Anti-white Prejudice - does it exist?

[Weezy1973]

20 minutes ago, sothereiwas said:

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?

1965 in the US

[sothereiwas]

1 minute ago, Weezy1973 said:

1965 in the US

Yes but how many generations, and what locales? Passing the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the 1965 Voting Rights Act had very little practical impact in many states. Adults in 1964 would be in their 70's now. 

[schlumpy]

Jim Crow laws were associated with seventeen southern states. Some were worse then others. Each state with Jim Crow laws did share in common a white democrat majority.

[Ellener]

11 hours ago, sothereiwas said:

but in the case of Harvard, Asians are required to have much higher SAT scores than any other race.

Are you sure?

Their employment policy=

All qualified applicants will receive consideration for employment without regard to race, color, religion, sex, national origin, disability status, protected veteran status, gender identity, sexual orientation, pregnancy and pregnancy-related conditions or any other characteristic protected by law.

 

[sothereiwas]

2 hours ago, Ellener said:

Are you sure?

Statistical analysis says they don't admit students by their stated employment policy, which actually makes sense. 

[Emilie Jolie]

16 hours 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. 

You have highjacked a few pages of what is meant to be a discussion on anti-white prejudice for your own transparent anti affirmative action political crusade, that for some reason you don't want to create your own thread about. Not sure how you have been allowed to get away with it, to be honest.

Anyway.

Harvard recruits approx 2000 students a year, 25% of whom are Asian-Americans (up 29% in the last 10 years) and about 47% white, with SATs being only one of many selection criteria - at least be clear on the type of data you circulate. 

There is no discrimination, anti-Asian or otherwise. This has been ruled out by a federal court of law.

This whole crusade is orchastrated by Ed Blum, a white, right-wing political strategist and activist who already tried (and failed) to have the Supreme Court reverse laws on affirmative action. He's probably banking on the current make-up of the Supreme Court this time round.

Between legacy admissions and wealthy students who are prepped to get into Harvard almost from birth, it doesn't leave a lot of room for some minorities (black or latino for instance), who are already under represented in higher education, to get into Ivy League schools. Seems petty to want to exclude them further, as this is what getting rid of affirmative action / race-conscious admissions would do. These Ivy League schools are still primarily for students from privileged background regardless of race - making them free, instead of squabbling over race quotas,would be a better solution for those who genuinely care about wealth inequalities, instead of perpetuating artificial racial divides. Doesn't sound much like a conservative agenda, though.

 

 

Edited July 30, 2020 by Emilie Jolie

[Prudence V]

23 hours ago, enigma32 said:

Indian American and Asian American

There’s a difference between these two? India is in Asia. 😳🤯

[Prudence V]

16 minutes ago, enigma32 said:

Sorry if you are triggered by this

Not triggered, confused. 

[jspice]

1 hour ago, Emilie Jolie said:

You have highjacked a few pages of what is meant to be a discussion on anti-white prejudice for your own transparent anti affirmative action political crusade, that for some reason you don't want to create your own thread about. Not sure how you have been allowed to get away with it, to be honest.

Anyway.

Harvard recruits approx 2000 students a year, 25% of whom are Asian-Americans (up 29% in the last 10 years) and about 47% white, with SATs being only one of many selection criteria - at least be clear on the type of data you circulate. 

There is no discrimination, anti-Asian or otherwise. This has been ruled out by a federal court of law.

This whole crusade is orchastrated by Ed Blum, a white, right-wing political strategist and activist who already tried (and failed) to have the Supreme Court reverse laws on affirmative action. He's probably banking on the current make-up of the Supreme Court this time round.

Between legacy admissions and wealthy students who are prepped to get into Harvard almost from birth, it doesn't leave a lot of room for some minorities (black or latino for instance), who are already under represented in higher education, to get into Ivy League schools. Seems petty to want to exclude them further, as this is what getting rid of affirmative action / race-conscious admissions would do. These Ivy League schools are still primarily for students from privileged background regardless of race - making them free, instead of squabbling over race quotas,would be a better solution for those who genuinely care about wealth inequalities, instead of perpetuating artificial racial divides. Doesn't sound much like a conservative agenda, though.

 

 

And then those rich White kids don’t even need to work hard for those grades because they’re a legacy and/ or had their rich family donate money. 
Grade inflation is such a common thing these days that they’re not even getting Cs, but As that were not earned. 
 

Yes, there is prejudice against White people. With good reason. 

[elaine567]

7 hours ago, enigma32 said:

So, why the obsession with bringing down the white man? It's always about the white man.

The white man holds the power and so the natural enemy is the white man.

In order for anyone else to grab power, the white man needs to cede power, and I guess that isn't happening anytime soon.
 

[lana-banana]

Today white people are, at worst, viewed as the default; at "best", they're seen as superior. We have centuries of everything from poetry to "science" praising white people and calling them natural masters of the world, destined to conquer the savages, etc. American history is steeped in it --- we literally made it government policy!

Anyone can point to all the influential philosophers and writers and politicians (including our Founding Fathers) who stressed the superiority of white men over time. So what is the counterargument? "Okay, so our civilization is built on the idea that we're better, but I personally don't believe in it so it's not real"? Ridiculous. The best analogy I can think of is a fish doesn't know it's in water. But it's 2020. We all should know better.

[pepperbird]

11 hours ago, Ellener said:

Are you sure?

Their employment policy=

All qualified applicants will receive consideration for employment without regard to race, color, religion, sex, national origin, disability status, protected veteran status, gender identity, sexual orientation, pregnancy and pregnancy-related conditions or any other characteristic protected by law.

 

there's a world of differnce between "policy" and practice.

[pepperbird]

4 hours ago, elaine567 said:

The white man holds the power and so the natural enemy is the white man.

In order for anyone else to grab power, the white man needs to cede power, and I guess that isn't happening anytime soon.
 

if this is all about "power" then I would propose that it really has zero to do with race. It's all about wealth/influence. The elites in this world come in all races and the one universal truth about most of them is they will do just about anything to hold on to it.
While the rest of us squabble, they go about their lives, and I doubt they care at all, at least, not unless it will impact them.
 

[Prudence V]

5 hours ago, elaine567 said:

the white man needs to cede power

As we know, “ceding power” just doesn’t happen. 
 

Quote

"Silence never won rights. They are not handed down from above; they are forced by pressures from below." — Roger Baldwin

 

[sothereiwas]

8 hours ago, Emilie Jolie said:

There is no discrimination, anti-Asian or otherwise. This has been ruled out by a federal court of law.

The above is counterfactual. First, the judge acknowledged that race was factored into Harvard's admissions criteria, and merely ruled that for whatever reason this was OK. Second, the matter is still moving along the court system. 

It's not a convenient fact, but it's a fact anyway. 

[Emilie Jolie]

7 minutes ago, sothereiwas said:

The above is counterfactual. First, the judge acknowledged that race was factored into Harvard's admissions criteria, and merely ruled that for whatever reason this was OK. Second, the matter is still moving along the court system. 

It's not a convenient fact, but it's a fact anyway. 

You are using this thread to promulgate your clear anti affirmation action political bias. You have not addressed any of my other points and are wilfully amalgamating affirmative action / race conscious admission with racial discrimination to suit your political agenda. This is not a political thread. 

 

[Emilie Jolie]

7 hours ago, jspice said:

because they’re a legacy and/ or had their rich family donate money. 

For those who flip a switch about 'anti-whiteness' because a handful more black / hispanic students may get into a highly selective school 99.9% of people will never get into anyway regardless of race, yet are perfectly fine with the above, it obviously was never about 'meritocracy' in the first place...

Edited July 30, 2020 by Emilie Jolie

[sothereiwas]

13 minutes ago, Emilie Jolie said:

You have not addressed any of my other points

Not yet, I like to knock them down one by one.

 

13 minutes ago, Emilie Jolie said:

.... and are wilfully amalgamating affirmative action / race conscious admission with racial discrimination

Making a choice that's based partially on race (AKA racially aware) is an example of discriminating based on race. Even cases that are racially blind strictly speaking, such as redlining, have been pointed to as examples of racial discrimination due to the statistically significant anomalies they produce. 

[Emilie Jolie]

2 minutes ago, sothereiwas said:

Not yet, I like to knock them down one by one.

So far you've only managed to go round and round in circles about Harvard and Asian students and inventing new politically biased definitions for words, none of which are on topic,  so I'm not holding my breath.

 

[sothereiwas]

54 minutes ago, Emilie Jolie said:

So far you've only managed to go round and round in circles about Harvard and Asian students

The judge in the latest ruling clearly stated that Harvard's admissions were "race aware". That's not race blind. If a bank issued loans on a basis that was "race aware" that would also be racially discriminatory, in that it would definitionally discriminate based on race. That's what those words mean. The judge then said that this specific discriminating was OK due to other factors. Whether we agree or not with that opinion is irrelevant to the question at hand here, which is whether race was used by an institution to discriminate. The answer to that question is clearly yes. 

Racial discrimination is sometimes OK, in narrow instances. 

We can agree to disagree as to whether that's a good thing in this case or not. But it definitely happened. 

[Emilie Jolie]

Just as I thought; yet another off topic copy paste politically slanted argument with a skewed definition of the word discrimination. Harvard themselves are openly saying they are race conscious in their admission policy so it's hardly a discovery. The judge specifically said there was no deliberate bias. Reading anything else into that judgement is a political choice. 

[amaysngrace]

Can we keep in the current times just for once?  🙄

Obama was Harvard Law, every American knows that, and he’s in his sixties so do the math.  
 

If it’s not happening NOW can’t we just please flip the script already?   It’s beyond boring. 

[homecoming]

On 7/30/2020 at 1:19 PM, sothereiwas said:

The NBA is employment, that's what the word professional means in this context. Playing is a players job. 

 

The discussion isn’t about the NBA. That commenter bought it up as a way to make a point about how white men should be allowed to dominate certain fields, because black men dominate the NBA, as if the NBA is accessible to everyone and a normal part of progression through life. We’re discussing normal jobs and employment, not athletes and access to high profile sport, which is a minority of the population anyway. Doesn’t seem relevant. 

Edited August 1, 2020 by a LoveShack.org Moderator

[Weezy1973]

13 hours ago, enigma32 said:

Graduating from Harvard is all but a sure road leading to success. To take away that opportunity from someone just because of their race is ridiculous. 

Doesn’t this mean that the people in charge of admissions must be doing a great job?

[sothereiwas]

6 hours ago, homecoming said:

I know what the word ‘professional’ means, but no-one has actually used that word, so why you’re bringing it up ...

Because NBA players are pros, not unpaid amateurs, thus the team they play for is their employer. Discrimination in employment was raised, I responded. The point of the example isn't that playing ball would be a realistic life goal for everyone to strive for as children. The point is that sometimes due to complex factors a non-representative cross section of the population might self select into a given role. This is curious and anomalous and might be worthy of being looked into but is not proof in and of itself that shenanigans are afoot. 

There is nothing wrong with the recruitment practices of the NBA even though the racial demographics of the teams isn't representative of Americas demographics, as far as I can tell, and that is the point. The NBA has very few female players as well, and they seem to be very ageist.