|
|
|
Snake
SFN Addict
USA
2511 Posts |
 Posted - 08/03/2003 : 23:32:56
|
http://www.racialprivacy.org
So, you want to debate this?
I can't believe so many people are so negative about this proposition and they are so wrong.
Seems only logical to me that one should be judged on his ability only, not the color of his skin....And not be given an extra 20 points to get into college JUST because he's certain race or denied entry for the same reasons.
Kil will post the opposing view (if he doesn't I will ) and it doesn't hold water if you ask me but I'd like to see some convincing reasons posted that could make sense.
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
 Posted - 08/04/2003 : 08:35:46 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Snake
http://www.racialprivacy.org
So, you want to debate this?
I can't believe so many people are so negative about this proposition and they are so wrong.
Seems only logical to me that one should be judged on his ability only, not the color of his skin....And not be given an extra 20 points to get into college JUST because he's certain race or denied entry for the same reasons.
Kil will post the opposing view (if he doesn't I will) and it doesn't hold water if you ask me but I'd like to see some convincing reasons posted that could make sense.
OK. I'll bite.
This proposition is ahead of it's time. While there have been leaps and bounds made in race relations, it isn't to the point where potential employers are color blind.
http://www.irs.princeton.edu/krueger/names2.htm
I do not support giving extra points to applicants based on race, nor racial quotas. I think that colleges should more actively recruit minority students. In that way, if a student looses out on admissions it is due to their ability and the racial diversity of the campus is based on the talent of the applicants not the color of their skin. (Basically, higher population of minority students based on more qualified applicants recieved from the racial category.)
You still need the incentives of equal opportunity. But it needs to be reasonable. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
 |
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5311 Posts |
Posted - 08/04/2003 : 09:11:16 [Permalink]
|
when you think everyone is judged by their ability only then let me know. Until then, let's try and correct some of the problems that institutional racism has caused.
quote:
Originally posted by Snake
http://www.racialprivacy.org
So, you want to debate this?
I can't believe so many people are so negative about this proposition and they are so wrong.
Seems only logical to me that one should be judged on his ability only, not the color of his skin....And not be given an extra 20 points to get into college JUST because he's certain race or denied entry for the same reasons.
Kil will post the opposing view (if he doesn't I will) and it doesn't hold water if you ask me but I'd like to see some convincing reasons posted that could make sense.
|
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5311 Posts |
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13481 Posts |
Posted - 08/04/2003 : 10:49:31 [Permalink]
|
http://www.informedcalifornia.org/facts.shtml
quote:
I can't believe so many people are so negative about this proposition and they are so wrong.
Maybe because it's a bad proposition? That darned ol' ACLU is in opposition to 54.
Could it be that the proposition itself is racist?
Healthcare professionals are against it. It would make it very hard to track illness in certain populations making it very difficult to target treatment programs. I suppose they are racist too.
The PTA is in opposition. We all know what a bunch of racists they are.
The list of reasons to vote against this racist proposition are many.
quote:
Seems only logical to me that one should be judged on his ability only, not the color of his skin....
I agree. But this proposition will only make it harder to track who is being judged and why. There will be no way to access trends because the data will not be available anymore.
quote:
Kil will post the opposing view (if he doesn't I will ) and it doesn't hold water if you ask me but I'd like to see some convincing reasons posted that could make sense.
I think our initiative process stinks. People who really know nothing are asked to sign a petition to get things like the "Racial Privacy Act" on the ballet. Sure, it sounds good. Racial Privacy was the name the 54 people came up with in focus groups to make it sound like you were actually voting to protect peoples privacy. The real intent of the proposition and its ramifications are hidden in the language of the actual proposition that the average voter will probably not bother to read. And even if they do read it, they are ill equipped to understand how far reaching any negative effect might be.
Snake says: quote:
And not be given an extra 20 points to get into college JUST because he's certain race or denied entry for the same reasons.
Californians have already voted away affirmative action. It is already against the law in California to use race as a criteria for getting into college. And yet, even though I have pointed that out to Snake on more then one occasion, she persist in fighting a fight she has already won. This part of her argument is a strawman if ever there was one.
Now look, we are arguing California politics here, which is probably boring. I would be willing to take on the initiative process in this thread. Beyond what I have already commented on, I am not willing to continue this debate at SFN unless people from other states are interested.
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13481 Posts |
Posted - 08/04/2003 : 11:13:05 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Valiant Dancer:
I think that colleges should more actively recruit minority students. In that way, if a student looses out on admissions it is due to their ability and the racial diversity of the campus is based on the talent of the applicants not the color of their skin.
Under prop. 54, this would not be possible... |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Snake
SFN Addict
USA
2511 Posts |
Posted - 08/04/2003 : 19:33:11 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kil
http://www.informedcalifornia.org/facts.shtml
quote:
I can't believe so many people are so negative about this proposition and they are so wrong.
Maybe because it's a bad proposition? That darned ol' ACLU is in opposition to 54.
Could it be that the proposition itself is racist?
That's the way 'the other side' has to act when they have no valid arguments. Go ahead and use the word racist, it's not going to change the fact that what 54 says is a good thing.
quote:
Healthcare professionals are against it. It would make it very hard to track illness in certain populations making it very difficult to target treatment programs. I suppose they are racist too.
The PTA is in opposition. We all know what a bunch of racists they are.
The list of reasons to vote against this racist proposition are many.
Yes, I read all those reasons but they don't explain how or why. They are for getting people hysterical. I was hoping to hear some answers.
quote:
I think our initiative process stinks. People who really know nothing are asked to sign a petition to get things like the "Racial Privacy Act" on the ballet. Sure, it sounds good. Racial Privacy was the name the 54 people came up with in focus groups to make it sound like you were actually voting to protect peoples privacy. The real intent of the proposition and its ramifications are hidden in the language of the actual proposition that the average voter will probably not bother to read. And even if they do read it, they are ill equipped to understand how far reaching any negative effect might be.
You don't give people much credit do you. Sure, there are those who will listen to the pros and cons and will be swayed by them but don't you think the others who do know and can understand will balance that out.
quote:
Californians have already voted away affirmative action. It is already against the law in California to use race as a criteria for getting into college. And yet, even though I have pointed that out to Snake on more then one occasion, she(he) persist in fighting a fight she has already won. This part of her argument is a strawman if ever there was one.
More than one occasion, you make it sound like that's all we talk about! I mentioned that point because this IS more than a California issue and others might not know about it and there are schools who do it, perhaps not in California but I was not speaking of Cal. only.
quote:
Now look, we are arguing California politics here, which is probably boring. I would be willing to take on the initiative process in this thread. Beyond what I have already commented on, I am not willing to continue this debate at SFN unless people from other states are interested.
Perhaps I should have made it more clear that this wasn't about California but racial preferances in general. Only put up that website because it explains the points. |
|
|
|
Snake
SFN Addict
USA
2511 Posts |
Posted - 08/04/2003 : 19:58:24 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
OK. I'll bite.
Oh, goody! Mmmm.
quote:
This proposition is ahead of it's time. While there have been leaps and bounds made in race relations, it isn't to the point where potential employers are color blind.
Do they need to be and how is it that the government should force them? Business owners should have the freedom to hire anyone they want, or don't want.
quote:
You still need the incentives of equal opportunity. But it needs to be reasonable.
Life is not fair, nor equal. Why is everyone trying to make it so? Or make it diverse also?
Didn't intend to make this too personal, but I went to schools that were 99% white and Jewish, I am white. To this day I've never dated a Jewish guy....and I don't count the one nice guy who was a convert. (boy...converts they sure go overboard, but that's another story) and not many white guys compaired to all the others. Both the guys I've legally married were other than white race. I know several people who are married outside their race. So how do you explain that? Things(races and cultures) are mixed up already we don't need any government interference.
|
|
|
|
Snake
SFN Addict
USA
2511 Posts |
Posted - 08/04/2003 : 20:06:43 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Gorgo
Wonder what they'd do with Bubba and Leona May.
LOL. A Rose by any other name.......
What's in a name?
Can you think of a more approprate time to use that quote?
quote:
http://www.irs.princeton.edu/krueger/names2.htm
I know someone named Tanisha, oddly enough she happens to be black. She works in my former doctors office. Think I'll call and ask her how she got her job.
BTW, she's the most competent person in the office, can't imagine her not being able to get a job because of her name...but we'll see. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13481 Posts |
Posted - 08/05/2003 : 09:27:24 [Permalink]
|
I know I'm going to regret this.
There is no way Snake will ever be convinced that anything that has the potential of saving government a few bucks (54 will actually cost us more) is not a good thing. Even if it rolls back civil rights 30 or 40 years. 54 will do that because it removes the main way tracking is done. The civil right laws will remain but become ineffective since no one will be able to see who is doing what. The laws will therefor become unworkable. 54 is an attempt to create an end run around existing civil right laws.
quote:
Me:
Healthcare professionals are against it. It would make it very hard to track illness in certain populations making it very difficult to target treatment programs.
quote:
Snake:
Yes, I read all those reasons but they don't explain how or why. They are for getting people hysterical. I was hoping to hear some answers.
Removing governments ability to track race effects everything from fair employment practices to tracking trends in health related issues. It removes an important part of the data. If government health organizations can not see who is who, they will be unable to take measures to target problem areas. For example, we now know that diabetes is effecting the black population at an alarming rate. It is on the rise. Those populations can be targeted for increased education in how to avoid the disease (saving money) and how to live with diabetes so that complications do not lead to amputations and such (saving more money). Further, we can study why there is this trend and what can be done about it. If we remove our ability to see who is getting what, all that's
left is data that suggests a rise in the rate of diabetes. That means we either go hunting for who is getting it more often (spending money) or assume the whole population is at exactly the same risk. (Spending a lot more time and money because what could have been targeted now has to be done in a more general way.)
quote:
Me:
I think our initiative process stinks. People who really know nothing are asked to sign a petition to get things like the "Racial Privacy Act" on the ballet. Sure, it sounds good. Racial Privacy was the name the 54 people came up with in focus groups to make it sound like you were actually voting to protect peoples privacy. The real intent of the proposition and its ramifications are hidden in the language of the actual proposition that the average voter will probably not bother to read. And even if they do read it, they are ill equipped to understand how far reaching any negative effect might be.
quote:
Snake:
You don't give people much credit do you. Sure, there are those who will listen to the pros and cons and will be swayed by them but don't you think the others who do know and can understand will balance that out.
I think this issue of the initiative process might be something to debate in the politics area. I do have some strong feelings about it's overall value.
quote:
Valiant Dancer:
This proposition is ahead of it's time. While there have been leaps and bounds made in race relations, it isn't to the point where potential employers are color blind.
quote:
Snake:Do they need to be and how is it that the government should force them? Business owners should have the freedom to hire anyone they want, or don't want.
Interesting. So your saying that if a business owner wants to discriminate, based on race, she should be allowed to. And yet, you are pushing a proposition that says it is for making us a color blind society.
Maybe you do understand prop 54 after all...
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 08/05/2003 : 09:37:22 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Snake
quote:
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
OK. I'll bite.
Oh, goody!Mmmm.
quote:
This proposition is ahead of it's time. While there have been leaps and bounds made in race relations, it isn't to the point where potential employers are color blind.
Do they need to be and how is it that the government should force them? Business owners should have the freedom to hire anyone they want, or don't want.
quote:
You still need the incentives of equal opportunity. But it needs to be reasonable.
Life is not fair, nor equal. Why is everyone trying to make it so? Or make it diverse also?
Didn't intend to make this too personal, but I went to schools that were 99% white and Jewish, I am white. To this day I've never dated a Jewish guy....and I don't count the one nice guy who was a convert. (boy...converts they sure go overboard, but that's another story) and not many white guys compaired to all the others. Both the guys I've legally married were other than white race. I know several people who are married outside their race. So how do you explain that? Things(races and cultures) are mixed up already we don't need any government interference.
Do businesses need to be color-blind? Yes. Unless there is a compelling health issue. They need to hire the most qualified candidate, not the most appealing racially. You are objecting to minorities being given preferential treatment in college admissions but don't mind whites being given preferential treatment in the workplace. Lack of contact with other races does not provide opportunity for students to possibly change their perceptions of other races.
My own personal story is that I grew up in a rural town. I had no contact with minority races other than the functional degenerates that worked for the railroad. (Many had chemical problems) My view was futher skewed by my father's relation of events. I had some contact with Klan member friends of my father. I believed fully that minorities were something to be protected against. Then I went to college. I was exposed to more representative examples of minorities. This changed my attitude towards minorities. I still catch myself slipping into old habits, but I am now making an effort to evaluate those attitudes in a more reasonable light.
Life doesn't have to be fully fair and equal, it does need to be reasonable. In the 60's, blacks had a myriad of job opportunities in both the custodial and home service industries. They had few other opportunities. The equal opportunity employment laws was a way to address the lack of opportunity for qualified people to get jobs in their fields due to the color of their skin.
You make the statement that you think people should be judged on their ability and not the color of their skin, but the reasons for equal opportunity was just that. People were being discarded because of the color of their skin. They still are, but companies are kept in check by the law.
Medical reasons for tracking race in health care relate to diseases which affect certian populations disproportionately. Sickle-cell anemia affects black populations disproportionately. TASACS affects Jewish populations disproportionately. Knowing the race of the patient gives the health care provider important diagnostic clues to aid in treatment.
We aren't taking about people dating other people, we are talking about people having the same opportunity to attend schools and get jobs based on ability, not race. You chose to date people from the white race. Had you been an employer, would you have rejected a more qualified person from a minority race in favor of a less qualified person of the white race? If not, then equal opportunity would not affect you. This is sadly not so for some businesses. (It was not so for a great many businesses in the past.)
|
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 08/05/2003 : 09:39:01 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kil
quote:
Valiant Dancer:
I think that colleges should more actively recruit minority students. In that way, if a student looses out on admissions it is due to their ability and the racial diversity of the campus is based on the talent of the applicants not the color of their skin.
Under prop. 54, this would not be possible...
Which is why I oppose Prop 54. I hope that some day that equal opportunity becomes outdated, but I know it isn't today. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
Cold in here
New Member
Canada
48 Posts |
Posted - 08/05/2003 : 15:50:18 [Permalink]
|
| Well Thank Goodness we have the Canadian Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms here to protect people from racial discrimination of any kind. It is unlawful in this country to hire on the basis of race, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation or mental or physical disability. I think any bill which would require the same thoughtfulness in any state would be a leap in the right direction. |
Toronto is the capital of Canada, and I live in a giant igloo. Blubber anyone? |
|
|
|
Snake
SFN Addict
USA
2511 Posts |
Posted - 08/06/2003 : 00:03:58 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
Do businesses need to be color-blind? Yes.
No. They don't. If a privately owned business chooses not to do business with certain people, how is it that the government should make them?
quote:
Unless there is a compelling health issue. They need to hire the most qualified candidate, not the most appealing racially.
They don't NEED to do anything. It would probably be beneficial if they did but they shouldn't be forced by law.
quote:
You are objecting to minorities being given preferential treatment in college admissions but don't mind whites being given preferential treatment in the workplace.
Are you saying that to me? When did I say anything about whites being given preferential treatment?
I think it would be best if the most qualified were hired but it should a choice of the employer.
quote:
Lack of contact with other races does not provide opportunity for students to possibly change their perceptions of other races.
Nonsense. I told you about me, and you told me about you. Why would you think we are the only ones? The world is getting smaller everyday, people see each other. It's happening all the time....other cultures and races getting to know each other.
quote:
Life doesn't have to be fully fair and equal, it does need to be reasonable. In the 60's, blacks had a myriad of job opportunities in both the custodial and home service industries. They had few other opportunities. The equal opportunity employment laws was a way to address the lack of opportunity for qualified people to get jobs in their fields due to the color of their skin.
You make the statement that you think people should be judged on their ability and not the color of their skin, but the reasons for equal opportunity was just that. People were being discarded because of the color of their skin. They still are, but companies are kept in check by the law.
Fine, now it's over 30 years later we are more 'mixed' up now, times have changed, things are moving forward.
The companies who supposedly are not hiring various people who could be a benefit are loosing out.
quote:
Medical reasons for tracking race in health care relate to diseases which affect certain populations disproportionately. Sickle-cell anemia affects black populations disproportionately. TASACS affects Jewish populations disproportionately. Knowing the race of the patient gives the health care provider important diagnostic clues to aid in treatment.
Oh please. Doctors don't take care of their patients? Someone goes in who feels ill, the doctor doesn't take a history, order a lab panel?
quote:
We aren't taking about people dating other people, we are talking about people having the same opportunity to attend schools and get jobs based on ability, not race.
Sigh! That was an example of diversity and mixing with other races. As you said....exposed to minorities.
quote:
You chose to date people from the white race. Had you been an employer, would you have rejected a more qualified person from a minority race in favor of a less qualified person of the white race? If not, then equal opportunity would not affect you. This is sadly not so for some businesses. (It was not so for a great many businesses in the past.)
I would have replied to the above but don't comprehend it.
Listen! Everyone...every race or group has had some adversities in their history. The Chinese in America couldn't get full citizenship until the 1940's. And in some ways had worse treatment than pre Civil War slaves. They started business and taught their kids to study hard to get ahead. Blacks boycotted in the 1960s. Everyone overcomes somehow and moves on. I just don't see that it's so bad now or as 'bad' as it was. |
|
|
|
Starman
SFN Regular
Sweden
1613 Posts |
Posted - 08/06/2003 : 01:12:36 [Permalink]
|
Anti-discrimination laws are a pain in the a--.
Most countries have them for a simple reason, before the laws large groups of people were denied equal treatment by society.
"We don't care what the tests show. We're not hiring blacks - period."
- Philadelphia FD pre WWI (blacks outscored whites on aptitude tests)
The free market failed to stop discrimination in the past. It will fail in the future.
Not everywhere, but often enough to make anti-discrimination laws needed. |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 08/06/2003 : 07:47:46 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Snake
quote:
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
Do businesses need to be color-blind? Yes.
No. They don't. If a privately owned business chooses not to do business with certain people, how is it that the government should make them?
quote:
Unless there is a compelling health issue. They need to hire the most qualified candidate, not the most appealing racially.
They don't NEED to do anything. It would probably be beneficial if they did but they shouldn't be forced by law.
quote:
You are objecting to minorities being given preferential treatment in college admissions but don't mind whites being given preferential treatment in the workplace.
Are you saying that to me? When did I say anything about whites being given preferential treatment?
I think it would be best if the most qualified were hired but it should a choice of the employer.
quote:
Lack of contact with other races does not provide opportunity for students to possibly change their perceptions of other races.
Nonsense. I told you about me, and you told me about you. Why would you think we are the only ones? The world is getting smaller everyday, people see each other. It's happening all the time....other cultures and races getting to know each other.
quote:
Life doesn't have to be fully fair and equal, it does need to be reasonable. In the 60's, blacks had a myriad of job opportunities in both the custodial and home service industries. They had few other opportunities. The equal opportunity employment laws was a way to address the lack of opportunity for qualified people to get jobs in their fields due to the color of their skin.
You make the statement that you think people should be judged on their ability and not the color of their skin, but the reasons for equal opportunity was just that. People were being discarded because of the color of their skin. They still are, but companies are kept in check by the law.
Fine, now it's over 30 years later we are more 'mixed' up now, times have changed, things are moving forward.
The companies who supposedly are not hiring various people who could be a benefit are loosing out.
quote:
Medical reasons for tracking race in health care relate to diseases which affect certain populations disproportionately. Sickle-cell anemia affects black populations disproportionately. TASACS affects Jewish populations disproportionately. Knowing the race of the patient gives the health care provider important diagnostic clues to aid in treatment.
Oh please. Doctors don't take care of their patients? Someone goes in who feels ill, the doctor doesn't take a history, order a lab panel?
quote:
We aren't taking about people dating other people, we are talking about people having the same opportunity to attend schools and get jobs based on ability, not race.
Sigh! That was an example of diversity and mixing with other races. As you said....exposed to minorities.
quote:
You chose to date people from the white race. Had you been an employer, would you have rejected a more qualified person from a minority race in favor of a less qualified person of the white race? If not, then equal opportunity would not affect you. This is sadly not so for some businesses. (It was not so for a great many businesses in the past.)
I would have replied to the above but don't comprehend it.
Listen! Everyone...every race or group has had some adversities in their history. The Chinese in America couldn't get full citizenship until the 1940's. And in some ways had worse treatment than pre Civil War slaves. They started business and taught their kids to study hard to get ahead. Blacks boycotted in the 1960s. Everyone overcomes somehow and moves on. I just don't see that it's so bad now or as 'bad' as it was.
Here's a direct version of the question. Would you hire someone based primarily on race even if a more qualified candidate of a non-preferred race had applied?
The answer by quite a few companies, especially in the deep South, is yes. Economic opportunities were denied to minorities, including Chinese, and they still need help to ensure opportunity based on talent. Otherwise, in quite a few areas, minorities will once again be shoved into the lowest levels of society based solely on the color of their skin. Look at the poor intercity schools (many of which have severe problems), they are primarily minority in makeup. The playing field is still white male dominated. Removing the protections and the governments ability to track those violations of civil rights. The article I linked to shows the basic problem still exists. The schools would still have the chance (and based on business, a majority would) discriminate against students of minority races based on the last name of the person. All this legislation does is remove governments ability to track it.
And modern medicine is a work in progress. Without asking about race, which 54 discourages, then the doctor would have to depend on the patient to inform them of their race. Consults are done without the patients presence, without race tracked, which 54 makes illegal in some cases, the provider is denied basic diagnostic information.
The evidence shown by the article I linked to indicate that hirings are still based on race, removing a way to track abuse only hides the problem.
You had said that you object to minorities being given preferential status for admissions. But removing the tracking of race removes the ability to detect preferential status for whites. This was interpreted by me to apply to the job market as well from other statements bemoaning government involvent in hiring.
It is the government's job to regulate commerce. It feels that the common good is well served by providing economic opportunities to minorities. This prevents the population, already economically depressed from decades of denial of job opportunities, from being further depressed by a new rash of job opportunity denials. Most of the minority p |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
