Supreme Court rules against racial discrimination in suprisingly close vote

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.
 
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. :)
 
[quote name='dmaul1114'](I found in a study published last year that it increased fear)[/QUOTE]

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.
 
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.

[quote name='mykevermin']
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.
[/QUOTE]

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.
 
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."
Click to expand...

So not much there. Crowley didn't have any comments.
 
[quote name='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.

[/QUOTE]
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.
 
[quote name='itachiitachi']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.[/QUOTE]


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.
 
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.
 
^Yeah all those retired racist police officers like the guy who called Gates a jungle monkey. Oh, wait..He wasn't retired? Nice try.
 
[quote name='HowStern']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.[/QUOTE]


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.
 
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."
 
[quote name='UncleBob']To be fair, you're the one comparing an officer arresting a disorderly citizen to officers beating citizens in the streets.[/QUOTE]

:lol::applause:
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
[quote name='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...[/QUOTE]

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.
 
[quote name='ToadallyAwesome']Please exercise your civil liberties and freedom of speech by verbally abusing a cop if one ever approaches you to ask a question.
.[/QUOTE]

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.
 
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
Click to expand...

Doesn't really have anything to do with much that is going on in this topic, but I figured I'd post it anyways.​
 
[quote name='HowStern']There is a difference between a cop politely inquiring about something and accusing you of breaking into your own home.
[/QUOTE]

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.
 
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.
 
[quote name='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.[/QUOTE]

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.chicagotribune.com/news/sns-ap-us-harvard-scholar-arresting-officer,0,4731766.story

Leon supports him. Sorry.
 
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.
 
[quote name='HowStern']
@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.[/QUOTE]

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.
 
[quote name='HowStern']If we support to the cops for arresting people who speak up, then who will speak up?
[/QUOTE]

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.
 
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.
 
[quote name='HowStern']@UncleBob, calling someone a pig is hardly comparable to threatening to mace a person because they are a "jungle monkey."[/QUOTE]

Perhaps good ol' folk like 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."
Click to expand...

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?
 
[quote name='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.[/QUOTE]

Verbal assault?
 
[quote name='KingBroly']Verbal assault?[/QUOTE]

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.
 
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.
 
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!"
 
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).
 
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.
 
[quote name='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.[/QUOTE]

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.
 
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.
 
[quote name='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.[/QUOTE]

Stop confusing us with your damn facts.
 
in depascals world anyone who exhibits a shred of conservatism is republican. and since bush was a republican all conservatives supported everything he did.
 
[quote name='depascal22']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.[/QUOTE]
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.-MLK
Click to expand...
What 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.
Click to expand...
I would suggest yelling at the Democrats, because they are the ones who got it passed.
 
[quote name='fullmetalfan720']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.
[/QUOTE]

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.
 
[quote name='HowStern']No. Affirmative action is to help create equality.[/quote]
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
[quote name='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)[/quote]
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
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
Sure.
And the ruling was to keep test scores part of the promotion guidelines in spite of this. This actually hurts your argument.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
I'm sure that the race is no where in the definition of AA.

[quote name='mykevermin']How do you propose fighting the racial discrimination that happens in the hiring process - with or without Affirmative Action - that disproportionately harms minorities?[/quote]
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.
Click to expand...
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?
 
[quote name='fullmetalfan720']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?[/QUOTE]

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 must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top