Supreme Court rules against racial discrimination in suprisingly close vote

[dmaul1114]

There's also the fact that the 911 caller's statement contradicts the police report regarding the attribution of race prior to encountering Gates (and simply denying that they talked before Crowley went to the house).

I'm prone to believing a police report that seems to adequately specify this incident over a person who has retained an attorney to speak for her - but on her side, she can rest on not having mentioned race during her emergency call at all. In the end, irrespective of Gates, either the caller or Crowley is guilty of making a monumental lie about their account of events. and I'm *very* interested to see which of the two it is.

Yeah, like I said, there's a lot of info that needs to come out before I can form a firm opinion for sure.

But like you, I tend to believe the police report over her. The tape of the call doesn't mean she didn't mention race if Crowley stopped by her house first before going over to Gates. But you're right that it will be interesting to see who is lying here, irrespective of Gates.

[dmaul1114]

=
...would Crowley have treated a white person better in a similar situation? To my mind you've never come close, never really even attempted, to put forward a reasonable case that he would have.

That's the key question and it's one that we can probably never answer.

Would a white person who reacted similarly in terms of mouthing off and disrespecting the officer (sans the race card playing of course) also have been arrested for disorderly conduct.

My gut feeling is that he would have, that Crowley just had enough of putting up with the attitude and non-cooperation and said "fuck it" and arrested him and that it had nothing to do with race.

He showed up, and was just doing his job and trying to make sure there wasn't an attempted break in and wanted to make sure there wasn't any intruder in or around the house that got there before Gates etc., and just blew up at the way Gates reacted.

So I do agree more or less with the stance taken in that column.

But again, that's just a gut feeling and I really need more info (ideal the police tape--assuming we can hear both Gates and Crowley right from the start to see what set it off) to form any kind of firm opinion. Especially with problems with the story like the contradictions between the police report and witness comments Myke noted above.

[speedracer]

Why don't I find it hard to believe you think the huffington-post is too moderate? You've gone beyond extremist, you're acting like a defense lawyer here. Trying to distract with side issues, trying to insinuate that witness testimony over small details matters more then the big picture.
The devil's in the details. My cop brother always said you could tell when a report was bullshit because the details would be shitty. He said cops are constantly cataloging the events as they happen (especially vet cops) because of their conditioning to the paperwork. When things get... unusual, something's up.

Reasonable people coming to reasonable conclusions that are in such conflict makes for interesting reading.

[HowStern]

Just heard that Gates is half-white (Irish to be exact) and is a distant relative of Crowley's.

http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=8195564&page=1

[RAMSTORIA]

That's the key question and it's one that we can probably never answer.

Would a white person who reacted similarly in terms of mouthing off and disrespecting the officer (sans the race card playing of course) also have been arrested for disorderly conduct.

My gut feeling is that he would have, that Crowley just had enough of putting up with the attitude and non-cooperation and said "fuck it" and arrested him and that it had nothing to do with race.

He showed up, and was just doing his job and trying to make sure there wasn't an attempted break in and wanted to make sure there wasn't any intruder in or around the house that got there before Gates etc., and just blew up at the way Gates reacted.

So I do agree more or less with the stance taken in that column.

But again, that's just a gut feeling and I really need more info (ideal the police tape--assuming we can hear both Gates and Crowley right from the start to see what set it off) to form any kind of firm opinion. Especially with problems with the story like the contradictions between the police report and witness comments Myke noted above.

i think it would have played out with a white guy being arrested as well. i still think, as i said earlier, that gates was likely arrested because of the crowd of people watching and the other police officers watching. crowley probably just made an example of gates when arresting him, it may have been different if it was just gates and crowley with no crowd.

[winterice]

I'm glad fellow posters like Itachiitachi keep their eye on the ball - would Crowley have treated a white person better in a similar situation? To my mind you've never come close, never really even attempted, to put forward a reasonable case that he would have.

I don't think you can. Hypothetically, if a white officer does treat a white person better in a similar situation than it stands to reason there wouldn't be a arrest. In which case whatever proof you need to say that white officers treats whites differently is gone. The white guy wouldn't file a complaint that says he was disrespecting the white officer enough to warrant getting arrested; yet he wasn't arrested. And the white officer wouldn't write in his report(assuming he writes a report) that while said white guy was acting up enough to get arrested, he ultimately decided not to because the guy was white.

[HowStern]

The issue isn't whether or not a white man would have been arrested for the same thing.

The issue is why does Crowley say in the police report he was told the suspects were black by a witness when he wasn't?

In my opinion it is because the first thing he thought of when he was told 2 men were breaking into a house was "2 black people".

This thought in his head was so clear and vivid that he could have sworn he was actually informed of it. And so he wrote it in the report that way.

It's a subconcious racism.

Has someone ever started a sentence to you something like "Oh, the cleaning crew at my work..." and immediately your brain pictures them as mexican? I'll admit it has happened to me. It's because everywhere I have worked the cleaning crew was mexican. Immediately I shamefully brush the thought off knowing it's stereotypical. But it is obvious it interfered with Crowley's job as it popped up in his report.

If this is, indeed, what happened.

[dmaul1114]

I could see that type of subconscious racism. Though even that's more based on experience than hatred of blacks (which is the true definition of racism). A cop would think that if most people they have personally arrested for burglary/break in their areas have been black.

Not that that makes making such assumptions at all right, but there's more toward those kind of stereotypical assumptions than just sheer racial hatred or bias. Case in point--some studies have shown that black police officers hold similar stereotypes of expecting offenders to be black for certain crimes in certain areas etc. etc.

Same with your cleaning crew example. It's not that you (or I) am racist and think Hispanics can only do cleaning type jobs or any other negative connotation related to race. It's just years of experience of working in places, staying in hotels, etc. where the vast majority of the cleaning crew was Hispanic. So I'd say such things are subconscious stereotypes based on experience rather than subconscious racism--but that's really just semantics I suppose.

But then again it's really the direction of the image. If you meet a Hispanic person and assume they are a cleaning person, a busboy in a restaurant or work construction etc. that's pretty racist. But I don't see it as racist to expect the majority of people in those positions to be Hispanic when you eat out, or see your office cleaning crew etc. as that's just based on the actual demographic make up you've encountered in those occupations in your area rather than any racial beliefs--conscious or subconscious.

But, getting back on topic, even if that is the case, it doesn't mean there was racial profiling or that Crowley treated Gates a certain way on the scene because of his race, or that he would have acted differently if he showed up and found two white men instead of the black men he was expecting.

And that's assuming that he made that mistake and the woman isn't lying about talking to him after the 911 call and saying she saw two black males.

[HowStern]

Exactly.

Well written.

[thrustbucket]

Wannabe-Hero is walking down the street. He hears a scream behind him. He spins around to see it's an old woman screaming that someone snatched her satchel. She didn't see who. Wannabe-hero wants to help.

He sees one black male dressed in 'hip hop' clothes, and one white male dressed in a business suit both running in different directions from the old lady, both are carrying satchels.

If wannabe-hero chases the black male, is he being racist?
Is the answer to that question only yes if wannabe-hero is not black?

Is racial profiling always racism?

[dmaul1114]

That's a bit racist---but you confounded the situation with class/dress style since the white is in business clothes.

If you said two sloppily dressed young males, one black and one white and he chased the black one then it would be racist for sure.

But kind of a silly scenario as the lady would likely be pointing at who took it, or the hero could yell "Which one?" etc. :D


But I get your point. Racial profiling isn't always based on racism--it's based often on the majority of offenders of certain crimes in a certain area being a certain race. But it leads to negative impacts on minorities in said areas who are viewed with more suspicion for no reason other than their race/class which i where the problems and racist treatments come in. Which is why it's unacceptable.

[RAMSTORIA]

The issue is why does Crowley say in the police report he was told the suspects were black by a witness when he wasn't?

In my opinion it is because the first thing he thought of when he was told 2 men were breaking into a house was "2 black people".



hes not writing the police report on his to the scene. he writes it after the fact, when he knows the two guys involved are black. just because the report isnt corroborated by the 911 caller doesnt mean crowley thinks (in this case or any case he works on) "two guys breakin in a house, must be some blacks".

[UncleBob]

The issue isn't whether or not a white man would have been arrested for the same thing.

The issue is why does Crowley say in the police report he was told the suspects were black by a witness when he wasn't?

Really? That's the issue? Because this thread popped up before the report did, if I'm correct...

[...]hatred of blacks (which is the true definition of racism).

Ummm... no. Assuming that you know you can be racist against any race (not just "blacks"), you don't have to hate said race to be racist. Racism is simply believing that one race is superior to another based solely on the race. You don't have to hate someone to think you're better than them.

Would a white person who reacted similarly in terms of mouthing off and disrespecting the officer (sans the race card playing of course) also have been arrested for disorderly conduct.

Actually, throw the race card back in there - say it was a black cop and a white citizen. That'd be interesting.

[Msut77]

http://www.thebostonchannel.com/news/20215609/detail.html

[KingBroly]

And with one blow, the cycle continues...maybe

[HowStern]

hes not writing the police report on his to the scene. he writes it after the fact, when he knows the two guys involved are black. just because the report isnt corroborated by the 911 caller doesnt mean crowley thinks (in this case or any case he works on) "two guys breakin in a house, must be some blacks".

He never saw the other guy. The other guy drove off according to the caller while she was on the line with 911. So he only knew one guy was black.

Plus he wrote in the report, very specifically, "The witness told me she saw two black men breaking into the house."

I take this to mean that as soon as he heard about 2 robbers he immediately assumed 2 black men because race was never mentioned by anyone else.

He subconsciously assumed it on a level where he actually remembered it being told to him that way.

It happens all the time. Someone says one thing and you hear a slightly different thing because of your own thoughts changing it up.


@UncleBob, now that we know the facts, yes, that is the issue. Or we could continue to speculate pretending we haven't learned more about the case... :/

[dmaul1114]

Ummm... no. Assuming that you know you can be racist against any race (not just "blacks"), you don't have to hate said race to be racist. Racism is simply believing that one race is superior to another based solely on the race. You don't have to hate someone to think you're better than them.


Well, clearly I know it doesn't apply just to blacks. :D I didn't mean it the way it came out.

But fair point on that. I suppose one can think their own race superior to others without hating the other races. But I'm sure there's a damn high correlation between that belief and hatred toward the "inferior" races.


Actually, throw the race card back in there - say it was a black cop and a white citizen. That'd be interesting.

Again, it probably wouldn't make much difference. Black cops tend to share the same assumptions about most criminals in the area being black (or hispanic depending on area) as there white colleagues working the same beats.

So if there was any racial profiling here, it likely would have happened with a black cop as well (or not happened if the suspects were white regardless of race of the officer).

[dmaul1114]

He never saw the other guy. The other guy drove off according to the caller while she was on the line with 911. So he only knew one guy was black.

Plus he wrote in the report, very specifically, "The witness told me she saw two black men breaking into the house."

I take this to mean that as soon as he heard about 2 robbers he immediately assumed 2 black men because race was never mentioned by anyone else.

He subconsciously assumed it on a level where he actually remembered it being told to him that way.

It happens all the time. Someone says one thing and you hear a slightly different thing because of your own thoughts changing it up.


There's just no way to know for sure. He could have just been mis-remebering what the witness said after he met and talked to Gates and found out the driver was also black. Easy to mis-remember an earlier conversation after you've gotten more details yourself.

So it really tells us nothing about whether or not he assumed the suspects were black from the call.

But you can be pretty sure he did think the suspects were probably black. Again, in an area were most street criminals doing break ins are probably black, most every cop of any race is going to go to the scene expecting black perpetrators just based on experience/odds in that neighborhood.

[HowStern]

There's just no way to know for sure. He could have just been mis-remebering what the witness said after he met and talked to Gates and found out the driver was also black. Easy to mis-remember and early conversation after you've gotten more details yourself.

So it really tells us nothing about whether or not he assumed the suspects were black from the call.

But you can be pretty sure he did think the suspects were probably black. Again, in an area were most street criminals doing break ins are probably black, most every cop of any race is going to go to the scene expecting black perpetrators just based on experience/odds in that neighborhood.

Exactly, we'll probably never know for sure about Crowley. But his colleagues sure are showing their true colors:

http://www.thebostonchannel.com/news/20215609/detail.html

[UncleBob]

@UncleBob, now that we know the facts, yes, that is the issue. Or we could continue to speculate pretending we haven't learned more about the case... :/

Or, now that we're learning more about the case, we can twist the facts to fit what we already stated our decision on the case was, without taking the facts at face value.

[JolietJake]

When will people learn, you don't write anything in an email you wouldn't want the world to see. Though i'm actually glad this was caught.

[mykevermin]

But you can be pretty sure he did think the suspects were probably black. Again, in an area were most street criminals doing break ins are probably black, most every cop of any race is going to go to the scene expecting black perpetrators just based on experience/odds in that neighborhood.

First: http://gis.ci.cambridge.ma.us/census2000/gif/fullsize/race_piecharts.gif

Second, presuming the race of the accused when it is not stated is, in fact, racist. It's even more racist when you are talking about a predominantly white area like Cambridge.

I don't know how it's ok to presume that alleged criminals must be minorities.

[UncleBob]

*IF* the statistics were to show that a particular group of people consisted of a large majority of one type of race, is it racists to assume that a person from that group might be a member of that race? Or is it just stats and probability?

[dmaul1114]

First: http://gis.ci.cambridge.ma.us/census2000/gif/fullsize/race_piecharts.gif

Second, presuming the race of the accused when it is not stated is, in fact, racist. It's even more racist when you are talking about a predominantly white area like Cambridge.

I don't know how it's ok to presume that alleged criminals must be minorities.

I don't think it's ok as it is ignorant for sure, but I just don't call it racist personally. Just a stereotypical expectation based on the majority of street criminals committing robberies, burglaries etc. in most areas (and in pop culture--tv shows, movies) etc. being minority. Making that assumption based on that knowledge/experience doesn't imply viewing minorities as inferior in and off itself IMO--so I don't call it racist.

And sure Cambridge is majority white--but most criminals don't commit crimes in their home area--especially burglaries. They're going to go to a nicer neighborhood where the homes have more valuables. Hell take my new condo complex. I've seen probably 30-40 people so far, every single one has been white. The armed robbery suspects in the recent mini-crime wave are all black. Not to mention they want to work were people are less likely to recognize them, their cars etc.

So the demographics of the "target area" point doesn't stand too much IMO. Even in white areas most of the break ins, auto thefts etc. are going to be by minorities. At least white areas in metropolitan regions with large minority populations close by. Obviously not in a place like WV where it's like 96% white in the whole state. :D

But for racism vs. stereotyping, to me it's kind of like this:

Hearing about a crime and assuming the perpetrators are minorities as the majority of street criminals are minority= stereotyping.

Seeing minorities on the street or near your home and being scared as you think they're probably criminals= racist.

It's the old logical fallacy. Most street criminals committing burglaries, robberies etc. being minority doesn't mean that most minorities are criminals.

But it's really just semantics of what you want to call stereotyping and what you want to call racism. You're very interested and concerned with race issue. I'm conscious of racial issues, particularly with policing, but not to near the extent you are so I'm less free with throwing out the racism card. I'm more apt to say stereotyping and reserve the racism label for clear cases of profiling, racial slurs, and other things tied 100% to race rather than being ignorant assumption based on actual stats and experience/common knowledge of the majority racial make up of offenders for certain types of crimes in urban areas.

And again that's not saying that stereotyping is a good think or ok in anyway. It's 100% ignorant. I just don't label making that kind of assumption as racism, using the racial inferiority/hatred definition of racism. It's just a stereotypical belief based on the demographics of apprehended street criminals.

[mykevermin]

majority are minorities? no.

they are disproportionately represented in criminal activity, yes. but they are not the majority.

you know that.

also, I would argue it's far, far, far more than semantics. covert racism is the way things are done in this day and age, yet many people cling to a rubric of proving racism that rests of such a heavy burden of proof (one, ironically, that's about as stringent as the burden of proof required by hate crimes laws that the very same folks tend to hate so much ;)).

unintentionally racist behavior is still racist.

"Let's talk about middle eastern issues; muhammad, you probably have a good idea of what that's like. Why don't you start?" - as the basis of a hypothetical classroom discussion, this is indeed racist. Malicious? Certainly not. Racist? You betcha.

so calling out unintentionally racist behavior that still happens to be racist is great - without access to one's subconcious, which none of us have, it's impossible, mostly, to separate out racist behavior that is the result of goodwill, mere ignorance (in the naivete sense), or malicious hatred (among other types). None of them are desirable.

And making someone aware that they are behaving in a racist manner is important - particularly if they are unaware of it. Benevolent racism is still racism. Food Lion had a "black history month" sale a decade and a half ago (may have been one store, for all I know) where watermelon and fried chicken were the sale specials. Good intentioned? Well, they were on sale, so perhaps they were. Impossible to say if it's malicious of simply the result of an incredibly foolish plan. That doesn't change, however, that it's remarkably racist.

[UncleBob]

majority are minorities? no.

they are disproportionately represented in criminal activity, yes. but they are not the majority.

you know that.

I said *IF* the stats showed... IF

For example, (although there probably isn't really a "stat" for this, per say) If there was a stat that said 99.9% of people that go into a women's restroom are female, would it be sexist to say "Well, I bet the person in this women's restroom is female!"?

Let's say I had a stat that said 85% of the Latin music (the real stuff, with Spanish packaging and everything) sold in my store was purchased by those of Mexican decent. Would it be racist to say "Hey, we sold this Latin CD yesterday! I bet it was a Mexican!"?

What if there were stats that showed black basketball players were overall better players, on average, than any other race. Would it be racist to look at a player's stats and say "Damn, he's good. Must be black."?

Say there's a stat that shows most individuals named Mohammad are of middle eastern decent. Would it be racist to read the name Mohammad and assume the individual is of middle eastern decent?

[UncleBob]

By the way, do you have any kind of source on that Food Lion claim? The only thing I could find via Google was this thread (damn, Google is quick!).

[itachiitachi]

Given the historical and consistent pattern of disproportionate racial profiling and discriminatory treatment by police, which, as a scholar of policing I'm sure you're well aware of, I'm quite surprised that you would fault someone for reacting in the way Gates did.
The cop was doing his job, if Gates thought it was racial profiling then there are much more professional and mature was to deal with it the yelling racist! racist! and saying "Ya, I'll speak with your mama outside,"

Cops also have a historical and consistent pattern of being assholes, but if a cops pulls someone over and that person immediately starts calling the cop an asshole then they are going to get a similar treatment to Gates even if they had done nothing wrong.

[camoor]

so calling out unintentionally racist behavior that still happens to be racist is great - without access to one's subconcious, which none of us have, it's impossible, mostly, to separate out racist behavior that is the result of goodwill, mere ignorance (in the naivete sense), or malicious hatred (among other types). None of them are desirable.

You almost get it here, but not quite.

Separating out neutral behavior from behavior motivated by racial factors is very difficult without access to the subconscious.

The problem with your mindset is that you can't imagine an action that was unmotivated by racial factors. You don't allow that possibility - it's either intentional racist behavior or unconscious racist behavior in Myke's book. Furthermore, right off the bat you dismiss Gates for demonstratibly classist and racist behavior (IE 'do you know who I am' Gates looking at a white cop, assuming that the cop is treating Gates differently then any other suspect, and calling Crowley a racist within 5 minutes of meeting him based on his appearance and job) whereas you take a cop to task for allegedly subconscious racist behavior with no evidence except for a minor police report detail that was found out days later and may not have any significance.

[HowStern]

camoor, you can't be serious.

Your a black guy. You are trying to get into your house but the door is jammed. You are doing this in broad daylight. On the front porch. Not trying to be stealthy in any way shape or form. You finally get into your house. A white cop walks up and says "What are you robbing the house? Prove you live here."

How is your first thought not to scream at the guy about being racist.


Also, it doesn't matter when the detail of the false claim on the report was found out. It's significant. If anything can be proved from it I doubt.

[mykevermin]

I said *IF* the stats showed... IF

For example, (although there probably isn't really a "stat" for this, per say) If there was a stat that said 99.9% of people that go into a women's restroom are female, would it be sexist to say "Well, I bet the person in this women's restroom is female!"?

Let's say I had a stat that said 85% of the Latin music (the real stuff, with Spanish packaging and everything) sold in my store was purchased by those of Mexican decent. Would it be racist to say "Hey, we sold this Latin CD yesterday! I bet it was a Mexican!"?

What if there were stats that showed black basketball players were overall better players, on average, than any other race. Would it be racist to look at a player's stats and say "Damn, he's good. Must be black."?

Say there's a stat that shows most individuals named Mohammad are of middle eastern decent. Would it be racist to read the name Mohammad and assume the individual is of middle eastern decent?

Although my response was geared to dmaul's claim of blacks being the majority of criminals...

Finding the location of the target where we can say it's no longer racism but demographics is a difficult, difficult task. Your examples are not close to black involvement in crime in terms of relative share, so that doesn't suddenly make it ok to say "a burglary! I bet it was a black dude!" or some other equivalent. And in an area as predominantly white as Cambridge it certainly isn't okay to think that way.

Don't have a source on the Food Lion thing - that was something I recall from a decade and a half ago. Some quick googling shows that Rainbow (nice chain in the MSP area) did fried chicken and collard greens in their circulars. My point wasn't to say these companies were bad or racist or should be boycotted - but to point out how I understand racism in society. It's individual, it's structural, it's unintentional, it's vindictive, it's benevolent, and it's simple naive. But it is still racism. Nobody needs to boycott Rainbow - not every response to "hey, that's racist" should be to vilify and destroy everything about the person and their character. There are multiple appropriate responses.

But that so often becomes the case when identifying racism that we tend to get very, highly defensive of being called racist (e.g, the 911 caller's meandering, hyperdefensive, unrepentant press conference yesterday) that we ignore the racist potential our actions had - whether we meant them or not.

I do feel bad for Whalen, and would love to find out which of the two - her or Crowley - are lying. Either she's in full-on CYA/lie your ass off mode, or Crowley really screwed up and is doing something that can't be attributed to "misremembering" the order of events. Talking with Whalen is what is being disputed. His report says he did, she says they never did. So there's not really room for reasonable "mistakes" here by the lying party. One is engaging in the willful, deceitful act of full-on bullshittery.

By the by, can y'all police defenders salvage some ammunition for the Boston police officer who referred to Gates as a "jungle monkey" 4 times in an email sent to colleagues and the Boston Globe?

http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/07/30/gates.police.apology/

[Msut77]

camoor, you can't be serious.

Camoor doesn't have much credibility on this subject. He can be reasonable at times but loses his damn mind when anything involving race pops up.

[perdition(troy]

By the by, can y'all police defenders salvage some ammunition for the Boston police officer who referred to Gates as a "jungle monkey" 4 times in an email sent to colleagues and the Boston Globe?

http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/07/30/gates.police.apology/

Why would we want to defend someone that's clearly being racist?

[Msut77]

Why would we want to defend someone that's clearly being racist?

Because that is how cons roll?

[perdition(troy]

Another intelligent post by msut.

[dmaul1114]

majority are minorities? no.

they are disproportionately represented in criminal activity, yes. but they are not the majority.

you know that.

also, I would argue it's far, far, far more than semantics. covert racism is the way things are done in this day and age, yet many people cling to a rubric of proving racism that rests of such a heavy burden of proof (one, ironically, that's about as stringent as the burden of proof required by hate crimes laws that the very same folks tend to hate so much ;)).

unintentionally racist behavior is still racist.

"Let's talk about middle eastern issues; muhammad, you probably have a good idea of what that's like. Why don't you start?" - as the basis of a hypothetical classroom discussion, this is indeed racist. Malicious? Certainly not. Racist? You betcha.


Majority of all criminals in the entire country across all types of crime? Of course not, due to demographics nationwide and the offending break down no being so disproportionate when you factor in drug use, white collar crime etc.

Majority of street crimes (murders not involving family/lovers, street robberies, break ins) etc. in urban areas--then yes the offenders are majority minority simply because the majority of people of the lower social classes that commits such serious street crimes in an urban area are minority. And you just obviously don't have a lot of muggings, burglaries etc. being carried out by people outside of that social class as people have to be pretty desperate for cash to commit those crimes.

So with white flight most urban inner city areas don't have a lot (if any) of predominately white lower class neighborhoods anymore. You have poor minority neighborhoods and then upper middle class and beyond white and mixed race neighborhoods of professionals who have moved back through gentrification over the years.

So the pool of "motivated offenders" for robbery, burglary and other street crimes in most urban areas is going to be predominately young, poor male, minorities just due to demographics and inequalities that lead to concentrations of poor minorities in inner cities. But you know that.


As for racist or not, like I said, its semantics and I prefer to use stereotyping (or racial stereotyping) rather than racism as the label for that term. But if you want to call it go ahead. And again I'm not saying racial stereotyping is ok or any less severe than what you like to call subconscious racism.

Semantically I just prefer stereotyping as I prefer to save racism for it's more traditional meanings of implying racial inferiority personally.

[dmaul1114]

The cop was doing his job, if Gates thought it was racial profiling then there are much more professional and mature was to deal with it the yelling racist! racist! and saying "Ya, I'll speak with your mama outside,"


Exactly, that was my problem with Gates reaction.

Again, without knowing everything that was said, he was very immature and unprofessional in how he blew up--especially for a educated man. But again, maybe the cops said something equally bad or worse to him that set him off, which would make the reaction more understandable.

You are trying to get into your house but the door is jammed. You are doing this in broad daylight. On the front porch. Not trying to be stealthy in any way shape or form. You finally get into your house. A white cop walks up and says "What are you robbing the house? Prove you live here."


Again, it depends on what was said by the Crowley. If he just said, "Hello sir, the neighbor though she saw someone possibly forcing their way into the house? Is everything ok?"

And then asked to see ID explaining he had to make sure he did live there etc. etc. then the cop was just doing his job.

Like I said earlier, I'd be happy if it happened to me as it would show me that my neighbors are keeping an eye on things and the cops are quick to respond when called.

But if Crowley acted rudely and said something like what you suggested, then blowing up is more understandable.



By the by, can y'all police defenders salvage some ammunition for the Boston police officer who referred to Gates as a "jungle monkey" 4 times in an email sent to colleagues and the Boston Globe?


Come on now, no need for that kind of strawman hyperbole. No one has remotely defended racism.

Just not everyone is going to be as sensitive and get as pissed off about every stereotype that pops up as you are.

It bothers me, but professionally from my work with cops, all I really care about is that they aren't doing racial profiling or in anyway violating the rights of minorities.

I don't much care if they have a view of most hard criminals being black as that's who they arrest most of the time for robbery etc. as they work in bad inner city neighborhoods etc. as long as they are treating everyone of every race with respect and not doing racial profiling or otherwise violating people's rights.

I leave the issues of subconscious racism, stereotyping and other social phenomenon to you sociologists as it's outside of my area of interest.

[RAMSTORIA]

By the by, can y'all police defenders salvage some ammunition for the Boston police officer who referred to Gates as a "jungle monkey" 4 times in an email sent to colleagues and the Boston Globe?

http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/07/30/gates.police.apology/

Because that is how cons roll?

im so sad. today myke, you became msut.

you know that nobody here is going to defensd of that cop.

[UncleBob]

I'm not going to defend the cop - I agree that he should have been terminated, but here's something to throw out, since Myke wants to talk about it - did the cop send the e-mails while "off the clock"?

We have so many people who will defend the behavior of employees who are "off the clock" (say, smoking or drinking, etc.) and say that their employer shouldn't fire them. I've seen the same type of thing when an employee posts something online, gets fired and everyone rises up to defend the employee.

Not seeing that here.

[bmulligan]

I'm not going to defend the cop - I agree that he should have been terminated, but here's something to throw out, since Myke wants to talk about it - did the cop send the e-mails while "off the clock"?

We have so many people who will defend the behavior of employees who are "off the clock" (say, smoking or drinking, etc.) and say that their employer shouldn't fire them. I've seen the same type of thing when an employee posts something online, gets fired and everyone rises up to defend the employee.

Not seeing that here.

When you are a public servant, different rules should apply.

[mykevermin]

Stunning. I agree with bmulligan. I suspect it won't last long.

dmaul, please elaborate on how you understand racial profiling. Most of your posts here suggest that you are (1) deeply concerned about police doing it but also (2) understand if police do.

Underlying much of what you're saying is the fine implication that social context matters - but not all cops work in an urban setting, and you keep coming back to that to describe what went on here. Cambridge is not urban.

Anyway, yeah - racial profiling. It appears to me that you're trying to have it both ways.

And it's far more than semantics to call it racism or not. Primarily because of the power leveraged by calling something "racism." Words have meaning, and if you burn my house down, albeit unintentionally, it's not just a "boo-boo." It's a fuckup of monumental proportions, and I'm not going to minimize that by saying "oopsie on you."

[HowStern]

Yeah, even if he was off the clock he stated what he would have done on the clock. And that was to mace an innocent man for protesting because he was black.

[dmaul1114]

I'm not going to defend the cop - I agree that he should have been terminated, but here's something to throw out, since Myke wants to talk about it - did the cop send the e-mails while "off the clock"?

We have so many people who will defend the behavior of employees who are "off the clock" (say, smoking or drinking, etc.) and say that their employer shouldn't fire them. I've seen the same type of thing when an employee posts something online, gets fired and everyone rises up to defend the employee.

Not seeing that here.

I think it's fine for employers to fire people for things "off the clock" that are directly related to their ability to do their job and/or reflect negatively on the company. Especially when it's something public like police and being paid for by tax dollars.

If a cop is making racist statements, he's showing he's unfit to carry out his duties of enforcing the laws equally and not doing racial profiling.

If a cop is going out and getting drunk and causing problems in public, or is using illegal drugs (and thus breaking laws they are supposed to uphold) then similarly I have no problem with suspensions or firings.

[KingBroly]

Stunning. I agree with bmulligan. I suspect it won't last long.

dmaul, please elaborate on how you understand racial profiling. Most of your posts here suggest that you are (1) deeply concerned about police doing it but also (2) understand if police do.

Underlying much of what you're saying is the fine implication that social context matters - but not all cops work in an urban setting, and you keep coming back to that to describe what went on here. Cambridge is not urban.

Anyway, yeah - racial profiling. It appears to me that you're trying to have it both ways.

And it's far more than semantics to call it racism or not. Primarily because of the power leveraged by calling something "racism." Words have meaning, and if you burn my house down, albeit unintentionally, it's not just a "boo-boo." It's a fuckup of monumental proportions, and I'm not going to minimize that by saying "oopsie on you."

What's more powerful, though? Racism or reverse racism? Honestly, I don't know what the difference is, but some people think the latter is okay.

[dmaul1114]

Stunning. I agree with bmulligan. I suspect it won't last long.

dmaul, please elaborate on how you understand racial profiling. Most of your posts here suggest that you are (1) deeply concerned about police doing it but also (2) understand if police do.

I care about racial profiling when police are targeting minorities for stops, searches etc. without any other reason than their race, dress style etc. Or if they treat minorities different than whites during legitimate stops and so forth.

I don't care so much if they go to a call with an idea in their head that the suspects are probably black as long as that notion doesn't affect their actual behavior. Sometimes beliefs do, sometimes it doesn't. If my car gets broken into in my complex, sure I'll think the perpetrator is probably black given the suspects in the recent robberies and some arrests in car break ins. But I won't go around being suspicious of every black person I see in or near my complex thinking they may be the perpetrator.

So again, I see a difference of an impression formed by demographics of offenders of certain types of crime, and racist beliefs and racial profiling. There's overlap, but it's not 100%. Thinking a suspect is probably black doesn't mean an officer stops blacks for no reason (i.e. when they don't have a suspect description yet) or treats blacks differently in citizen interactions. I don't get concerned with it until their actions start showing racial biases.



Underlying much of what you're saying is the fine implication that social context matters - but not all cops work in an urban setting, and you keep coming back to that to describe what went on here. Cambridge is not urban.


Yeah, I'm mostly talking about urban areas. But it also applies to the nice, white and/or upper middle class areas near urban areas. Boston's a small city. I walked from Harvard to my hotel downtown the last time I was there. The people doing the burglaries, muggings etc. in Cambridge aren't going to be the well-off people who live in Cambridge. It's going to be the desperate, impoverished criminals from nearby areas. And I'd be shocked if data from the Cambridge PD didn't show the majority of arrests for robberies and burglaries etc. were committed by blacks.


And it's far more than semantics to call it racism or not. Primarily because of the power leveraged by calling something "racism." Words have meaning, and if you burn my house down, albeit unintentionally, it's not just a "boo-boo." It's a fuckup of monumental proportions, and I'm not going to minimize that by saying "oopsie on you."

Like I said, you care more, and thus are more interested in fighting that battle. I'm not at all interested in race wars, the role of race in society etc. The role of stereotyping/subconcious racism in society is not something I think much about or really care much about professionally or personally.

I'm concerned with policing effectiveness in fighting crime, and my only interest in race is making sure there isn't blatant profiling and negative impacts on minorities and residents of the targeted areas as a whole.

I'm not saying your interest isn't important. We need people focusing on those kind of things. It's just not my area of interest or concern.

[mykevermin]

I care about racial profiling when police are targeting minorities for stops, searches etc. without any other reason than their race, dress style etc. Or if they treat minorities different than whites during legitimate stops and so forth.

I don't care so much if they go to a call with an idea in their head that the suspects are probably black as long as that notion doesn't affect their actual behavior. Sometimes beliefs do, sometimes it doesn't. If my car gets broken into in my complex, sure I'll think the perpetrator is probably black given the suspects in the recent robberies and some arrests in car break ins. But I won't go around being suspicious of every black person I see in or near my complex thinking they may be the perpetrator.

See, this is my point of concern. If this is the sort of thing you research, how do you determine (based on this standard) if someone is profiling? Report says busted taillight, report says speeding, report says swerving on the road - and that's just for those profiled for "DWB." If you hold that high a threshold for identifying racial profiling, then your standard will cause you to commit a remarkable degree of sampling bias by virtue of being willing to overlook racial profiling that's covered up pretty well.

As per the second sentence above, I'm not really arguing that one can't think. I'm arguing that differential treatment that doesn't meet a high standard of "obvious" racism can be shown, and that claiming those to not be profiling would net you a degree of false negatives that would ruin any data gathered. Just in the same way you'd get an inaccurate sample if you only looked at, say, complaints filed arguing racial profiling. Not complete data. Or even accurate.

Perhaps I'm trying to figure out how you identify profiling such that you believe it to be racist in action as opposed to good policing (for want of a better term).

[dmaul1114]

I don't do any direct research on racial profiling at all whatsoever. It's not my area of interest.

My current research is mainly concerned with police effectiveness in reducing crime, but also has survey data to examine that captures fear of crime, collective efficacy, and opinions of the police (both in general, and a subset of questions asked only of those stopped by the police during the intervention period--haven't looked at the data to see how many answered those questions yet as it just recently finished).

As you allude to, profiling is nearly impossible to definitively test empirically as there's not real data on why someone was stopped, looking at racial make ups of those stopped is tough without knowing the exact demographic make up of the area (including people just passing through etc). and so forth. So it's very difficult to get any real, empirical evidence.

So I don't concern myself trying to study with the type of profiling questions you're eluding to. I'm just interested in looking at bigger picture type issues. Did the policing strategy (broken windows based policing in this case) reduce perceptions of disorder? Did it reduce serious crime? Did it reduce fear of crime? (I found in a study published last year that it increased fear)? Did it improve or worsen opinions of police performance? Were their racial differences in changes in opinions of the police (or the other measures) before and after the crack down on disorder?

Those are what I look at in terms of collateral consequences, rather than the more specific profiling questions you seem interested in. More big picture stuff--did minorities stop think they were treated unfairly, while whites thought they were treated fairly? That's about as close to looking at profiling as I can get currently. And I'm not sure I have the interest in the topic to delve much deeper as I'm a policy oriented guy and mainly want to see if it works in making places safer and whether their are any blatant collateral consequences to be concerned with.

[UncleBob]

My comment about what the other cop did off the clock was pretty weak because:
A.) It wasn't a defense
B.) I don't really have a problem with employers terminating employees for off-the-clock actions. :)

[mykevermin]

(I found in a study published last year that it increased fear)

That's not surprising in the slightest - I always found their theoretical argument a bit too convenient in terms of assuming satisfied compliance with increased police involvement and increased discretionary powers (assuming that the public see/feel the latter, which probably they wouldn't).

Increased exposure to police, even in the beat cop kinda way W&K argue, shouldn't lead to reduced crime and general satisfaction. Maybe the former (maybe the opposite, since you have a relationship b/w arrests/convictions and police presence), and I doubt the latter. Folks like the idea of the police, but they don't like the idea of the police when it comes to their involvement.

Like when we snicker as we drive past a state patrol officer who's pulled over a speeder, and then curse everything about them when we get caught speeding on our own.

There's something about BW that can easily lead to public outcries of "cut this shit out and go focus on "real crime"" that the authors don't really address.

So if I'm surprised at all, its that you say you found *only* one where negative consequences happened - given that it was your D research, I'm sure you were neck deep (at the least) in research on BW.

[dmaul1114]

Well, that's not exactly the case. In other studies (not published yet), some colleagues of mine found in interviews during another project that citizen's (both white and minority) where very happy the police were around and were dealing with disorderly people, getting trash and graffiti cleaned up etc. Though of course, those are the people who aren't being disorderly (the "decent" families in Anderson's parlance). I'm sure the people doing the public drinking, littering etc. would feel differently.

Our hypothesis on why fear went up in our study was just that there was no community element, the police just did sweeps and stings (it wasn't exactly BW policing, but was pretty close--this was on older study done in the late 90s). So people likely just assumed that crime had gotten worse since the cops were around a lot more all of a sudden and became more fearful. As for only finding the one, that was all that really got looked at in that work--it wasn't an evaluation piece--the fear finding was kind of a side finding that jumped to the forefront.

Oh, and that particular piece was my Master's Thesis research--it was secondary data analysis. That article was in Journal of Criminal Justice last June (2008) if you're interested. My dissertation was BW related as well, using a new study I've been working on since 2007 (finishing up post intervention data collection now finally).

My diss just used SEM to test the relationships between perceived disorder, fear of crime, collective efficacy and perceptions of crime suggested by BW (results were semi-supportive but suggested some tweaks). The main project is a randomized evaluation of BW policing and will look at impacts on disorder, crime, fear, collective efficacy, police legitimacy etc.


There's something about BW that can easily lead to public outcries of "cut this shit out and go focus on "real crime"" that the authors don't really address.


As for that, I think it's mixed. A lot of people, according to police interviews, came up to them and said they were glad the cops were around keeping an eye on things and working to clean up their neighborhood. You have to keep in mind that disorder is more of a constant presence and thus more of a bother to people, while crime (especially at the block level) is a rare event. So it's s double benefit to some residents. Stuff is getting cleaned up, and crime isn't going to happen while the cops are on their block.

But enough on this as we're taking the thread way off topic. :D Shoot a PM if you have any more interest.

[mykevermin]

This thread hasn't been about Sotomayor since like post #70.

:lol:

[dmaul1114]

Very true. :D

So technically we were getting off topic from the off topic. :D

To get back to that off topic, here's some info on the meeting tonight.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/07/30/harvard.arrest.beers/index.html

After the meeting, the renowned Harvard professor reflected on the significance of the event and thanked Obama for arranging the meeting.

"It is incumbent upon Sergeant Crowley and me to utilize the great opportunity that fate has given us to foster greater sympathy among the American public for the daily perils of policing on the one hand, and for the genuine fears of racial profiling on the other hand," Gates said in a statement on his Web site, The Root.

"Let me say that I thank God that live in a country in which police officers put their lives at risk to protect us every day, and, more than ever, I've come to understand and appreciate their daily sacrifices on our behalf. I'm also grateful that we live in a country where freedom of speech is a sacrosanct value and I hope that one day we can get to know each other better, as we began to do at the White House this afternoon over beers with President Obama," he said.

"At this point, I am hopeful that we can all move on, and that this experience will prove an occasion for education, not recrimination. I know that Sergeant Crowley shares this goal. Both of us are eager to go back to work tomorrow."

So not much there. Crowley didn't have any comments.

[itachiitachi]

camoor, you can't be serious.

Your a black guy. You are trying to get into your house but the door is jammed. You are doing this in broad daylight. On the front porch. Not trying to be stealthy in any way shape or form. You finally get into your house. A white cop walks up and says "What are you robbing the house? Prove you live here."

How is your first thought not to scream at the guy about being racist.


It doesn't matter what your first thought is, if your first thought is to punch the officer it doesn't make it ok, you're expected to act with maturity and self control. Crowley had a legitimate reason to be there and the way gates was acting doesn't scream innocent outstanding citizen.

When I see a cop being an asshole my first thought is to yell asshole at the cop but I don't, and the only reason I would do that was if I was trying to start something.

[HowStern]

It doesn't matter what your first thought is, if your first thought is to punch the officer it doesn't make it ok, you're expected to act with maturity and self control. Crowley had a legitimate reason to be there and the way gates was acting doesn't scream innocent outstanding citizen.

When I see a cop being an asshole my first thought is to yell asshole at the cop but I don't, and the only reason I would do that was if I was trying to start something.


You don't get it at all. I'm guessing you are a white kid in his teens or maybe early 20's, correct?

Gates grew up in the 50's and 60's. During this time blacks were being sprayed with fire hoses in the streets, beaten, forced out of public areas, told where to sit on the bus ALL BY POLICE.

And you know what? Most of the time they didn't talk back. Not one word.

Then they had had enough. The black panthers arrive. Black people get the courage to speak up.

So, when that white officer stepped onto Gates' front porch accusing him of breaking and entering in his own house Gates' had already had enough. He had enough 40 years ago.

He exercised his freedom of speech to protest, something he couldn't do 40 years ago. This was no crime. Which is why the charges were dropped.


He didn't punch the officer and what he did is not even comparable.

[perdition(troy]

we should have police cut black peoples lawns for the next decade to make up for how rude all those now retired police officers were. its only fair. maybe have them do some repainting for them too.

[HowStern]

^Yeah all those retired racist police officers like the guy who called Gates a jungle monkey. Oh, wait..He wasn't retired? Nice try.

[UncleBob]

I think all the people who call cops "pigs" and such should have to mow the lawns of the police. :p

[ToadallyAwesome]

You don't get it at all. I'm guessing you are a white kid in his teens or maybe early 20's, correct?

Gates grew up in the 50's and 60's. During this time blacks were being sprayed with fire hoses in the streets, beaten, forced out of public areas, told where to sit on the bus ALL BY POLICE.

And you know what? Most of the time they didn't talk back. Not one word.

Then they had had enough. The black panthers arrive. Black people get the courage to speak up.

So, when that white officer stepped onto Gates' front porch accusing him of breaking and entering in his own house Gates' had already had enough. He had enough 40 years ago.

He exercised his freedom of speech to protest, something he couldn't do 40 years ago. This was no crime. Which is why the charges were dropped.


He didn't punch the officer and what he did is not even comparable.


So the Japanese should also go around punching all Americans in the face for dropping the atomic bomb - because it was a horrible thing to do 50 years ago??

I'm sorry but this makes no sense. Maybe I should be mean to all small white kids because one of them picked on me on the playground when I was 7.

Past experiences may enable someone to understand why they reacted in a way but it doesn't automatically make it a reasonable response. Especially from someone as educated as he is.

It was just a bad day for both parties. This should have never went national. If anything it trivializes the extent of racial profiling because this is such an ambiguous case.

[HowStern]

Wow...Where do you guys come up with this stuff?

First off Gates didn't punch anybody. If you think Gates exercising his freedom of speech is the equivalent of physically assaulting someone then you are helplessly unreasonable. I question your understanding of civil liberties and what kind of citizen you are.

Secondly, we were at war with Japan. We weren't at war with black people. But good point! Oh,wait..no, it wasn't.

Worst hypothetical argument ever. Not sure why I'm even dignifying it with a response it was such a demented twist of words.

@UncleBob, calling someone a pig is hardly comparable to threatening to mace a person because they are a "jungle monkey."

[UncleBob]

To be fair, you're the one comparing an officer arresting a disorderly citizen to officers beating citizens in the streets.

[perdition(troy]

To be fair, you're the one comparing an officer arresting a disorderly citizen to officers beating citizens in the streets.

:lol::applause:

[HowStern]

Holy hell, you guys either just aren't reading the posts or can't/don't want to comprehend anything.

I said it's no wonder Gates came out verbally swinging when he GREW UP WITH the abusive racist law enforcement of the 50's and 60's.


Nowhere did I compare arresting someone for yelling at a cop to hosing a person down with a fire hose for their skin color.

LOL@Troy thinking unclebob had a point.

lrn2read.

[dmaul1114]

Everyone understands WHY Gates reacted that way---and we all know that maybe the cop said or did something we don't know about to further provoke it.

But that doesn't change the fact that the cop was just responding to a call, and doing his job by checking it out, asking for ID, wanting to make sure there wasn't an intruder hiding somewhere etc. etc. I mean come on, how would it look for the PD if in a case like this they arrived, the guy said they lived there and they just said "Have a nice day." and left? And then it turned out that was a burglar they let slip away? Or it was the owner but there was an intruder hiding in the house who then killed the owner?

There's nothing wrong with saying that Gates over-reacted--again assuming the cop didn't say/do something to provoke it that we haven't found out about yet. You're just giving the reason why he overreacted. Not a justification.

As I said earlier, everyone should treat everyone else with respect unless they do something to warrant otherwise (and we don't know if the cop did), and it's extra smart to treat cops and other authority figures with respect and not dig yourself a hole.

[Koggit]

cop: "can you step outside the home so we can talk?"
gates: "yeah, i'll talk to your mama outside"

wtf.

100% gates' fault. there's no justifying his actions. being a harvard prof doesn't put him above the law or relinquish him of his responsibility to cooperate with law enforcement.

[ToadallyAwesome]

Wow...Where do you guys come up with this stuff?

First off Gates didn't punch anybody. If you think Gates exercising his freedom of speech is the equivalent of physically assaulting someone then you are helplessly unreasonable. I question your understanding of civil liberties and what kind of citizen you are...

Please exercise your civil liberties and freedom of speech by verbally abusing a cop if one ever approaches you to ask a question.

My two-second analogies were extreme and stupid for a reason.

I think everyone has said everything there is to say about this. There is really nothing left to talk about.

[HowStern]

Please exercise your civil liberties and freedom of speech by verbally abusing a cop if one ever approaches you to ask a question.
.

There is a difference between a cop politely inquiring about something and accusing you of breaking into your own home.

To you or me, being accused of breaking into your own house by a white cop isn't a huge deal. To a black person who grew up in segregated America it's hurtful.

[perdition(troy]

Not the the black cop who was at the scene while gates was being arrested.

[HowStern]

Oh, cool, did you read his mind to find how he felt or did he call you and tell you?

[perdition(troy]

Dear Jim,

Would you be so kind as to mention the following to Mr. Gates and President Obama during your meeting with them:

One of the major problems stemming from the events of July 16 is that I, now known as 'the black Sergeant', have had my image plastered all over the Internet, television and newspapers. Subsequently, I have also become known, at least to some, as an 'Uncle Tom.'

I'm forced to ponder the notion that as a result of speaking the truth and coming to the defense of a friend and collegue, who just happens to be white, that I have somehow betrayed my heritage.

Please convey my concerns to the President that Mr. Gates' actions may have caused grave and potentially irreparable harm to the struggle for racial harmony in this country and perhaps throughout the world.

In closing, I would simply like to ask that Mr. Gates deeply reflect on the events that have unfolded since July 16 and ask himself the following questions:

'What can I do to help heal the rift caused by some of my actions?; What responsibility do I bear for what occurred on July 16, 2009? Is there anything I can do to mitigate the damage done to the reputations of two respected Police Officers?'

Thank you in advance,

Your friend,

Leon K. Lashley

Doesn't really have anything to do with much that is going on in this topic, but I figured I'd post it anyways.

[dmaul1114]

There is a difference between a cop politely inquiring about something and accusing you of breaking into your own home.


Again, it all depends on exactly what was said. The cop had to respond to the call and HAD to ask for ID for proof that he lived there. He can't just take the guys word for it, as it could be the burglar just lying obviously.

What matters is his attitude and tone in asking for ID and explaining the situation etc. And we don't have any info on exactly how it played out.

[HowStern]

That letter isn't in regards to how Sgt Ashley felt about the arrest personally. It's about Obama's statement.

As for the racial rift being caused by Gates, he's completely off. It's common knowledge Crowley arrested Gates for personal reasons. (Being disrespected "yo mama" etc.) That is what caused the rift. The arrest. Had Crowley left we wouldn't be talking about this right now.

I'd also like to see the source of that letter,google brings up nothing.

@dmaul,right. My point is after being shown ID Crowley should have left. That is the professional thing to do. He is the professional in this situation. He shouldn't have arrested Gates afterward for clearly personal reasons.

[perdition(troy]

That letter isn't in regards to how Sgt Ashley felt about the arrest personally. It's about Obama's statement.

As for the racial rift being caused by Gates, he's completely off. It's common knowledge Crowley arrested Gates for personal reasons. (Being disrespected "yo mama" etc.) That is what caused the rift. The arrest. Had Crowley left we wouldn't be talking about this right now.

I'd also like to see the source of that letter,google brings up nothing.

I was waiting for you to cry about that.

http://www.thebostonchannel.com/news/20230991/detail.html

It's not "common knowledge". If it was, you wouldn't be in the minority on how people feel about this issue. However, you are. Had Gates given him ID when Crowley asked instead of making a big deal about it we wouldn't be talking about this. Haven't you ever noticed you and myke are the only ones defending Gates?

www.youtube.com/watch?v=_VJVl_7KLo0 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_VJVl_7KLo0)
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/sns-ap-us-harvard-scholar-arresting-officer,0,4731766.story

Leon supports him. Sorry.

[HowStern]

Funny Lashley also said he didn't hear anyone call anyone racist.

Did you watch your video there to the end?

That almost completely cripples Crowley's story.


As for me and Myke being the only ones defending Gates. It's more an issue of defending our 1st amendment, at least for myself.
If we support to the cops for arresting people who speak up, then who will speak up?
Also, the prosecution defended Gates.
In case you forgot, they dropped the charges.

So, yes, it is common knowledge the arrest was lawless. The prosecutor made this official when the charges were dropped.

[dmaul1114]

@dmaul,right. My point is after being shown ID Crowley should have left. That is the professional thing to do. He is the professional in this situation. He shouldn't have arrested Gates afterward for clearly personal reasons.

Well, he does have a right to ask to check the premises and make sure everythings alright as there could have been an intruder that the neighbor was calling about that entered before Gates got home etc.

But yeah, Gate's shouldn't have been arrested.

My point the whole time is simply that this just seems to be a case of to people over-reacting, and not racial profiling.

Gates blow up, and made immature comments (especially for being a well educated man) with crap like "I'll talk to your mama outside."

Crowley over-reacted by arresting him.

Just a case of a couple of grown men acting like douchebags. Gates by assuming racism and doing a bunch of yelling and other immature comments, and Crowley by not handling the situation well and by arresting Gates.

[dmaul1114]

If we support to the cops for arresting people who speak up, then who will speak up?


I agree with the sentiment.

But a person should strive to stand up in a mature manner, not act like an ass with a bunch of yelling and juvenile comments like "I'll talk to your mama outside."

Stand up politely. File formal complaints with the department. Contact the newspaper.

That's how a mature adult exercises their free speech and speaks up, and that will be much more effective than acting like a grade schooler and throwing a fit.

[HowStern]

Yeah, the mama thing (if it was actually said) was uncalled for. But definitely not an arrestable offense being that he said it in his own property.

[UncleBob]

@UncleBob, calling someone a pig is hardly comparable to threatening to mace a person because they are a "jungle monkey."

Perhaps good ol' folk like Ronell Wilson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronell_Wilson) here should get to mow retired officer's lawns...
"It's da lightskin kid most hated Rated/Come test Rated U Better have that vest and dat [Glock]/Leave a 45 slugs in da back of ya head. Cause I'm gettin dat bread/aint' goin stop to I'm dead."

There's an entire industry built up around violent, illegal activities, killing officers of the law and not cooperating with them - even in the slightest bit.

But yes, let's yell at the officer, calling him racist for no other reason than he's white and you're black, when he's putting HIS LIFE ON THE LINE to protect your home and property.

Should the officer had just walked away after Gates showed his ID. Yes.
Should Gates have been an ass about the whole situation to begin with?

[KingBroly]

Yeah, the mama thing (if it was actually said) was uncalled for. But definitely not an arrestable offense being that he said it in his own property.

Verbal assault?

[mykevermin]

Verbal assault?

The point is that it is reaching to arrest Gates for something other than B&E given what Crowley discovered about the situation (hey, he's the homeowner!).

Disorderly, the definition of that law and applicability of that law (i.e., he couldn't arrest Gates for it in his own house, but the moment he hit the porch shouting it became "public") shows just how unprofessional Crowley was being in charging Gates with something.

And I believe "Verbal Assault" is redundant, but that's neither here nor there.

[HowStern]

I'm pretty sure it has to be a physical threat to count as verbal assault? I don't know. You never hear of anyone getting charged with it. So, I really don't know.

[mykevermin]

"I'm gonna kick the fuckin' shit outta you!" = assault.

[HowStern]

haha! so is "I'll talk to yo mama" beyond the realm of verbal assault? Or does it fall within the confines?
I wonder if they have a list of guidelines. "If the perp says anything about your mama it is verbal assault!"

[mykevermin]

violence or "threat of violence" are the thresholds.

vague, no?

Something direct (e.g., I'm gonna kick your ass) is easy to identify - but identifying where being disrespectful ends and assault begins is rather tough.

"Fuck you, pig" versus "cops are fuckin' pigs" shows how it can semantically vary. The former can net you assault, the latter, not so much. (because of who the target is).

[Revolution]

This idea needs to be applied to education next. Why the hell should seats be reserved in a program for kids who I have higher grades than? I'm sick of all the equal opportunity programs. Equal opportunity for idiots who do not work as hard? Race is irrelevant to your performance.

[depascal22]

This idea needs to be applied to education next. Why the hell should seats be reserved in a program for kids who I have higher grades than? I'm sick of all the equal opportunity programs. Equal opportunity for idiots who do not work as hard? Race is irrelevant to your performance.

It isn't when you live in a shitty ass school district and thus don't get an equal education. On the other hand, most of those shitty school districts are the fault of the students and their parents. But do you punish a kid because he came from a bad school? Equal opportunity is there to level the playing field for the future. It sucks for you now but it really sucked for my ancestors.

Oh, and what about the big businesses that ran to Republicans for the bailouts they were entitled to? I guess when poor blacks feel entitled to a little money and crappy public housing it's bad but when some bitch ass CEO walks into Congress with his hand out, it's just business as usual. Fucking hypcrite.

[perdition(troy]

You realize that the house and senate were both controlled by democrats when the "bailout" took place? And you realize the senate and house are the ones who decide what we do with our money? And that 133 (67%) republicans in the house voted against the bailout?

Oh well, old news is old news.

[UncleBob]

You realize that the house and senate were both controlled by democrats when the "bailout" took place? And you realize the senate and house are the ones who decide what we do with our money? And that 133 (67%) republicans in the house voted against the bailout?

Oh well, old news is old news.

Stop confusing us with your damn facts.

[RAMSTORIA]

in depascals world anyone who exhibits a shred of conservatism is republican. and since bush was a republican all conservatives supported everything he did.

[fullmetalfan720]

It isn't when you live in a shitty ass school district and thus don't get an equal education. On the other hand, most of those shitty school districts are the fault of the students and their parents. But do you punish a kid because he came from a bad school? Equal opportunity is there to level the playing field for the future. It sucks for you now but it really sucked for my ancestors.
Why is it we can't have equality? By giving an opportunity to someone because of their race/gender, and not because they have earned it, you're just fueling the separation between people.
I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.-MLKWhat is so wrong with that?
Oh, and what about the big businesses that ran to Republicans for the bailouts they were entitled to? I guess when poor blacks feel entitled to a little money and crappy public housing it's bad but when some bitch ass CEO walks into Congress with his hand out, it's just business as usual. Fucking hypcrite.I would suggest yelling at the Democrats, because they are the ones who got it passed.

[HowStern]

Why is it we can't have equality? By giving an opportunity to someone because of their race/gender, and not because they have earned it, you're just fueling the separation between people.


No. Affirmative action is to help create equality.

People who oppose AA think it's all about giving a job to a guy because he is a minority. It was started by Nixon though mainly to help under priveleged kids into college. To create more productive people in society.

It's mainly a college thing. It doesn't work the way I'm assuming you think it does where someone gets a job, even though they are less qualified, because they are a minority.

Have you ever heard the real estate term blockbuster? It was where in the 50's they would sell a block of houses at a high price to white people. Then get a black family to move into one of the remaining houses. Now the real estate company can buy back the houses from the white at a much lower price. Then sell the block off to black people.
A lot of black communities were started this way. This is why some towns are almost all black and some all white.

Notice how most of the "black" towns are poorer? This goes back to the blockbusting technique. The kids then grow up with less money, worse schooling, less jobs available than the white communities.

I doubt you'll read all this..But this is why affirmative action was started. To help create a level playing field. It would get kids into college who never would have been able to get in. The idea that someone else was denied entry is a long shot.

[fullmetalfan720]

No. Affirmative action is to help create equality.
Too bad it isn't equal.
People who oppose AA think it's all about giving a job to a guy because he is a minority. It was started by Nixon though mainly to help under priveleged kids into college. To create more productive people in society.
How is it that it creates more productive people in society when it gives rewards not based on earning them, but on race/gender?
It's mainly a college thing. It doesn't work the way I'm assuming you think it does where someone gets a job, even though they are less qualified, because they are a minority.
I will assure you that it does happen in the job market, as seen in the OP.
Have you ever heard the real estate term blockbuster? It was where in the 50's they would sell a block of houses at a high price to white people. Then get a black family to move into one of the remaining houses. Now the real estate company can buy back the houses from the white at a much lower price. Then sell the block off to black people.
A lot of black communities were started this way. This is why some towns are almost all black and some all white.

Notice how most of the "black" towns are poorer? This goes back to the blockbusting technique. The kids then grow up with less money, worse schooling, less jobs available than the white communities.
That is why everyone should have an equal opportunity, regardless of race, gender, or whatever. AA does not help this, it just sows the seeds of division between people.
I doubt you'll read all this..But this is why affirmative action was started. To help create a level playing field. It would get kids into college who never would have been able to get in. The idea that someone else was denied entry is a long shot.
It doesn't create a level playing field though. If there are two people, applying for college, whose families have lived in poverty for their entire lives, and one of them has worked harder to get where they are, but they are denied admission because of gender, race, or whatever, how is that fair?
It would get kids into college who never would have been able to get in.
What do you mean by this? Do you mean they wouldn't be able to afford it, and because of AA they get scholarships? If so, wouldn't that be denying opportunities to other people? Or do you mean they don't have the grades, but they are (insert AA group here), so let's let them in!
AA just increases the divides between people. When you start giving people special treatment based on their race, that's only going to create racism, and cement the divides between different races. When you start giving people special treatment based on their gender or sexual orientation, that's only going to further the discrimination against those people, and not really help them in the long run.

[mykevermin]

How do you propose fighting the racial discrimination that happens in the hiring process - with or without Affirmative Action - that disproportionately harms minorities?

You oppose AA, but you don't seem too interested in the hiring of unqualified whites for positions - which is a far greater problem than what you constantly rail against.

[HowStern]

Exactly. Fullmetal it's still clear you don't have a good grasp on how AA works. http://www.now.org/nnt/08-95/affirmhs.html
Will you give you a very very brief idea on it's origins and the status of it's role in "reverse racism" which you claim to be rampant unequality (basically non existant)

I'm not going to quote your post and break down each foolish response like how affirmative action affected the fire fighters in the OP. The OP has nothing to do with AA it was a test that may or may not have been biased. And the ruling was to keep test scores part of the promotion guidelines in spite of this. This actually hurts your argument.

Just read up on AA it has a lot more to do with things other than race.

[thrustbucket]

Even the most ardent supporter of affirmative action can't possibly believe that it's a long term solution or even a good idea long term.

AA is a social doughnut tire; great for helping fix an immediate problem from time to time but if you drive on it for years you're asking for bigger problems.

[fullmetalfan720]

Exactly. Fullmetal it's still clear you don't have a good grasp on how AA works. http://www.now.org/nnt/08-95/affirmhs.html
Will you give you a very very brief idea on it's origins and the status of it's role in "reverse racism" which you claim to be rampant unequality (basically non existant)
The term was first used in 1961 when Kennedy signed an executive order to require that the Federal government employed people not based on skin color, gender or whatever. That was real equality. Then Nixon created this sham equality of AA that basically said to minorities "here's a cookie, we're sorry we screwed you over all these years, but excuse us while we continue to screw you over." AA is not real civil rights reform. It doesn't treat people equally, furthering the divisions between races, and it doesn't really help anyone in the long run.
I'm not going to quote your post and break down each foolish response like how affirmative action affected the fire fighters in the OP. The OP has nothing to do with AA
Really? The test scores of a test were thrown out because the minorities didn't do well enough. That's AA at work right there.
it was a test that may or may not have been biased.
Sure.
And the ruling was to keep test scores part of the promotion guidelines in spite of this. This actually hurts your argument.
Its a good thing that this was the ruling, however the fact still exists that this city threw out a test because minorities did bad on it. That isn't equality.
Just read up on AA it has a lot more to do with things other than race.
I'm sure that the race is no where in the definition of AA.

How do you propose fighting the racial discrimination that happens in the hiring process - with or without Affirmative Action - that disproportionately harms minorities?
The best way to fight racism is through equality, not the division of AA. Plus it might help if the government wasn't constantly screwing over the poor and minorities.
You oppose AA, but you don't seem too interested in the hiring of unqualified whites for positions - which is a far greater problem than what you constantly rail against.
I am concerned about the hiring of unqualified white people because of their race. That is inequality. However, if that is still going on under AA, what does that say about AA?

[mykevermin]

I am concerned about the hiring of unqualified white people because of their race. That is inequality. However, if that is still going on under AA, what does that say about AA?

That it doesn't go far enough, or that it's unrelated policy.

Let me break it down into bite-sized chunks for you to chew on. Don't want you to choke like you typically do.

1) Discrimination happens in hiring and promotion in the American workforce. Time and time again, historical patterns across industries have shown that whites benefit and males benefits; blacks are discriminated against such that the average black male with no criminal history and a white male with a felony on his record have the same odds of being considered for a job.

Affirmative Action policies are put into place, and here's the result:

2) Discrimination happens in hiring and promotion in the American workforce. Time and time again, historical patterns across industries have shown that whites benefit and males benefits; blacks are discriminated against such that the average black male with no criminal history and a white male with a felony on his record have the same odds of being considered for a job.

Now the problem of your vision is twofold: one, that you're blaming a policy that (1) didn't change much of anything other than give white people a bogeyman to be afraid of, and (2) you're giving it credit for something that existed before and after its implementation.

Lastly, given your foolish Libertarian (hereafter simply "Libertarian") stance, you shouldn't want to interfere with business. Whether they discriminate or not. That's not the free market. The free market doesn't like black people, qualified or not, better qualified or not. Why should you, a laissez-faire capitalist, give one good goddamn about discrimination in hiring and promotion? It's contrary to your ideal system.

[HowStern]

http://www.usatoday.com/money/workplace/2007-04-23-pay-gender_N.htm

Plus, link above, it's widely known women still make less than men. Even though affirmative action was also put in place for women, fullmetal. Where's your outrage over this?

[fullmetalfan720]

That it doesn't go far enough, or that it's unrelated policy.

Let me break it down into bite-sized chunks for you to chew on. Don't want you to choke like you typically do.

1) Discrimination happens in hiring and promotion in the American workforce. Time and time again, historical patterns across industries have shown that whites benefit and males benefits; blacks are discriminated against such that the average black male with no criminal history and a white male with a felony on his record have the same odds of being considered for a job.

Affirmative Action policies are put into place, and here's the result:

2) Discrimination happens in hiring and promotion in the American workforce. Time and time again, historical patterns across industries have shown that whites benefit and males benefits; blacks are discriminated against such that the average black male with no criminal history and a white male with a felony on his record have the same odds of being considered for a job.

Now the problem of your vision is twofold: one, that you're blaming a policy that (1) didn't change much of anything other than give white people a bogeyman to be afraid of, and (2) you're giving it credit for something that existed before and after its implementation.

Lastly, given your foolish Libertarian (hereafter simply "Libertarian") stance, you shouldn't want to interfere with business. Whether they discriminate or not. That's not the free market. The free market doesn't like black people, qualified or not, better qualified or not. Why should you, a laissez-faire capitalist, give one good goddamn about discrimination in hiring and promotion? It's contrary to your ideal system.
You're ridiculous. The free market doesn't like black people? Seriously? My main problem with AA is that it creates more divisions between people and doesn't actually help obtain equality. It treats people differently based on race, which is not going to help equality. Then you say that being a libertarian is foolish. Is wanting personal freedom really foolish?

[Msut77]

You're ridiculous.

Glass houses and all that.

The free market doesn't like black people?

The "free market" did nothing to ensure they weren't discriminated against for about several hundred years.

Seriously?

Yes.

My main problem with AA is that it creates more divisions between people and doesn't actually help obtain equality.

Your problem with AA is that you don't understand it.

It treats people differently based on race, which is not going to help equality.

You brought up MLK before, were you aware that he was for AA?

He believed it was necessary to achieve actual freedom instead of theoretical freedom.

Then you say that being a libertarian is foolish. Is wanting personal freedom really foolish?

Libertarianism is certainly foolish, it is like a cult with mediocre sci-fi writers as prophets.

But that is a different conversation.

[mykevermin]

You're ridiculous. The free market doesn't like black people? Seriously?

Of course I'm serious.

I'm not going in circles with you on this. It's very simple: if you believe that, at any point in United States history, you won't find consistent, strong, patterned discrimination against blacks in hiring, promotion, or wages in the workforce, then one thing is true.

You're fucking wrong. Dead wrong. 100% wrong. Couldn't be more wrong.

You seem to have a fundamentally flawed idea of how the world you live in operates. The free market you long for is at the bottom of a wishing well. If you think that people are hired, paid and promoted on absolutely nothing more than "achievement," I have no idea how to combat such dogmatic idiocy. It's demonstrably true, and you are being anchored down by your false idol of Libertarianism such that it prevents you from seeing that corporations are not the wholly rational beings that you think they are.

Moreover, here's the common folly that you engage in. It's cool, though. Most people fall for this same phony logic.

IN THE ABSENCE OF AFFIRMATIVE ACTION, RACIAL PREFERENCES STILL FUCKING EXISTED.
IN THE PRESENCE OF AFFIRMATIVE ACTION, RACIAL PREFERENCES STILL FUCKING EXIST.
IN BOTH CASES, WHITE PEOPLE BENEFIT.

Therefore, how is AA a problem? What do you propose as a solution to prevent racial discrimination?
(here's a hint: as a proud foolish libertarian, your response should be that racial discrimination is fine, as it is evidence that the owners of businesses and enterprises are truly free in their decision making, and not bound to some evil "Socialist" scheme like the Equal Employment Opportunity Act.)

[UncleBob]

(here's a hint: as a proud foolish libertarian, your response should be that racial discrimination is fine, as it is evidence that the owners of businesses and enterprises are truly free in their decision making, and not bound to some evil "Socialist" scheme like the Equal Employment Opportunity Act.)

Hey, Myke almost got something right.

Imagine a world where private business owners are allowed to run their private business. Crazy thought.

Here's where you went wrong (aside from the "foolish" part). Racial discrimination is not fine. If a private employer wants to discriminate, they should be allowed to - but it's not "fine" by any means and, if I know of a business that does such, I personally, would not do business with them and would openly discourage others from doing the same.

Perhaps, if we lived in a world where individuals didn't expect Uncle Sam to make everything okay, people would be more alert and responsive to cries of racism in the workplace. Instead of just assuming "No, they wouldn't do that, they'd get fined/shut down!", everyone would have to think for themselves.

[mykevermin]

The problem is that overt racist action and discrimination no longer has to be "in your face" to occur.

The Crowley/Gates incident proves that we all have plenty of skill in discussing away racial discrimination should it occur - and we already have embedded excuses for racial discrimination in a patterned environment.

You give yourself, and a lot of other people, far too much credit for (1) recognizing, (2) admitting to, and (3) following up on racism in action by businesses - when the majority of Americans aren't interested in taking care of what happens right in their face.

Listening to people accuse David Scott of planting a spraypainted swastika on his office sign tells me all I need to know about how hopelessly idealistic this Libertarian ideal is.

We can't be a postracial society as long as it's cool to still be racist.

[thrustbucket]

I actually agree with both sides here, in a way.

I am not happy with a system where employers are terrified of being sued if they don't cross every T and dot every i when dealing with minorities. I have talked with several managers of large company's that simply are too afraid of ever firing a minority unless they literally have stacks of evidence. They are afraid of being sued. While firing a white male, they admit, can do on a whim without fear. Because of this, many in middle management will avoid hiring minorities because of the Pandora's box it can, and does, open eventually - so they tread the laws lightly so as to hire just enough minorities so they don't appear discriminitory.

In many ways, the entire situation is made worse. That's not right.

But I am not totally against some policies that encourage the hiring of minorities. Like most things, if government must be involved, I prefer it not to be in punishing methods and instilling fear, I prefer to it to be in the realm of incentives.

Don't make company's afraid of fines, litigation, losing licenses, etc. Give them extra reasons to WANT to hire minorities, not afraid of what will happen if they don't.

I am not sure at what point we decided government's role should be to punish it's citizens and instill fear to get things done and make the world a better place, but it's terrible. Laws and policies like that are no better than any war we wage.

[mykevermin]

Tax credits won't solve the "lesser-qualified" mythology that people use to disparage AA, however.

I'd rather see a program that audits hiring processes. Put plants in place, and having discovered patterns of discrimination in hiring, levee and enormous financial penalty against the company.

This would, rather than promoting the hiring of minorities, actually promote hiring based on achievement and skill.

[thrustbucket]

http://failblog.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/fail-owned-racism-fail.jpg

I love the precedents AA has set.....

[UncleBob]

Duh - Keyboards really take DNA samples and use that against you if you're not white or Chinese.

[elprincipe]

I'd rather see a program that audits hiring processes. Put plants in place, and having discovered patterns of discrimination in hiring, levee and enormous financial penalty against the company.

This would, rather than promoting the hiring of minorities, actually promote hiring based on achievement and skill.

Excellent suggestion (although, forgive me for nitpicking: levy, not levee). Why, pray tell, isn't the Civil Rights Division over at the Department of Justice pursuing something like this, if they aren't? Why not have an aggressive enforcement mechanism like this? It's totally reasonable to do something like this in lieu of a program that seems to favor people based on the amount of melanin in their skin, thereby foolishly dividing people into predetermined social or even political groups based on their ancestry, an alarming pattern in any society.

[mykevermin]

(although, forgive me for nitpicking: levy, not levee)

Of course. Good catch. ;)

Tough to say why it isn't done - my immediate reaction would be the # of employers in the US and the "data" needed to identify genuine discrimination. If you send one set of plants in and the minority/minorities aren't selected over the white applicant, has discrimination happened yet? Even my ultra-PC self would be hard-pressed to say yes. The second time? What if the second time is 24-36 months later, and you have a largely different workforce?

Social scientists can identify these patterns over an aggregate level, but that's when they accumulate data from (potentially) thousands of sources. You lose that patterned picture of strong and consistent discrimination when you narrow your focus down from "employers in this one geographic region" to "this particular employer."

If that makes sense.

(Just like demonstrable historical patterns of antiblack discriminatory treatment by police don't really help convince folks of an antiblack bias in the Gates arrest.)

[elprincipe]

Of course. Good catch. ;)

Tough to say why it isn't done - my immediate reaction would be the # of employers in the US and the "data" needed to identify genuine discrimination. If you send one set of plants in and the minority/minorities aren't selected over the white applicant, has discrimination happened yet? Even my ultra-PC self would be hard-pressed to say yes. The second time? What if the second time is 24-36 months later, and you have a largely different workforce?

Social scientists can identify these patterns over an aggregate level, but that's when they accumulate data from (potentially) thousands of sources. You lose that patterned picture of strong and consistent discrimination when you narrow your focus down from "employers in this one geographic region" to "this particular employer."

If that makes sense.

(Just like demonstrable historical patterns of antiblack discriminatory treatment by police don't really help convince folks of an antiblack bias in the Gates arrest.)

No, that does make perfect sense. It's easier to identify patterns from a larger dataset than a smaller one, obviously. Given innocent until proven guilty, this means we need some awfully talented prosecutors to be put on such cases, with plenty of tricks up their sleeves to ferret this stuff out. But of course, it would have to be a pattern and not just once or twice.

[itachiitachi]

(Just like demonstrable historical patterns of antiblack discriminatory treatment by police don't really help convince folks of an antiblack bias in the Gates arrest.)
Ya because an individuals character should be judged on the group they are part of and not the history of there actions. Real oped minded and forward thinking there.

[mykevermin]

No, that does make perfect sense. It's easier to identify patterns from a larger dataset than a smaller one, obviously. Given innocent until proven guilty, this means we need some awfully talented prosecutors to be put on such cases, with plenty of tricks up their sleeves to ferret this stuff out. But of course, it would have to be a pattern and not just once or twice.

There are programs that do this in place, but they catch so very little discrimination that it doesn't really deter folks from continuing to do it. "Housing Opportunities Made Equal" is a program in a number of cities that fine discriminatory landlords, realtors and others in the housing market.

My old landlord was bitten by HOME violations - but there's the problem with the program. He was pissed at them, and vehemently denies that he did anything discriminatory at all. I don't believe he was putting up a front to me, and he genuinely believes he's not a discriminatory dude. So even these policies can foster racial tension indirectly. The problem with this program is that it will anger people who *do* discriminate, but do so unconsciously. They'll call the system unfair and blame minorities, but not accept their own responsibility for differential racial treatment.

But it's not like we need these kinds of programs or AA programs to foster or maintain racial tensions anyway. ;)

[elprincipe]

But it's not like we need these kinds of programs or AA programs to foster or maintain racial tensions anyway. ;)

Sadly, I think you are right, even if the government weren't involved. Our culture has been twisted in many ways by those who wish, usually for political or financial reasons, to attempt to impose groupthink on individuals based on skin color, ethnicity, religion and other characteristics. There are enough dupes out there that have come to value this manufactured "identity" that such tensions are inevitable, at least until our national mindset evolves.

[thrustbucket]

There is way too much agreeing going on in these last two pages to hold my interest.

[perdition(troy]

I actually think there wasn't any agreeing on those last two pages. I wish there was more agreeing. I think your conservative view on the last two pages is disgusting.

[perdition(troy]

http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2009/08/24/2009-08-24_gov_david_paterson_tells_blogger_he_is_victim_o f_orchestrated_campaign_because_o.html

Seriously patterson? Are you a fuck (http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2009/08/24/2009-08-24_gov_david_paterson_tells_blogger_he_is_victim_o f_orchestrated_campaign_because_o.html)ing retard? No ones nervous about there being a minority governor in new york. You're going to lose the next election because people don't like YOU, not that they don't like your fucking skin color. If you didn't do a crappy job as (a replacement) governor you wouldn't be in this situation.

[mykevermin]

That's not what he said.

"Part of what I feel is that one very successful minority is permissible, but when you see too many success stories, then some people get nervous."

Again, patterns as opposed to individuals.

[perdition(troy]

That's just a random article I found. He had an interview last week where he claims the racist media is systematically going to remove him from office, and obama is next *eye roll*.

[thrustbucket]

I actually think there wasn't any agreeing on those last two pages. I wish there was more agreeing. I think your conservative view on the last two pages is disgusting.

Reading my posts on the last page, all can only surmise from you saying that is that you think employers should be made (through gov policy) to fear firing minorities a lot more than white males. That's a good idea to you - Fantastic.

It's weird that you call a posts that express a desire for total fairness and equal treatment a conservative view, and call it disgusting. But whatever.

[mykevermin]

That's just a random article I found. He had an interview last week where he claims the racist media is systematically going to remove him from office, and obama is next *eye roll*.

Then link to that interview, and not a random article.

[perdition(troy]

Reading my posts on the last page, all can only surmise from you saying that is that you think employers should be made (through gov policy) to fear firing minorities a lot more than white males. That's a good idea to you - Fantastic.

It's weird that you call a posts that express a desire for total fairness and equal treatment a conservative view, and call it disgusting. But whatever.

i forgot to put /sarcasm

(lol, my bad)

[camoor]

Ahh Patterson. Reminds me of that old chesnut from the Onion - "Area man blames hangover on everything except drinking too much alcohol"

[UncleBob]

Question: Guy works on the line at a factory job. Factory transfers in new supervisor. New supervisor is black. Guy quits because he refuses to work for a black guy. Should the guy be prosecuted?

[thrustbucket]

No. Prosecution should only happen if it can be proven that the black guy lost his job because he's black.

[mykevermin]

Question: Guy works on the line at a factory job. Factory transfers in new supervisor. New supervisor is black. Guy quits because he refuses to work for a black guy. Should the guy be prosecuted?

Who suffered from discrimination in this case?

[elprincipe]

Who suffered from discrimination in this case?

Sounds to me like the dipshit fucked himself over. Case closed!

[UncleBob]

Who suffered from discrimination in this case?

The place of employment is out the cost of hiring/training a new employee because the old one quit.

If it's okay for the government to make employers work with any particular racial group, shouldn't it be okay for the government to make employees work with any particular racial group?

[mykevermin]

cost ≠ discrimination.

I don't agree with or follow your analogy. That isn't comparable to discrimination.

In your analogy, a person is making a decision that effects themselves, and doesn't put up barriers or prevent opportunities to a person because they are a minority.

[itachiitachi]

cost ≠ discrimination.

I don't agree with or follow your analogy. That isn't comparable to discrimination.

In your analogy, a person is making a decision that effects themselves, and doesn't put up barriers or prevent opportunities to a person because they are a minority.

So if a business is bought by a black person, and in response most of its employees quit and go to work for their competitor, causing the competitor to take all the business, you don't have a problem with that?

[UncleBob]

So - one man saying "I ain't hirin' no black people" is discrimination.
One man saying "I ain't workin' for no black people" isn't discrimination?

Either way, you have individuals refusing to enter into a business agreement with other individuals based solely on the color of one's skin...

[camoor]

So if a business is bought by a black person, and in response most of its employees quit and go to work for their competitor, causing the competitor to take all the business, you don't have a problem with that?

This is a pretty ridiculous hypothetical.

[itachiitachi]

This is a pretty ridiculous hypothetical.
I'm sure you could find some backwater town where this would happen, And I'm sure something like this was very possible say 50 years ago.

Also you completely missed the point, being that someone leaving a company because of race hurts the company even if the effects aren't noticeable on a small scale.

[mykevermin]

So - one man saying "I ain't hirin' no black people" is discrimination.
One man saying "I ain't workin' for no black people" isn't discrimination?

Either way, you have individuals refusing to enter into a business agreement with other individuals based solely on the color of one's skin...

busy today, but in a word, power.

in another word, yes.

[itachiitachi]

busy today, but in a word, power.

in another word, yes.
Actually discrimination means making choices based on someones race, group class ect... rather than merit, there is no need for power. (although you could say the employee has the power to choose who he works for)

[UncleBob]

http://failblog.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/fail-owned-racism-fail.jpg

I love the precedents AA has set.....

Holy SHIT... computers are racist!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t4DT3tQqgRM