University to students: All Whites are Racist

[Dark Knight]

 

[rayray]

What I have bolded and underlined is what I thought your posted as a position. If I mis-interpreted it, I'm sorry. It wasn't clear to me.

I have edited my post for clarification.

 

[deanws]

Here's an article I thought fitting for this thread, its a situation in my state, reverse discrimination in a predominantly african american community.

http://abclocal.go.com/wjrt/story?section=local&id=5717937

This was not the first lawsuit in this community. U of M had a lawsuit years ago for accepting minorities over white students regardless of gpa and their applications into the masters program.

Oh yeah....as I posted on another thread...they do this all the time! SO NOT fair!!!! I think the best student should get the position. Race and sex should not even enter into the picture.

 

[Nova]

The one "racist" thing that hasn't been mentioned is money. Money is color-blind - doesn't matter if you're Black, White, gay, Jewish. It doesn't discriminate at all: Ellen, Oprah, etc.

It may not discriminate, but it has historically resided more with some than with others. Listing the exceptions doesn't change that.

 

[GlitchWizard]

It may not discriminate, but it has historically resided more with some than with others. Listing the exceptions doesn't change that.

Doesn't change the fact that there are a WHOLE LOT OF exceptions, either.

 

[Nova]

:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: That's EXACTLY it BG!!! I have posted before the positions my dad, aunts and uncles have gotten BEFORE affirmative action. They were well educated and QUALIFIED for their professions of engineers, physicians, attorneys, school principals, FBI agent, nurse and college professor (w/3 PhD's). AND they were raised by a single mother in an inner city "projects". It starts at HOME!

It does indeed. I don't think anyone is underestimating the importance of the home environment. And certainly there are extraordinary people who overcome early disadvantages and kudos to them!

But when we're talking about groups of people, I think we need to acknowledge the differences in opportunities. My sister is moving to Indianapolis with her teenage daughters and has been researching school systems. There is simply no comparison between the educational offerings in the inner city and those in the wealthy, 98% white suburbs to the north.

This isn't to say some kids in the inner city won't do well; they will. And some kids from the wealthy suburbs will fail. But on the whole, the suburban kids have any number of advantages. I would never suggest that African Americans are mere victims of this history, but the playing field isn't level just because everybody can now shop at WalMart.

 

[Nova]

I celebrate anniversaries - just as a gay couple also can, and so far as I'm aware, does do. I get mail addressed to Mr. and Mrs. - but I don't request that - and it's always wrong anyway. Gay people can go as a couple to social events as well - no issue there. I never did go to the prom, but I'm aware that gay couples go there too. Nope, no "spin the bottle". I'd hardly call this making your sexual orientation public though - anniversary celebrations are private, mail arrives according to what junk mailers figure out, social events are a choice whether or not to go as a couple to.


Sorry - I just don't see it. In my everyday life, walking around, you don't know my sexual orientation. At times, at events with friends, family, maybe coworkers, I may, or may not, decide to reveal it - but all this is the same for hetero or homosexual people.

It simply is not the same and I don't know why you find this so hard to understand, unless you're still confusing sexual orientation with specific sex acts.

Again, the fact that some rituals are now open to gay people in a few places does not make them any less public. Yes, my partner and I celebrate an anniversary, but with a heterosexual, married couple such a celebration is both expected and a subject of discussion in all spheres. If you and your husband choose to celebrate privately, that's fine (so do my partner and I). But that doesn't change the way the culture as a whole approaches the subject, which is very much as a public concern.

NOBODY (well, almost nobody) considers "Are you married?" a too personal question. Yet outside of Massachusetts, an affirmative answer automatically identifies one as publicly heterosexual.

As long as marital status is considered public information, but is open only to heterosexuals (or those posing as such), then the notion that sexual orientation is "private" is silly. But even if marriage rights were granted to all, we would still live in a culture where heterosexuality is paraded through flirting, innuendo, jokes and all manner of rituals and assumptions. As I've said, I have no problem with that per se, until we start arguing that other orientations must be kept private. Because that's the same thing as saying minority orientations are shameful.

I agree that the U of Delaware questions, at least as reportedly written, are inelegant. But let's understand that the question writers have a difficult task if they are to challenge world views in which heterosexual orientation is a public matter but other identities are treated as guilty secrets.

 

[Nova]

...Something as simple as a hand reaching out can do more for accepting diversity than all the forced classes could ever hope to accomplish.

I don't disagree and kudos to your parents for being great people.

But look at your story again. Your parents referred to their friends as "the boys," even though the men must have been in their 60s, at least. (I'm not blaming your folks. I'm talking about the effect of what is considered public v. private in our society.)

Thus are gay people thought of as children, to some extent, because we don't have PUBLIC marriages that most take as an essential sign of adulthood. I doubt any great harm was done between good friends such as your parents and that couple; I myself have shrugged off being called "boys" by friends of a similar age.

But extrapolate that view of people whose adult relationships aren't publicly acknowledged to those who make important decisions such as whom to hire. whom to promote, whom to elect, etc.

 

[Nova]

I can see us having special treatment and benefits from being white. What I don't see is that this fact makes me a racist. I didn't ask for special treatment, I don't treat others differently by their race, just because some racists will treat me better (and other racists will treat me worse, but the white racists are more common than the black racists in this country), doesn't make me a racist.


But - special benefits - studies show you or I will be more likely to get a loan, a job, get chosen in a competition for an apartment, against a minority with identical qualifications, credit rating, etc. DWB is real, and all this stuff adds up to some real differences in our lives and opportunities. There are issues on the other side, that people can choose - such as learning proper English, getting an education, applying a good positive attitude to your jobs, etc. - but there still is a handicap, of varying strength that minorities have to deal with at times.

I agree. It's a semantic game and not a productive one, in my opinion. Redefining "racist" to mean all who are advantaged because of their color is an assault on the language. Here's one web definition of the suffix, "ist."

-ist \-ist\ [Gr. ?: cf. F. -iste.]
A noun suffix denoting an agent, or doer, one who practices,
a believer in; as, theorist, one who theorizes; socialist,
one who holds to socialism; sensualist, one given to
sensuality.

Whether used in "atheist" or "socialist," the suffix denotes one who is the active agent of a certain belief, not merely the passive recipient of certain benefits.

 

[Nova]

Doesn't change the fact that there are a WHOLE LOT OF exceptions, either.

We're talking about groups comprised of millions of people, Glitch. I don't see the point in listing unusually successful artists and athletes and pretending they are typical.

 

[Nova]

Oh yeah....as I posted on another thread...they do this all the time! SO NOT fair!!!! I think the best student should get the position. Race and sex should not even enter into the picture.

The problem lies in defining "best" student. Best for whom? Best for what? All college admissions are based on past events, which may or may not be reliable indicators of future success.

 

[GlitchWizard]

We're talking about groups comprised of millions of people, Glitch. I don't see the point in listing unusually successful artists and athletes and pretending they are typical.

I was just looking around my office setting - typical Government office. Comparing positions/abilities and salaries. I don't know squat about celebrities.

 

[Autumn2004]

The problem lies in defining "best" student. Best for whom? Best for what? All college admissions are based on past events, which may or may not be reliable indicators of future success.

I think this is an easy answer to me, It should be based on your gpa from your bachelor's degree and possibly volunteer or work experience. What other basis should this be decided upon?

 

[Paladin]

I don't disagree and kudos to your parents for being great people.

But look at your story again. Your parents referred to their friends as "the boys," even though the men must have been in their 60s, at least. (I'm not blaming your folks. I'm talking about the effect of what is considered public v. private in our society.)

Thus are gay people thought of as children, to some extent, because we don't have PUBLIC marriages that most take as an essential sign of adulthood. I doubt any great harm was done between good friends such as your parents and that couple; I myself have shrugged off being called "boys" by friends of a similar age.

But extrapolate that view of people whose adult relationships aren't publicly acknowledged to those who make important decisions such as whom to hire. whom to promote, whom to elect, etc.

I think you're overthinking this one buddy.

 

[BarnGoddess]

I don't disagree and kudos to your parents for being great people.

But look at your story again. Your parents referred to their friends as "the boys," even though the men must have been in their 60s, at least. (I'm not blaming your folks. I'm talking about the effect of what is considered public v. private in our society.)

Thus are gay people thought of as children, to some extent, because we don't have PUBLIC marriages that most take as an essential sign of adulthood. I doubt any great harm was done between good friends such as your parents and that couple; I myself have shrugged off being called "boys" by friends of a similar age.

But extrapolate that view of people whose adult relationships aren't publicly acknowledged to those who make important decisions such as whom to hire. whom to promote, whom to elect, etc.

I see your point, Nova. Every woman who ever shopped at their store called them "the boys". They were always attentive to their customers and when they went to Europe to buy shoes every year, they bought with them in mind. I suppose it was the age and the times that allowed that and they didn't consider it a slur. It makes me wonder if these women somehow knew deep down what their relationship was, and accepted it. As to my mother's relationship with the gay men at church, she was in her 70's and 80's and as they were in their 30's, to her they were "boys". She always seemed to think I was a little girl who continued to need her guidance and some discipline if I stepped out of line, LOL.

 

[Rino]

I think this is an easy answer to me, It should be based on your gpa from your bachelor's degree and possibly volunteer or work experience. What other basis should this be decided upon?

Works for me

 

[Nova]

I think this is an easy answer to me, It should be based on your gpa from your bachelor's degree and possibly volunteer or work experience. What other basis should this be decided upon?

If only it were that simple. All GPAs are not created equal; there's quite a difference between a B average from Harvard and a B average from most community colleges. Some students take lots of hard courses; others take only easy courses from professor known to give "easy As." A lower GPA from a student who worked full time may be more of an achievement (and a better indicator of future success) than a higher GPA from a student who had no other obligations. Some individuals have a bad year due to circumstances beyond their control; this, of course, lowers their GPA, but has no bearing on how they will do in grad school.

So schools use test scores to help reveal students with high abilities who may have performed poorly in the past (for whatever reason). But nobody has figured out a test that is really fair to all applicants.

So schools require admission essays, letters of reference, etc. and so forth.

A lot of different factors are used in determining admission and it is never a perfect process.

 

[Nova]

I was just looking around my office setting - typical Government office. Comparing positions/abilities and salaries. I don't know squat about celebrities.

The post you responded to listed celebrities. I didn't raise the subject first.

And you know the problem with looking at any microcosm and assuming it represents the whole.

But I agree with what Details said above, ANY group may (and will usually tend to) marginalize adjacent minorities. And that applies to localities where blacks are now the majority. And this is one more problem with defining racism only as what whites as a group have done to blacks in this country.

 

[Nova]

I think you're overthinking this one buddy.

With all due respect, Pal, whom does this affect more?

(ETA: I thought I was clear that I wasn't suggesting any great harm had been done in BG's example. However, I have often seen disagreements between gay people treated as "infantile" in the workplace, while the same disagreements between their married, heterosexual counterparts where considered significant and needing address. I believe this has everything to do with how we define "adulthood" in our society and the (largely heterosexual) rites of passage required to attain that status.

This isn't discrimination on the level of lynching or gay bashing, of course, and I'm not trying to say it is. But it does speak to the importance we place on public expressions of heterosexuality.)

 

[Nova]

I see your point, Nova. Every woman who ever shopped at their store called them "the boys". They were always attentive to their customers and when they went to Europe to buy shoes every year, they bought with them in mind. I suppose it was the age and the times that allowed that and they didn't consider it a slur. It makes me wonder if these women somehow knew deep down what their relationship was, and accepted it. As to my mother's relationship with the gay men at church, she was in her 70's and 80's and as they were in their 30's, to her they were "boys". She always seemed to think I was a little girl who continued to need her guidance and some discipline if I stepped out of line, LOL.

BG, it may be that no one thought of "the boys" at the store as gay or straight, but considered them "boys" because they weren't married.

My point is just that sexuality has a public component as well as private bedroom behavior, but it's usually only heterosexuality that is publicly acknowledged.

(Thanks for understanding that I was NOT taking anything away from your parent's very decent treatment of their friends. And you're right: lots of people always think of their offspring as young. My partner and I talk about "our kids," who are now around 40.)