Anti-white Prejudice - does it exist?

[Emilie Jolie]

6 hours ago, sothereiwas said:

discriminate (make a choice)

Discriminate doesn't mean make a choice - that's where your whole argument falls apart, I'm afraid.

Harvard has elected to be race conscious because they actively seek racial diversity in their studentship. They are not refusing entry to any race - this is why their process was deemed to be legal and non discriminatory. 

 

6 hours ago, sothereiwas said:

If it could be shown Harvard (or some other school) was discriminating against black people, would you be OK with it?

Pointless hypothetical. That's not what Harvard is doing.

 

6 hours ago, sothereiwas said:

6 hours ago, sothereiwas said:

Academic achievement. Test scores, grades, and so on. Not the color of one's skin. 

And so on? You haven't explained why, in your own words, Asian students have to 'score higher' than others in order to get in. Have you even looked into Harvard's selection criteria? 

Harvard doesn't select students based on skin colour, for starters -your skin pigmentation doesn't determine your race. That you're amalgamating the 2 is a bit concerning, to be honest.

Also seems like those who didn't get in should have worked harder, regardless of race. They, a privately funded institution, offer less than 2000 places every year for tens of thousands of applications and an admission rate of 4.50%, so it's evidently super competitive.

Also, compared to a whole country that had tax-funded segregation practices written in their laws in living memory, and still live with remnants of systemic racism, perhaps best to keep things in perspective, and accept that there will be a karmic element to mistreating others accross the globe for centuries, paid for with our taxes.

[Prudence V]

14 hours ago, sothereiwas said:

This is what race blind means

“Race blind” = continued white privilege, as research shows. If you want to level the playing fields, so that everyone has a fair chance, you do need to consider “race”, same as you’d consider socioeconomic background. It’s usually termed “contextual admissions” at university, where we recognise that kids who, for example, grow up dirt poor don’t have the same opportunities to pad out their CVs with glitzy stuff like volunteering in Bhutan or sailing solo across the ocean. We want the best students, not the richest or the whitest. 

[sothereiwas]

1 hour ago, Prudence V said:

It’s usually termed “contextual admissions” at university, where we recognise that kids who, for example, grow up dirt poor don’t have the same opportunities to pad out their CVs

Making allowances for the economically disadvantaged is still race blind in and of itself. I think that's a great idea. 

[pepperbird]

7 hours ago, Prudence V said:

pad out their CVs with glitzy stuff like volunteering in Bhutan or sailing solo across the ocean. We want the best students, not the richest or the whitest. 

Most students don't do anything like that. Maybe you were privileged enough that you did.
here, the international students are top priority because they pay the most. They don't get the subsidies etc. that students who live here do.

Edited July 27, 2020 by pepperbird

[Ellener]

On 7/26/2020 at 8:02 AM, schlumpy said:

Turkey.

I was singing at a party a few years ago and one of the guests had come to America to escape Erdogan. She said things had become very bad there. I started reading his propaganda and it was basically imposing his religious ideals and stopping anyone who disagreed, writers and reporter and educators. At one point he said I am trying to be the world's new Hitler...he tried to intellectualise what Hitler's Gemany was as some kind of ideal. Israel and America took exception to his speech.

Enough people listened to him though so he got power to wipe out his nation's constitution.

Now they are planning to keep him in power to 2029 and re-establish the death penalty.

That's what I will do next if I survive this infection, campaign to stop the death penalty in America.

I am just so tired of having the same stupid arguments.

 

 

[Prudence V]

20 hours ago, sothereiwas said:

Making allowances for the economically disadvantaged is still race blind in and of itself. I think that's a great idea. 

That was an example - contextualised admissions consider a multitude of factors, depending on local context and what “disadvantage” means in that context. In some places, that means “race” (or ethnicity) will feature. In other places, not. 

[Prudence V]

14 hours ago, pepperbird said:

Most students don't do anything like that. Maybe you were privileged enough that you did.

Nope. I didn’t grow up in a “first world” country. But here in the U.K., that is a thing. Students apply through UCAS and write a “personal statement” where they try to market their brand. The kids from middle class schools all have glitzy things on their CVs like the examples I cited, while the kids from poorer families of course don’t. 
 

 

[schlumpy]

On 7/26/2020 at 7:09 PM, Emilie Jolie said:

The number of Asian students go up every year at Harvard, not down. Harvard isn't a bank, it's a one of a kind elite school - comparing getting into Harvard to getting a mortgage makes no sense at all, sorry. 

Harvard means this (I snap my fingers) to me. The university I graduated from means the same. They think different. They think I was lucky they let me attend. They think I owe them something.

An education from by viewpoint is like anything else in life that is purchased. Once I purchase it and pay in full, I no longer have any obligations to the provider. I didn't become part of a tribe.

My two cents is that it all should be merit based. There shouldn't be a secret door that some people get to use. Extra help for those you feel are disadvantaged? That's an acceptable solution. The candidate still has to have the initiative to learn the material.

You won't be doing a student any favors by matching them with a school they can't adapt to. Too many of them will drop out in the first year. 

I remember how I had to step up. In high school we took all year to go through one textbook . Now I was expected to do it in nine weeks and I carried 18 credits a quarter. My university isn't as renown as Harvard unless you want to just look at the football team. 

[pepperbird]

34 minutes ago, Prudence V said:

Nope. I didn’t grow up in a “first world” country. But here in the U.K., that is a thing. Students apply through UCAS and write a “personal statement” where they try to market their brand. The kids from middle class schools all have glitzy things on their CVs like the examples I cited, while the kids from poorer families of course don’t. 
 

 

I don't know about the  middle class in the UK, but most of them her aren't jetting off to foreign volunteer placements or sailing across the ocean. If they do, they usually fundraise for things like a class trip. My daughter did a volunteer placement in Cost Rica, but she earned her way-we didn't pay for it, she did by working, fundraising, etc.

 

[Emilie Jolie]

15 minutes ago, schlumpy said:

My two cents is that it all should be merit based

100% agree.

 

I was just relaying how comparing getting into Harvard and getting a mortgage is a false equivalency, and that Harvard is seeking racial diversity in their studentship, as is their prerogative. They are not excluding any race from applying or attending, and are therefore not discriminatory.  I didn't place any value judgement on Harvard itself.

My personal opinion is that all universities should offer high quality education (I don't believe in a two-tier money-driven system), and all children should have access to quality education (including practical or manual) from a young age, regardless of where they live, where they come from or what their parents do. 

The problem is the concept of meritocracy is skewed to favour those who already are at an advantage. It's very naive to think it is all about 'working hard', and it's unrealistic to expect those who have a bad start in life to get to the same results as those who can afford private tuitions or come from educated families who know how to work the system. Given that minority poverty gap is big, one way of levelling the playing field and actually make it a meritocracy is to remove some of the obstacles minorities face that others don't. It's a drop in the ocean as far as creating a real 'meritocracy', and you can't please everyobody all the time, but it's better than to do nothing, in my opinion.  

[Prudence V]

2 hours ago, pepperbird said:

My daughter did a volunteer placement in Cost Rica, but she earned her way-we didn't pay for it, she did by working, fundraising, etc.

That’s the difference between wealthy kids and poorer kids. The poorer kids work just as hard - if not harder - but their money isn’t available for jetting off to Costa Rica. It’s used to put food on the table, pay the gas bill, buy shoes for school, etc. And their schools typically don’t offer those kinds of opportunities, since they know no one would be able to afford to go, and they don’t have wealthy parent bodies to help with fundraising (whether buying the cakes the kids bake, attending the shows they put on or buying raffle tickets, whatever). If they’re able to raise any money, they use it to run breakfast clubs to feed the kids before school, or to provide a safe place for younger kids to stay after school until their parents can fetch them after work. 

[sothereiwas]

3 minutes ago, Prudence V said:

That’s the difference between wealthy kids and poorer kids.

Giving poor kids a leg up without factoring in race isn't racist though. I'm all for it, I was a poor kid once, didn't get a leg up, would have liked one, could have used one. 

[Weezy1973]

1 hour ago, Emilie Jolie said: 

The problem is the concept of meritocracy is skewed to favour those who already are at an advantage. It's very naive to think it is all about 'working hard', and it's unrealistic to expect those who have a bad start in life to get to the same results as those who can afford private tuitions or come from educated families who know how to work the system.

Exactly. A meritocracy is fine as long as everyone starts in the same place. Then the hierarchy will happen due to things like skill, intelligence, work ethic etc. 
 

But people don’t start in the same place. And kids who happen to be born into a disadvantaged situation, through no fault of their own, should have enough social supports in place to at least have the opportunity to advance based on merit. 
 

When people talk about institutional racism, this is what they’re talking about. Even if an educational institution chose completely on merit, it would be skewed towards wealthy, educated families which are disproportionately white. 

[pepperbird]

9 hours ago, Prudence V said:

That’s the difference between wealthy kids and poorer kids. The poorer kids work just as hard - if not harder - but their money isn’t available for jetting off to Costa Rica. It’s used to put food on the table, pay the gas bill, buy shoes for school, etc. And their schools typically don’t offer those kinds of opportunities, since they know no one would be able to afford to go, and they don’t have wealthy parent bodies to help with fundraising (whether buying the cakes the kids bake, attending the shows they put on or buying raffle tickets, whatever). If they’re able to raise any money, they use it to run breakfast clubs to feed the kids before school, or to provide a safe place for younger kids to stay after school until their parents can fetch them after work. 

 It could be our system is different. We have no "rich" schools here, unless you're talking about private schools. Our schools are a mix, and we bus kids in from all over, first nations, african canadians, immigrants, they are all welcome. My kids high school had a few thousand students and they were bused in from a wide area. That's what we do here.

 Anyone who couldn't afford the trip and who couldn't fundraiser had it covered for them. The point was to have them EARN their volunteer trip, not have it handed to them. In that, they were all equal, and if you think the African Canadian doctor's son didn't roll up his sleeves and  fundraise just as hard, you're way off.
So no, it's not just limited to the "rich kids".

Edited July 29, 2020 by a LoveShack.org Moderator
rude

[sothereiwas]

28 minutes ago, Weezy1973 said:

But people don’t start in the same place. And kids who happen to be born into a disadvantaged situation, through no fault of their own, should have enough social supports in place to at least have the opportunity to advance based on merit. 

I agree. Saying that being a specific race or color is a disadvantage seems a bit racist to me, and making choices based on the race of people is definitionally racial discrimination. I don't know of anyone who's against giving disadvantaged individuals a leg up. 

[Ellener]

I had my husband set up a trust fund for my son's education, he said at the time my son should not apply for any funding because we were rich and the school funds should be for the poor.

I'd say my son's education cost about $140 000 but it did take him an extra year to complete the degree after changing major. In America degrees usually take 4 years for those overseas.

Edited July 29, 2020 by a LoveShack.org Moderator

[pepperbird]

Here, post secondary education is really heavily subsidized by both the federal and provincial governments. We have both Anglophone and Francophone schools ( if you consider Acadian "french" to be french) and there are many programs to offer a hand up to those in need.

When my oldest graduated high school, their valedictorian was a student from Africa. The school live streamed him walking the stage, getting his diploma and giving his speech so his parents and the people in is village back home could watch. After his speech about the value of education, there wasn't a dry eye in the house. 

Edited July 29, 2020 by a LoveShack.org Moderator

[Weezy1973]

5 hours ago, enigma32 said:

On average, white households are in the middle, not at the top. Indian American and Asian American households all make more money than Caucasians.

True, although the bulk of Asians immigrated post 1965, so not impacted by the historical racism that Black people have.

[sothereiwas]

5 hours ago, enigma32 said:

On average, white households are in the middle, not at the top. Indian American and Asian American households all make more money than Caucasians.

I have no information about that specifically but in the case of Harvard, Asians are required to have much higher SAT scores than any other race. 

 

6 minutes ago, Weezy1973 said:

True, although the bulk of Asians immigrated post 1965, so not impacted by the historical racism that Black people have.

Look into the history of Chinese labor in the old west. 

[pepperbird]

31 minutes ago, sothereiwas said:

I have no information about that specifically but in the case of Harvard, Asians are required to have much higher SAT scores than any other race. 

 

Look into the history of Chinese labor in the old west. 

They helped to build the railroads that opened up he west. Paid next to nothing with the promise that is they worked hard, they could earn enough to pay for their wife to come over. they got the crappiest jobs, including laying the explosive charges. Many were killed.
There's a saying about there being at least one dead Chinese person for every mile of track that was laid down. Sadly, it was usually the poorest people who got stuck with this job. The wealthy in their country stayed behind, as it typical for this sort of situation.

[schlumpy]

1 hour ago, sothereiwas said:

I have no information about that specifically but in the case of Harvard, Asians are required to have much higher SAT scores than any other race. 

 

Look into the history of Chinese labor in the old west. 

Not just only our west but the Canadian Railroad also.

[Weezy1973]

3 hours ago, sothereiwas said:

1 hour ago, schlumpy said:

Not just only our west but the Canadian Railroad also.

Look into the history of Chinese labor in the old west. 

It would be interesting to see if there’s a difference between the descendants of these Asian immigrants and ones that have immigrated more recently in terms of wealth / income. 

[sothereiwas]

6 minutes ago, Weezy1973 said:

It would be interesting to see if there’s a difference between the descendants of these Asian immigrants and ones that have immigrated more recently in terms of wealth / income. 

Not all black people are descended from slaves, and some white people are descended from slaves. Some black people descend from people who held slaves, a lot of white people descend from people who never did. No one alive today has been either legally enslaved or legally held slaves. Disadvantaged people come from all backgrounds and racial profiles.

Concern about slavery in the USA of today is misplaced for the most part. Extending opportunities to those who are actually disadvantaged without regard to race would be a much better use of resources IMO. More fair too.

[Weezy1973]

3 hours ago, sothereiwas said:

Not all black people are descended from slaves, and some white people are descended from slaves. Some black people descend from people who held slaves, a lot of white people descend from people who never did. No one alive today has been either legally enslaved or legally held slaves. Disadvantaged people come from all backgrounds and racial profiles.

 

Jim Crow laws were in place until 1965. Again would be interesting to see if there’s a difference between people that are descendants of families impacted by legislated racism vs those that aren’t. We know white people aren’t, and their poverty rate is less than half that of the black population in the US. 

Edited July 29, 2020 by Weezy1973

[sothereiwas]

3 minutes ago, Weezy1973 said:

Again would be interesting to see if there’s a difference between people that are descendants of families impacted by legislated racism

We're probably all, or mostly, descended from people who were impacted by legal slavery at one point or another, let alone racism. Where do you plan to draw the line?