and “b” are being discriminated against.
Argue that we should do our all to guarantee all kids a decent education and change bad law, and I’ll argue with you, Cobra. Argue that because this is not being done that we should randomly reward one race and punish those of other races – you lose me.
First of all, I’m not comparing anything, but I’m fairly sure that Devah Pager, http://www.princeton.edu/~pager/dpager_cv_0305.pdf. took those factors into account.
I wish we could be sure… but I don’t trust without good reason. Remember the study a few years ago — touted on the front page of the Washington Post — which “proved” that blacks were being discriminated against in mortgage lending?
Only, it turned out that the only thing they had controlled for was income. Not credit history, not net worth, not collateral, not existing debt levels.
Once you did that, the disparity disappeared.
Cicero writes:
>>>Are all “whites” viewed as equals? You decide:
ARE ITALIANS WHITE?
In Rollins v. Alabama (1922), as we have seen, a Sicilian woman was not deemed “white” enough by an Alabama court to legally prevent a “black” man from mating with her. Italians in Louisiana were also deemed unworthy of full “whiteness” and its privileges.”
You’re making my points FOR me, Cicero. These decisions weren’t made by minority judges. They were made by the “group in charge.” The laws preventing miscegenation weren’t written by minority legislators. They were written by the “group in charge.” The laws weren’t being enforced by minority officers or executives. They were enforced by the “group in charge.”
You’re making my stance far STRONGER by hilighting the inexcusably horrific level of RACISM and DISCRIMINATION detonated on American society by the “group in charge”. Do I have to fill in that blank for you as to who they were?
Here’s where I find your posts illuminating, Cicero. You can sit here and recount case after case of insidious, malevolent white racism AND VIOLENCE against not only minorities, but OTHER white European Immigrants–some with stupifying decisions, but in other posts, you want the same readers to somehow, show EQUAL if not MORE OUTRAGE over Jennifer Gratz getting wait-listed at her first choice of college.
Peg writes:
>>>Essentially, the answer to racism and discrimination is: changing bad laws where applicable, prosecution for those who have allegedly broken civil rights laws, and punishment for those who have been found guilty of same.”
I would say that those are steps to take in RESPONSE to racism and discrimination. I’m afraid that America will always have racists and discriminators. It’s how we choose to deal with that reality that will go a long way in creating a nation that fulfills the creed its founders so proudly, yet ineffectively promised.
>>>Argue that we should do our all to guarantee all kids a decent education and change bad law, and I’ll argue with you, Cobra. Argue that because this is not being done that we should randomly reward one race and punish those of other races – you lose me.”
You probably meant to say “agree” in that first sentence. You second sentence is troubling, because you’re saying that even if the “bad laws” aren’t changed, or that we’re “NOT doing all” to guarantee all kids a decent education, I’d lose you on Affirmitive Action. Well, like I said before, if I saw the people so fiercely against Affirmative Action just as vigorously attack other facets of American society that discriminate against NON-WHITES (that I have listed in explicit detail quite often on this blog,) I’d have a whole lot harder time defending my position. There are a few here who do acknowlege the scope of the problem, yet still maintain their anti-AA position, like Laura, Nels, John, Michelle and a couple of others. I thoroughly respect their positions. It’s a shame that their positions are reflected to any high degree in the “group in charge” of America.
–Cobra
Here’s where I find your posts illuminating, Cicero. You can sit here and recount case after case of insidious, malevolent white racism AND VIOLENCE against not only minorities, but OTHER white European Immigrants–some with stupifying decisions, but in other posts, you want the same readers to somehow, show EQUAL if not MORE OUTRAGE over Jennifer Gratz getting wait-listed at her first choice of college.
I think we just want you to show equal outrage about government-sponsored racial discrimination, no matter who the victim is.
Obviously lynching is worse than denial of entrance to school. But somehow I don’t think that you’d have been sympathetic to that argument if the Board of Education of Topeka had made that argument in response to Linda Brown: “If it please the Court, you should dismiss Ms. Brown’s claim, because given the history of slavery and racial violence in the U.S., you shouldn’t be outraged over the failure to let her into the school of her choice.”
The issue isn’t whether the racist actions of the University of Michigan towards Gratz were as bad as slavery; the issue is whether the racist actions of the University of Michigan towards Gratz are something to be concerned about at all. You think not, because you don’t care about racial discrimination; you care only about racial discrimination against blacks.
Cobra:
You’ve completely missed my point:
How can I be expected to pay for “past discrimination” when my ancestors were victims of “past discrimination”? Make no mistake — the justification for AA that is always used is that it’s needed to make up for “past discrimination.”
And it’s not just past discrimination and stereotypes — how about a present- day example like the Sopranos? Or as I like to call them — the “Amos and Andy” of Italian-American stereotypes.
Yes, Cobra – I did indeed intend “agree” and not “argue.”
And, while I cannot speak for others, I do speak out against aspects of our culture and legal system that still affect blacks unfairly. As much as I morally think it is all right to have the death penalty for certain crimes – I have changed my previous position on it. Because of too many inequities in representation for poor defendents, the flaws in eye witness testimony and the huge expense to society to put someone to death – I am now opposed to the death penalty.
I do not support local funding for education. Too tough for poor communities to raise the necessary dollars for their children to have a decent education.
As mentioned earlier, we need significant reforms in our drug laws. Too many people PERIOD are in jail when they ought to be in treatment instead – and too many of those people are minority.
But I stand by my earlier post. We cannot battle discrimination with more of it.
As for racism…. all the civil rights laws in the world cannot stop people from hating. When they break the law, punish them. When laws are not broken – try to teach them what is right. And if they are unteachable? Shun them and shame them. After that? Ignore them, and go on with your life.
Cicero writes:
>>>Make no mistake — the justification for AA that is always used is that it’s needed to make up for “past discrimination.”
That’s not MY justification. Cobra Argument #1 is that discrimination against African, Hispanic, and Native Americans exists in the PRESENT. RIGHT NOW. That’s why I cite Devah Pager’s studies, EEOC reports, housing discrimination statistics and darn near every other report I come across to SUBSTANTIATE it. This discrimination is MODERN, Cicero. Now, you instead of acknowleging the existance of TODAY’s discrimination against African, Hispanic and Native Americans, choose to place a priority on Jennifer Gratz being placed upon a waiting list in 1995 at the University of Michigan, her first choice of school. Do you see the dichotomy, Cicero? Do you see the problem I have with your prioritizing Jennifer Gratz being wait-listed on her first choice of school versus black men with NO CRIMINAL RECORD having WORSE ODDS at getting a job than white ex-felons? We won’t even get into housing, lending, and the judicial system, because nobody with any grasp of reality refutes the discrimination that goes on there.
That’s the SELECTIVE OUTRAGE I speak about.
When Prof. Carl Cohen writes these words on the MCRI website:
>>>”The principle of equal treatment of the races may not be ignored; good intentions do not justify racial discrimination. Preference by race is odious in all its forms; the people of Michigan do not want it. In this reasonably healthy democracy of ours, we can bring race preference to an end. We are all morally obliged to do what we can to reach that end.”
http://www.michigancivilrights.org/cohen.htm
It sounds GREAT on paper, doesn’t it? But, like many posts here, NONE of the “race preferences” that work AGAINST African, Hispanic and Native Americans seem relevant enough to discuss on their press releases.
http://www.michigancivilrights.org/press_release.htm
Certainly, “Civil Rights” encompasses just a wee bit more than the life, liberty and pursuit of happiness of suburban white citizens, hmm?
Peg writes:
>>>As for racism…. all the civil rights laws in the world cannot stop people from hating. When they break the law, punish them. When laws are not broken – try to teach them what is right. And if they are unteachable? Shun them and shame them. After that? Ignore them, and go on with your life.”
I agreed with most of the things in your post, Peg. But the key is in your last post here. “Teaching them what is right” is reliant upon the teacher, and what is actually being taught. Shunning and shaming the “unteachable” will work as long as those being “shunned” don’t represent the majority, or those in power politically or economically.
“Ignoring them and going on with life” is also an option available to those ardently opposed to Affirmative Action.
–Cobra
It sounds GREAT on paper, doesn’t it? But, like many posts here, NONE of the “race preferences” that work AGAINST African, Hispanic and Native Americans seem relevant enough to discuss on their press releases.
Again, those race preferences, to the extent they exist, are already illegal. They’re not sponsored by the government, but rather are condemned by the government.
In other words, your comments are non-sequiturs. If I say, for instance, “Identity theft ought to be illegal,” it makes no sense to respond by saying, “Oh yeah? We know people are getting raped and murdered. Why aren’t you talking about that?” Those are already illegal.
Shunning and shaming the “unteachable” will work as long as those being “shunned” don’t represent the majority, or those in power politically or economically.
And obviously, we know that by definition they don’t represent the majority, or those in power politically or economically. If they did, then there would be no AA laws at all. There would be no Civil Rights Act at all. The fact that those exist are conclusive proof that those in power oppose discrimination against blacks/hispanics.
>>Cobra Argument #1 is that discrimination against African, Hispanic, and Native Americans exists in the PRESENT. RIGHT NOW.
You completely ignored my Sopranos comment, so I’ll add the fact that a recent poll showed that 65% of Americans believe that most Italian-Americans are involved in organized crime at some level.
Now, how many employers in the 65% group do you think will be eager to hire Italian-Americans if they think that Tony Soprano comes with the deal??
How’s that for PRESENT DAY discrimination, Cobra?
Cobra:
I stand corrected — it’s actually 70% of Americans who hold a negative opinion of Italians NOT 65%.
Sorry for the inaccuracy.
Here’s the link if you think I made this up:
http://www.italianamericanonevoice.org/coal.html
David writes:
>>>In other words, your comments are non-sequiturs. If I say, for instance, “Identity theft ought to be illegal,” it makes no sense to respond by saying, “Oh yeah? We know people are getting raped and murdered. Why aren’t you talking about that?” Those are already illegal.”
There are thousands of laws on books. Are you arguing that they’re all enforced equally? That the executives in charge of the application of laws are always fair, unbiased and vigilant?
An unenforced law is the falling tree in a deserted forest.
Prof. Cohen, a much lauded and heralded figure on this blog said that “preference by race is odious in ALL ITS FORMS”…I didn’t read any disclaimer limiting that “odiousness” to government action.
David writes:
>>>And obviously, we know that by definition they don’t represent the majority, or those in power politically or economically. If they did, then there would be no AA laws at all. There would be no Civil Rights Act at all. The fact that those exist are conclusive proof that those in power oppose discrimination against blacks/hispanics.”
No it doesn’t. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was not a UNANIMOUS decision. Affirmative Action laws were contested vigorously. A “majority” can be 5-4 in the SCOTUS, 50-50 in the Senate with a VP tie break, and 218-217 in the HOUSE.
And what of “those in power?” Are you talking about people like Senator Bill “I can diagnose by video” Frist, a potential 2008 Presidential candidate who did this shuck and jive on the Lynching Bill last week:
>>>Eighty-five senators sponsored the apology, but Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, ignoring calls from many for a recorded vote, ruled for a parliamentary dodge that allowed hold-out soreheads or racial throwbacks to avoid open and awkward “no” votes. For the record, though, the 15 who wouldn’t put their names on the bill were all Republicans, including both Mississippi senators, Trent Lott and Thad Cochran.
The Republicans’ default is especially painful because it betrays past Republicans who often were stalwarts for racial progress when Southern Democrats were blocking every effort at it.”
http://www.tallahassee.com/mld/democrat/news/opinion/11923014.htm
Cicero writes:
>>>Now, how many employers in the 65% group do you think will be eager to hire Italian-Americans if they think that Tony Soprano comes with the deal??
How’s that for PRESENT DAY discrimination, Cobra?”
Which ethnic group of employers is discriminating against Italian-Americans, Cicero? And given the amount of assimilation, including geography and intermarriage among the sixth largest ethnic group in America according to the census, are you saying that prospects would be BETTER for African, Hispanic, and Native Americans with that SAME 65% of potential employers who view Italian-Americans with THAT distasteful a stereotype?
Again, Cicero…you’re making my POINTS FOR ME.
–Cobra
Cobra:
There is a Flat Earth Society membership waiting for you…
Regardless of the amount of evidence presented to you proving that the world is a sphere, you continue to insist that it’s flat (metaphorically speaking, of course).
Cobra>>> Which ethnic group of employers is discriminating against Italian-Americans, Cicero?
Old-money White Anglo Saxon Protestants would be an extremely major one.
Question: If 70% of your fellow citizens have a negative view of your ethnic group, I don’t care how assimilated you THINK you are — how much rejection do you think you’ll experience in the job market?
And since you don’t receive affirmative action preferential treatment (because the government has classified you a “privileged white”) , there’s a good chance you’ll spend a lot of time underemployed regardless of your educational background.
No it doesn’t. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was not a UNANIMOUS decision. Affirmative Action laws were contested vigorously. A “majority” can be 5-4 in the SCOTUS, 50-50 in the Senate with a VP tie break, and 218-217 in the HOUSE.
That’s true — but (a) that would still be a majority, and (b) those weren’t the votes, were they? For instance:
Eighty-five senators sponsored the apology, but Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, ignoring calls from many for a recorded vote, ruled for a parliamentary dodge that allowed hold-out soreheads or racial throwbacks to avoid open and awkward “no” votes. For the record, though, the 15 who wouldn’t put their names on the bill were all Republicans, including both Mississippi senators, Trent Lott and Thad Cochran.
The Republicans’ default is especially painful because it betrays past Republicans who often were stalwarts for racial progress when Southern Democrats were blocking every effort at it.”
Even assuming that your typically overwrought interpretation of these events (*) were valid, that would mean that 85% of the Senate — an overwhelming majority — is on your side of the issue. So I don’t know why you think this helps your argument.
(*) A voice vote is hardly a “parliamentary dodge.” It’s a routine procedure in the Senate.
>>>Even assuming that your typically overwrought interpretation of these events (*) were valid, that would mean that 85% of the Senate — an overwhelming majority — is on your side of the issue. So I don’t know why you think this helps your argument.”
First of all, it was not MY overwrought interpretation. It was that of the Tallahassee Democrat writer, who was far more kind in his assessment. This was about following the Southern strategy, and those 15 Republican Senators not having their names attatched to legislation that would “embarrass” their constituents.
As far as this being “my side” of issue, (as though condemning and apologizing for inaction on lynching became something extraordinary) if there is ONE Senator against it, it’s beyond abominable, and belies the question posed about “those in power politically or economically..” since 15 US Senators are certainly descriptive of that term.
Cicero writes:
>>>Old-money White Anglo Saxon Protestants would be an extremely major one. ”
There you have it, Cicero. You should post a response EVERYTIME I do on this blog because your reinforcement of my argument is sincerely appreciated.
–Cobra
>>There you have it, Cicero. You should >>post a response EVERYTIME I do on this >>blog because your reinforcement of my >>argument is sincerely appreciated.
–Cobra
One again you’ve missed the point completely — where is my recourse for actual discrimination, as well as exclusion through the operation of AA (race and gender preferences that don’t include my ethnic group)?
This is the fatal flaw of affirmative action.
“>>>Old-money White Anglo Saxon Protestants would be an extremely major one.
There you have it, Cicero. You should post a response EVERYTIME I do on this blog because your reinforcement of my argument is sincerely appreciated.”
What is your point, Cobra? Please spell it out. Here, I’ll take a stab at it for you. White people are evil. It goes with the skin color. Having white skin automatically makes a person into an oppressor. Is that it?
Oh, Lord.
Chiming in very late here with Cicero and Laura: What, Cobra, is this “point” that Cicero just made for you? I suppose it’s pretty much as Laura put it: that “old-money WASPS” pretty much hate anyone but their own “kind” and won’t hire anyone else.
But then you go on to
And given the amount of assimilation, including geography and intermarriage among the sixth largest ethnic group in America according to the census, are you saying that prospects would be BETTER for African, Hispanic, and Native Americans with that SAME 65% of potential employers who view Italian-Americans with THAT distasteful a stereotype?
and once again we get to play Spot the Missing Category. Who are these weird dudes who are prejudiced against all alien cultures, unfamiliar skin tones, foreign languages, non-Christian religions, &c. &c., except those of, oh, I don’t know, a third of the population of the planet?
Say what you like about old-style racists (no, really, do say what you like; for one thing, I agree with almost all of it), but they did their best at least to look consistent. (They did it extremely badly, sure, with efforts to prove that Michelangelo was really German and the like, but they did try.) But you’re positing a bunch of whites who hate blacks, Hispanics, Native Americans, and Italian-Americans, but have no trouble with anyone from the Indian subcontinent, East Asia, or Indonesia. Forgive my observing that this seems awfully spotty and half-hearted bigotry.
Michelle writes:
>>>But you’re positing a bunch of whites who hate blacks, Hispanics, Native Americans, and Italian-Americans, but have no trouble with anyone from the Indian subcontinent, East Asia, or Indonesia. Forgive my observing that this seems awfully spotty and half-hearted bigotry.”
Who says they have “no trouble with them?”
>>>””We can give money until we
Well, Cobra, you still sound like you think the bad behavior is linked to the white-anglo-saxon-protestantness of the actors. Let me offer my perspective. What you find objectionable is a function of human nature. Here are two fundamental truths:
(1) People who think the status quo favors them, or could favor them at some point in the future, resist change.
(2) People find ways to rationalize doing what they want to do.
It just happens to have been that WASP males have been riding high on fortune’s wheel (as a group, not necessarily as individuals) and have been in a position to abuse their power. Do you honestly think black people would have acted any differently? Is fairness a function of skin color?
My two fundamental truths could very easily apply to you and your insistence on keeping AA. I’m not hung up on the unfairness to white folks. I guess I believe in the American dream enough to think that everybody has opportunity here, even if they don’t get what they want in every circumstance. I’d be very willing to take a step back IF I THOUGHT IT WOULD HELP. But I think AA hurts black people, and it hurts America as a whole because it enables mediocrity* and perpetuates racism and it forces us to stand still with discrimination even as societal norms are trending away from it as fast as they can.
* I don’t mean that black people are mediocre, I mean that it takes away some of the motivation that black kids should have to excel in school.
The “Old-money White Anglo Saxons” response was actually a trick answer. Read the rest of the answer below.
Q: Who imposed the system of preference and affirmative action upon us?
A: Old-money White Anglo Saxons, who comprised the vast majority of the government when AA was ushered in during the 1960s and 70s. They knew that their connections would protect them from being victimized by AA, so they inflicted the preferences plague on the rest of the group that they officially defined as “white males.”
Cobra, apparently you have a problem with “selective outrage”, and I would consider that a valid position, if you didn’t advocate it so hypocritically. You rant about the discrimination that exists in the workplace against blacks, then claim that our complaints against equally real discrimination against whites and asians are simply arguments for “white entitlement”. Now that’s selective outrage. Frankly, I consider your selective outrage a lot more insidious, because, at worst, the posters on this site are ignorant of the anti-black discrimination that does still occur and certainly don’t approve of it, whereas you outright ADVOCATE discrimination against certain people based on their race, so long as that race isn’t yours.
As has been mentioned, the workplace discrimination that you mention already is illegal, and, while it isn’t properly enforced, at least it doesn’t have the goverment’s blessing like AA does. I’m all for enforcement of anti-discrimination laws. But for these laws to be enforced fairly, both the deli owner who won’t hire a black guy and the college administrator who won’t accept qualified white applicants must be punished. If not, then the anti-discrimination laws will become (actually, continue to be) in themselves discriminatory, because they will be enforced only when some groups are discriminated against.
I’m not sure why you think that the studies you present “justify” affirmative action, because they certainly don’t. Assuming that your studies indicate a high degree of racial discrimination in hiring practices, which they might not due to the vagarities always inherent in such studies (i.e. tinkering with which variables you adjust for and which you do not often yields very different results), how does a New York deli owner not hiring a black guy justify discriminating against a white high school senior?
I don’t know what your motivations are, then, because I can’t see any except some sort of racial vengeance. That’s a little harsh, but honestly, how can you advocate AA as a “solution” to the problems you raise with your statistics of hiring discirimination? AA simply can’t work as a solution, for many reasons:
1) The whole point of your statistics is to show that blacks are being discriminated against regardless of qualifications. If that’s the case, how is giving a black guy a nicer college degree going to help his chances?
2) AA doesn’t address the cause of the problem of racial discrimination, because it doesn’t target racial discriminators. Instead, it broadly discriminates against all “whites” and asians, regardless of whether the person happens to be a Klansman or a lifetime contributor to NAACP.
3) AA works at the wrong level; it is used primarily in universities, where anti-black discrimination certainly isn’t an issue (or they wouldn’t be going to such great lengths defending AA). The other major users of AA are large corporations hiring a lot of white collar workers. The primary perpetrators of racial discrimination in your studies are smaller business owners hiring for unskilled positions where collegiate level AA becomes completely irrelevant. To force AA on these businesses would be unwieldy, so enforcing existing anti-discrimination laws would be preferable.
4) The categories that decide who is preferred and who is discriminated against in current AA programs are, frankly, racist and stupid. You say that affirmative discrimination is justified because blacks and hispanics are discriminated against. But to argue that all whites are “entitled” just because some whites discriminate against blacks is flat out racist. Many groups that you so callously toss into the pile of “priveleged whites” have had to face their own problems of discrimination, and still do. Italians, Irish, Eastern Europeans, Asians, Muslims, Jews, Catholics, and the poor pf all colors and creeds have all faced, and often continue to face, discrimination from their share of “WASPs” (but not only from them… minorities can, and often are, racists as well). Yet AA doesn’t provide any benefit to these impacted groups.
Hell, I’m a Polish Catholic whose family hs spent the three generations it’s been in America clawing it’s way (with varying degrees of success) out of the poorer regions of Detroit. My dad was raised by a single mother and had to live paycheck to paycheck for years until he graduated high school, after which he worked his way through college before finally getting a well paying job. Hardly a member of a “priveleged elite”. Yet to you and college administrators across the country, I’m just another spoiled white kid, an evil oppressor who deserves to be punished for the collective crimes of people who share my skin tone and language but little else. Do you think you could honestly look me in the eye and tell me I’m just arguing for “white entitlement”? If not, then how dare you make the same collective judgemet against every person who has to check the “white” or “asian” box on their application without knowing a damn thing about them?
5) Finally, discrimination against some blacks in hiring simply cannot justify the discrimination against whites that occurs in AA programs. If anything, AA only reinforces the idea that discrimination can in fact be justified. This is utterly, completely wrong. Discrimination based solely on race can never be justified, for any reason.
Cobra, I can tolerate arguments about the benefits of “diversity” or about the need to get minorities into college to help pull minority communities out of the poverty cycle. I think these arguments are wrong in that AA is a poor solution and better ways can be found to achieve the same goals without explicit racial discrimination, but at least these arguments are in some form defensible.
I honestly think that you do indeed wish for an equal community and are not, at heart, working from a mere hatred of whites. However, at the point where you explicitly advocate discriminating against all non-black, non-hispanic students simply because a small percentage of whites continue to discriminate against these groups in violation of already existing statutes, I can only conclude that your arguments are misguided at best and racist at worst.
And so, Cobra, please don’t berate us for “selective outrage”. I am and will continue to be outraged and saddened by any verifiably real cases of discrimination, whatever group the discrimination might be directed against, and I will always advocate punishing such discriminators. Could you make that same pledge? Because thus far, your arguments would suggest that, unfortunately, you cannot.
Garrick —
>>If not, then how dare you make the >>same collective judgemet against >>every person who has to check >>the “white” or “asian” box on their >>application without knowing a damn >>thing about them?
No one is required to check any particular race/ethnicity box — it’s your own judgment call. If the government tried to prove cases of “false racial/ehtnicity reporting”, there would be chaos. That’s why Congress deemed race/ethnicity to be self-reported, and agencies must take this info at face value.
That said, I suggest that everyone who opposes AA to check the ‘Hispanic’ box as a form of civil disobedience. Since the definition of “Hispanic” is so loose, just about everyone could qualify under it (…ANY Hispanic origin or culture) and the EEOC is mandated to take self-reported race/ethnicity information at face value.
If everyone would check the “Hispanic” box, the whole rotten AA system would be thrown into disarray.
We need to start this movement…
Garrick writes:
>>>Yet to you and college administrators across the country, I’m just another spoiled white kid, an evil oppressor who deserves to be punished for the collective crimes of people who share my skin tone and language but little else. Do you think you could honestly look me in the eye and tell me I’m just arguing for “white entitlement”? If not, then how dare you make the same collective judgemet against every person who has to check the “white” or “asian” box on their application without knowing a damn thing about them?”
Garrick, you wrote an extremely thought-provoking post. You make excellent points, as usual.
HOWEVER….
I respectfully disagree with your conclusions.
Take the above example. First of all, if your name is really “Williams”, nobody’s going to read into your Polish-American background, unless you clue them in. Second, you again dip into a segment where you feel you might be at a disadvantage in admissions, when the reality is, it must not have affected you adversely since you currently attend the infamous University of Michigan, surrounded by a majority of students who also share your skin tone. You don’t acknowlege that for all intents and purposes, as vigorously argued on this blog, Affirmative Action only affects the admissions of students in low-single digit percentages. At the end of the day, Garrick, given the volume of white student applicants, your economics and location would play a far greater factor in admission than race would. But that’s not a point brought up often here.
But since you brought it up–I’m not out to “punish” borderline white students by denying them admission to their first schools of choice. But given the stupifying level of discrimination against African, Hispanic and Native Americans over a broad range of areas–you’re asking me to equivocate. That makes no sense whatsoever to me, as a conscious African American because that’s saying, “Cobra, we know the deck is stacked against you, the dealer’s marking cards and bottom dealing, but we hope he’ll get caught some day in the future. Go ahead and ante up, but if one of US gets cheated, then you’re ok to speak out because THEN the game’s no longer fair! Now stop complaining, and be grateful we dealt you in.”
Garrick writes:
>>>I honestly think that you do indeed wish for an equal community and are not, at heart, working from a mere hatred of whites. However, at the point where you explicitly advocate discriminating against all non-black, non-hispanic students simply because a small percentage of whites continue to discriminate against these groups in violation of already existing statutes, I can only conclude that your arguments are misguided at best and racist at worst.”
Again, we must be living in two different Americas, Garrick. What is your idea of a “small percentage of whites?” How much research do you require? How many studies? How many pages of EEOC reports?
I’m not going to data-dump here because no amount of data would be sufficient, but that’s not even essential to my argument.
Once again, it’s LAURA who provides the wisdom that makes this discussion so SIMPLE to comprehend:
>>>”What you find objectionable is a function of human nature. Here are two fundamental truths:
(1) People who think the status quo favors them, or could favor them at some point in the future, resist change.
(2) People find ways to rationalize doing what they want to do.”
I don’t think there’s another poster on this blog who can get to the heart of a matter as deftly as she can.
I don’t “hate” whites who are against Affirmative Action. I understand their position. The system in place FAVORS them (and by extrapolation, YOU) and they are resistant to change. I get it. I really do, Garrick. It’s no ACCIDENT that it took 190 years to get a Civil Rights Act done. It’s no ACCIDENT that American housing and schools are almost as segregated as they were in the early 70’s. Those who feel they have an advantage are extremely hesitant to give that advantage up.
Ergo, what happens is that that “advantage” gets so ingrained into society, that many don’t even realize they have it.
That’s why I understand how you can come to a conclusion about fairness and American society which seems ALIEN to mine.
Affirmative Action isn’t meant to “cure” discrimination. AA is meant to provide an entry level access INSPITE of the discrimination that we BOTH agree is so woefully prosecuted in America. Even given the length of your last post, “wishful thinking” is the only alternative you’ve provided for the entry level access of Affirmative Action and prosecution of discrimination laws.
I don’t blame you for it, Garrick. Status Quo being what it is.
–Cobra
cobra,
You are very wrong on two points.
Whites will vote and support admission programs that disadvantage them if they perceive they put everyone on a equal footing. The white voters of California supports a program they knew would not increase the number of white students at UCLA but would, instead, mainly benefit Asian students. Remember, under the current system, a black male with an SAT of 1000 is much more likely to attend college than a white student with an SAT of 1000. White voters, when given the chance, have overwhelming supported programs that would put both students on the same footing.
Also, Your EEOC data is worthless because it is impossible to “tease” out the effects of racism from the effects of culture. If white racism was the cause of education failure, the students in Baltimore City schools or the District of Columbia, with all black administrators, teachers, and almost all black local elected leaders would have the highest achievement over black students in mainly white schools. But you and I know the opposite is true.
Once again, I would for you to show me how middle class white racism is getting 14 y/o black girls pregnant or when the last time a middle class white person went into a black household and removed the books.
I’d like some feedback on this:
Garrick —
>>If not, then how dare you make the >>same collective judgemet against >>every person who has to check >>the “white” or “asian” box on their >>application without knowing a damn >>thing about them?
No one is required to check any particular race/ethnicity box — it’s your own judgment call. If the government tried to prove cases of “false racial/ehtnicity reporting”, there would be chaos. That’s why Congress deemed race/ethnicity to be self-reported, and agencies must take this info at face value.
That said, I suggest that everyone who opposes AA to check the ‘Hispanic’ box as a form of civil disobedience. Since the definition of “Hispanic” is so loose, just about everyone could qualify under it (…ANY Hispanic origin or culture) and the EEOC is mandated to take self-reported race/ethnicity information at face value.
If everyone would check the “Hispanic” box, the whole rotten AA system would be thrown into disarray.
We need to start this movement…
Actually, Cicero, though I am a Jew with great grandparents originating from Austria-Hungary and Russia, supposedly many generations back, there were some sephardic Jews from Spain…
Guess I really am just another Hispanic, after all!
Exactly! The Spanish Empire controlled southern Italy and Sicily for nearly 4 centuries. I guess I’m Hispanic, too!
Remember — the definition includes “any Spanish origin or culture”.
Watch out EEOC — here we come!
I left out something:
The definition includes “any Spanish origin or culture, REGARDLESS OF RACE”.
Even better!!
I’ve always wondered whether Portuguese colonies counted. Is the child of Brazilian immigrants “Hispanic”? Technically not.
Cicero,
The definition includes “any Spanish origin or culture, REGARDLESS OF RACE”.
Thereby raising the question, for (say) a child of Black parents from Cuba or the Dominican Republic whether it’s more helpful to call oneself Black or Hispanic. That might vary with circumstances. Haitian-Americans, who frankly could use the help more, unfortunately don’t get the Spanish-culture boost.
I have heard of immigrants from Spain using the above definition to claim that they are Hispanics (as they are); similarly of white South Africans and Kenyans, born in Africa and immigrating to the US, correctly calling themselves African-Americans.
We could all find a “protected class” in which we could “label” ourselves.”
As corporate America is fond of saying, we just have to “think outside of the box.” In this case, it’s the race/ethnicity check off box.
Anti-AA activists: start checking off those protected class boxes every time you’re asked to self-identify by race or ethnicity. Just keep “thinking outside of the box” for justification. This will drive the pro-AA crowd insane.
Cicero