Site Search:
 
TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe
TEFL Courses, TESOL Course, English Teaching Jobs - TEFL International
Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Democratics and white voters
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
visitorq



Joined: 11 Jan 2008

PostPosted: Tue Nov 20, 2012 2:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

sirius black wrote:
+10 points to Gryffindor.

While there are legitimate reasons not to like Obama's administration (and I have several points of contention myself), White voters who have no racial animus towards the man and even are kinda proud to see that America has evolved enough to vote in a minority candidate, those people unfortunately get lumped in with the masses of Whites whose main basis for hating Obama is his race.
They are in such large numbers that its difficult to see legitmate opposition to his administration without prejudice.

The election brought out the best and worst of America.

-100 points to Gryffindor.

There you go harping on about race again. Get a new schtick already.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bigverne



Joined: 12 May 2004

PostPosted: Tue Nov 20, 2012 4:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
those people unfortunately get lumped in with the masses of Whites whose main basis for hating Obama is his race.


Do people really 'hate' Obama because of his coffee-colored complexion? Or do they dislike him because he is clearly not a 'post-racial' president, but a man very much tied to the idea that the US is an inherently racist nation and that this requires legal action (i.e legal discrimination against whites) to rectify it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Kuros



Joined: 27 Apr 2004

PostPosted: Tue Nov 20, 2012 5:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

bigverne wrote:
Quote:
those people unfortunately get lumped in with the masses of Whites whose main basis for hating Obama is his race.


Do people really 'hate' Obama because of his coffee-colored complexion? Or do they dislike him because he is clearly not a 'post-racial' president, but a man very much tied to the idea that the US is an inherently racist nation and that this requires legal action (i.e legal discrimination against whites) to rectify it.


What is legal discrimination against whites?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
TheUrbanMyth



Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: It's not a superiority complex when you really are superior

PostPosted: Tue Nov 20, 2012 7:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Kuros wrote:
bigverne wrote:
Quote:
those people unfortunately get lumped in with the masses of Whites whose main basis for hating Obama is his race.


Do people really 'hate' Obama because of his coffee-colored complexion? Or do they dislike him because he is clearly not a 'post-racial' president, but a man very much tied to the idea that the US is an inherently racist nation and that this requires legal action (i.e legal discrimination against whites) to rectify it.


What is legal discrimination against whites?


http://www.cleveland.com/nation/index.ssf/2009/04/reverse_discrimination_the_whi.html



Quote:
Affirmative action -- policies designed to promote and protect groups previously and currently denied equal standing -- originated with Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. Broadly speaking, it outlaws bias toward race, creed, color or national origin in school admissions, voting rights, employment and government contracting.

Sometimes those policies have set aside jobs, college admissions and government contracts for minority applicants, students and firms.


Quote:
In the Bakke case, the Supreme Court ruled 5 to 4 that universities could take race and ethnicity into account when deciding student admissions. But using rigid racial quotas to increase minorities on campus was unconstitutional, justices said.

In 1987, the high court said temporary and "narrowly tailored" quota systems were allowed. The case stemmed from an affirmative action plan that imposed a promotion standard of "one black for one white" in the Alabama state police ranks. The quota was justified, justices ruled, because of the department's "long and shameful record of delay and resistance" to black employment opportunities.


Quote:
In its first consideration of race under the presidency of Barack Obama, a divided court heard arguments from white firemen claiming the city discriminated against them by jettisoning the results of a promotion exam that no blacks had passed.

The city contends it got rid of the test results because it was concerned that no African-American firefighters, and only two Hispanics, received passing scores. Officials said they worried the test was somehow flawed because it had such a disproportionate effect on minorities.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, as is common on social issues, appeared to have the swing vote. He questioned why the city didn't weigh the test against a clear standard before deciding it was deficient and setting it aside.

That is the key legal question -- can the test and its results legally be thrown out after the fact?


Do the above cases in the police and firefighter ones constitute reserve discrimination? Arguable of course but let's not pretend that reverse discrimination (as well as racial) doesn't go on.


(bolding mine)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
sirius black



Joined: 04 Jun 2010

PostPosted: Tue Nov 20, 2012 9:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I would also agree that reverse discrimination does occur. When either type of discriimination occurs be it the 'normal' type or reverse, they should be fought legally.

My question I think is the frequency of it. bigverne and titus point to cases and the insinuation is that its the norm.

I've rarely seen it in the companies I have worked in. I would also ask if any of you have seen it in the companies you have worked for and if so, was it the exception or the rule to your working experience.

Also, we may all have differing opinions of what constitutes 'reverse discrimination'. Pretty much every job I've had practiced a form of 'Affirmative Action'. However, in its practice there was no hint of quotas. All they said is that they won't discriminate and some would expand the job pool. Advertise jobs in minority papers and minority websites but keep the requirements the same.

Some jobs actively wanted diversity. They wanted their workplace to reflect the community at large. I don't know if that would constitute reverse discrimination. Diversity included women, gays, older workers, handicapped, etc.

It just seems like one of those things people hear about but don't ever see or rarely see. Its the same for racial discrimination. I've heard of it at some companies when I see it on the news or when one of the activists like Sharpton is spouting about this and that but rarely seen it in companies I've worked for.

That legal case that was cited in an earlier post. It was a 1987 case and it involved the Alabama State police. I have to imagine and this is only a guess, and admittedly I'm basing it on the reputation of the state, but I have to assume the Alabama Sate Police probably had a terrible record of hiring qualified Blacks. I don't think its a stretch to assume that. We're talking 1987. Things were still a little hairy racially in that region.

The most onerous systems set up by courts I've seen are institutions that were the most discriminatory. Boston school desegregation and bussing, etc. These places were not going to be fair to minorities because of the culture and the courts would often use methods that were later found to be unfair to force them to be fair. If that makes sense.

So, I would say to both a Black person that says it occurs regularly as well to a White person who says the reverse is true that its the exception from my life experience. Not to minimize the event. It has to be a hurtful experience either way but to suggest its even anywhere close to the norm or happens more often than our own collective life experiences have seen it is another story.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
sirius black



Joined: 04 Jun 2010

PostPosted: Tue Nov 20, 2012 9:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

bigverne wrote:
Quote:
those people unfortunately get lumped in with the masses of Whites whose main basis for hating Obama is his race.


Do people really 'hate' Obama because of his coffee-colored complexion? Or do they dislike him because he is clearly not a 'post-racial' president, but a man very much tied to the idea that the US is an inherently racist nation and that this requires legal action (i.e legal discrimination against whites) to rectify it.


LOL..the Auto bailout and the millions he took from Wall Street and gave them a pass, keeping Gitmo open, keeping and expanding Bush's executive orders that violate our civil liberties, etc., keeping some of Bush's top appointees, having an administration of establishment people, almost exclusively White, was all some Manchurian Candidate way of discriminating aganst Whites huh? HAHAHAHAHA
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
sirius black



Joined: 04 Jun 2010

PostPosted: Tue Nov 20, 2012 9:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

visitorq wrote:
sirius black wrote:
+10 points to Gryffindor.

While there are legitimate reasons not to like Obama's administration (and I have several points of contention myself), White voters who have no racial animus towards the man and even are kinda proud to see that America has evolved enough to vote in a minority candidate, those people unfortunately get lumped in with the masses of Whites whose main basis for hating Obama is his race.
They are in such large numbers that its difficult to see legitmate opposition to his administration without prejudice.

The election brought out the best and worst of America.

-100 points to Gryffindor.

There you go harping on about race again. Get a new schtick already.


-10 points to Slytherin. If you care to look at my posts, they RESPOND to questions. Not like others who make it an issue but of course you don't have a problem with them though.

Also, carefully ignoring the PRAISE I said about America with regards to race. Get a life.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
visitorq



Joined: 11 Jan 2008

PostPosted: Wed Nov 21, 2012 12:53 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

sirius black wrote:
-10 points to Slytherin. If you care to look at my posts, they RESPOND to questions. Not like others who make it an issue but of course you don't have a problem with them though.

Also, carefully ignoring the PRAISE I said about America with regards to race. Get a life.

-1000 points to sirius black for being incapable of ever mentioning Obama without bringing up his race. Seriously, if you ever wrote a post on that topic that left race out of the equation I'd probably fall out of my chair...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
sirius black



Joined: 04 Jun 2010

PostPosted: Wed Nov 21, 2012 11:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

LOL...so let me understand this. You and I are on a thread titled Democratics and Whites. A thread I didnt start. I respond to a post that mentions race. However, you dont have a problem with someone starting a thread about politics and race or posts about politics and race, only if I comment about a post.

Let me ask you a question. Do you agree with the divisive racists posts or are you too scared to call them out? Nevermind, your post already gave me my answer.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Kuros



Joined: 27 Apr 2004

PostPosted: Fri Nov 23, 2012 12:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

TheUrbanMyth wrote:
Kuros wrote:
bigverne wrote:
Quote:
those people unfortunately get lumped in with the masses of Whites whose main basis for hating Obama is his race.


Do people really 'hate' Obama because of his coffee-colored complexion? Or do they dislike him because he is clearly not a 'post-racial' president, but a man very much tied to the idea that the US is an inherently racist nation and that this requires legal action (i.e legal discrimination against whites) to rectify it.


What is legal discrimination against whites?


http://www.cleveland.com/nation/index.ssf/2009/04/reverse_discrimination_the_whi.html



Quote:
Affirmative action -- policies designed to promote and protect groups previously and currently denied equal standing -- originated with Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. Broadly speaking, it outlaws bias toward race, creed, color or national origin in school admissions, voting rights, employment and government contracting.

Sometimes those policies have set aside jobs, college admissions and government contracts for minority applicants, students and firms.


Quote:
In the Bakke case, the Supreme Court ruled 5 to 4 that universities could take race and ethnicity into account when deciding student admissions. But using rigid racial quotas to increase minorities on campus was unconstitutional, justices said.

In 1987, the high court said temporary and "narrowly tailored" quota systems were allowed. The case stemmed from an affirmative action plan that imposed a promotion standard of "one black for one white" in the Alabama state police ranks. The quota was justified, justices ruled, because of the department's "long and shameful record of delay and resistance" to black employment opportunities.


Quote:
In its first consideration of race under the presidency of Barack Obama, a divided court heard arguments from white firemen claiming the city discriminated against them by jettisoning the results of a promotion exam that no blacks had passed.

The city contends it got rid of the test results because it was concerned that no African-American firefighters, and only two Hispanics, received passing scores. Officials said they worried the test was somehow flawed because it had such a disproportionate effect on minorities.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, as is common on social issues, appeared to have the swing vote. He questioned why the city didn't weigh the test against a clear standard before deciding it was deficient and setting it aside.

That is the key legal question -- can the test and its results legally be thrown out after the fact?


Do the above cases in the police and firefighter ones constitute reserve discrimination? Arguable of course but let's not pretend that reverse discrimination (as well as racial) doesn't go on.


(bolding mine)


That's fine. Now can Bigverne connect that to Obama? There are no Federal universities (besides perhaps the military academies), so to what extent has Obama advanced reverse discrimination.

And you guys can take your time in your response. But don't wait too long, or else the Supreme Court will get around to declaring affirmative action unconstitutional first.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Titus



Joined: 19 May 2012

PostPosted: Fri Nov 23, 2012 3:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
or else the Supreme Court will get around to declaring affirmative action unconstitutional first.


http://isteve.blogspot.com/2012/11/from-nyt-on-8-7-decision-by-sixth.html

Anti-white discrimination will get worse and worse and worse until average Joe Americans like you are willing to flip tables and be honest and start history. Kuros. You're hated because of who you are. The MSM drips with hatred for you. It is in front of all of our faces. They detest us. Your guilt has a limit. Mine has passed (I never had any), but I'm obviously in a minority. You will come around. I promise. That's when things will get gloriously interesting. I suspect you'll rationalize a court decision, and then another, and maybe another, but one day...you'll be up for a promotion...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Leon



Joined: 31 May 2010

PostPosted: Fri Nov 23, 2012 5:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Titus wrote:
Quote:
or else the Supreme Court will get around to declaring affirmative action unconstitutional first.


http://isteve.blogspot.com/2012/11/from-nyt-on-8-7-decision-by-sixth.html

Anti-white discrimination will get worse and worse and worse until average Joe Americans like you are willing to flip tables and be honest and start history. Kuros. You're hated because of who you are. The MSM drips with hatred for you. It is in front of all of our faces. They detest us. Your guilt has a limit. Mine has passed (I never had any), but I'm obviously in a minority. You will come around. I promise. That's when things will get gloriously interesting. I suspect you'll rationalize a court decision, and then another, and maybe another, but one day...you'll be up for a promotion...


The idea that white males should consider themselves victims of racial discrimination is laughable on it's face, especially in terms of job prospects.

"From July 2001 to May 2002, Bertrand and Mullainathan sent fictitious resumes in response to 1,300 help-wanted ads listed in the Boston Globe and the Chicago Tribune. They used the callback rate for interviews to measure the success of each resume. Approximately 5,000 resumes were sent for positions in sales, administrative support, clerical services, and customer service. Jobs ranged from a cashier at a store to the manager of sales at a large firm.

The catch was that the authors manipulated the perception of race via the name of each applicant, with comparable credentials for each racial group. Each resume was randomly assigned either a very white-sounding name (Emily Walsh, Brendan Baker) or a very African-American-sounding name (Lakisha Washington, Jamal Jones).

The authors find that applicants with white-sounding names are 50 percent more likely to get called for an initial interview than applicants with African-American-sounding names. Applicants with white names need to send about 10 resumes to get one callback, whereas applicants with African-American names need to send about 15 resumes to achieve the same result.

In addition, race greatly affects how much applicants benefit from having more experience and credentials. White job applicants with higher-quality resumes received 30 percent more callbacks than whites with lower-quality resumes. Having a higher-quality resume has a much smaller impact on African-American applicants, who experienced only 9 percent more callbacks for the same improvement in their credentials. This disparity suggests that in the current state of the labor market, African-Americans may not have strong individual incentives to build better resumes."

http://www.chicagobooth.edu/capideas/spring03/racialbias.html
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
visitorq



Joined: 11 Jan 2008

PostPosted: Fri Nov 23, 2012 6:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

^ While that is interesting, I'm genuinely curious what the results might have looked like if the same resumes had all been sent to businesses owned/managed by blacks? Presumably the majority of those job listings were for companies owned/managed by whites (although the article doesn't specify)...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Leon



Joined: 31 May 2010

PostPosted: Fri Nov 23, 2012 6:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

visitorq wrote:
^ While that is interesting, I'm genuinely curious what the results might have looked like if the same resumes had all been sent to businesses owned/managed by blacks? Presumably the majority of those job listings were for companies owned/managed by whites (although the article doesn't specify)...


Here's the actual paper.

http://scholar.harvard.edu/mullainathan/files/emilygreg.pdf

I think in reply to your question, that in some sense it doesn't really matter that much when you consider the fact that whites own a much greater proportion of business than do blacks or other minorities. I scanned the paper, but it didn't mention anything about the race of the people owning the businesses. They sent off applications to 1,300 places. Here's how they picked which places, which seems like a pretty neutral way to do it to me.

"Over that period, we surveyed all employment ads in the Sunday
editions of The Boston Globe and The Chicago Tribune in the sales, administrative support, andclerical and customer services sections. We eliminate any ad where applicants were asked to call
or appear in person. In fact, most of the ads we surveyed in these job categories ask for applicants to fax in or (more rarely) mail in their resume. We log the name (when available) and contact
information for each employer, along with any information on the position advertised and specific requirements (such as education, experience, or computer skills). We also record whether or not the ad explicitly states that the employer is an equal opportunity employer."

I find it pretty interesting how the designed the study, and they even have a section where the describe some of the weaknesses of the study, such as being unable to measure actual numbers of people hired, and relying on callback rates. My feeling is that there are a few cases where whites are unfairly treated at the expense of minorities, such as the fireman case, but in the vast majority of circumstances it's still the minorities that face a tougher job market based just on their race. I think the one place where this might not be true is in government jobs, but I don't have any research on hand about that.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
sirius black



Joined: 04 Jun 2010

PostPosted: Sat Nov 24, 2012 8:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

At the risk of visitorg falling out of his chair and hurting himself, I'll add my two cents.

I've heard it said that the reason for the high number of not only Black but female and minority employment in public jobs, be they, city, state or federal stems back to the '70s.

With the advent of the women's right movement, post civil rights and affirmative action, minorities and women were simply not being hired in the numbers expected or wanted in the private sector and many. Companies were slow to move despite legislation. So Blacks gravitated to the public sector jobs. Even college educated Blacks and Women who would have otherwise wanted private sector jobs.

The government was trying to lead the way in the laws it implemented and started hiring many minorities. In those days, public sector jobs weren't seen as a job for someone who was upperwardly mobile and wanted a middle class life and generally Whites stayed away from those jobs.

Middle class was seen as firmly in private sector jobs. Over the years, private sector jobs were moving jobs overseas, laying off many and became unreliable. Those employed in the public sector were enjoying job stability, generous pensions and benefits and then many people who would have stayed away from those jobs now wanted them. Public sector jobs became competitive. There was a flight to safe jobs, jobs where it was difficult to be laid off or fired. Many jobs that required nothing more than either a HS diploma or Junior college degree and passing a civl service test now require college degrees and experience.

I don't know if that is true but it makes some sense to me at least. So, that may explain the disparity in public sector jobs for minorities.

I do agree with Leon's post. I have seen that article as well. Strangely enough in a British newspaper. Anyway, I will say that I don't see it as an excuse for minorites. A minority candidate has to get a proper resume that is better. If it takes getting a Master's, additional training and certification. It shouldn't be that way but many years ago, the 'out of favor' group at the time, Irish, Italians, Jews, had to do the same.

Many in NYC went to Fordham, CUNY and other lower tier universities just to get a college education to compete. Lots of the city's lawyers went to Fordham Law and other lower tier law schools.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next
Page 7 of 8

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


This page is maintained by the one and only Dave Sperling.
Contact Dave's ESL Cafe
Copyright © 2013 Dave Sperling. All Rights Reserved.

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe
TEFL Courses, TESOL Course, English Teaching Jobs - TEFL International