Then you're discriminating against well off families. No one should be allowed to skip ahead of anyone more academically accomplished. If you got the grades and extras, no one with less should be able to get in before you do.
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Funny you should post. My wife is the health care advisor for her college where she teaches. She has a student with a 4.00 and he's blown the curves on the MCATS and his SAT was over 1500.
He has lots of volunteer service, first rate recommendations, interviews well. Everything going his way. He's even white. So he applied the several top medical schools and he was rejected. His family was low income, so he needed financial aid. Too bad they said because if he was a minority he could have gotten money, but it wouldn't matter because they had minority students which were going to get placed ahead of him (who weren't as academically gifted) so he was SOL.
He's not the only one in this position.
The facts are that being white is a disadvantage, and being a white male doubly so. Someone can whip out all the statistics they want, but in the "trenches" it's painfully obvious to everyone.
I think this points to a need to shift 'affirmative action' type programs away from being tied to race and instead tie it to economic need. There are folks of every color who need help going to school.
Originally posted by: Hacp
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Funny you should post. My wife is the health care advisor for her college where she teaches. She has a student with a 4.00 and he's blown the curves on the MCATS and his SAT was over 1500.
He has lots of volunteer service, first rate recommendations, interviews well. Everything going his way. He's even white. So he applied the several top medical schools and he was rejected. His family was low income, so he needed financial aid. Too bad they said because if he was a minority he could have gotten money, but it wouldn't matter because they had minority students which were going to get placed ahead of him (who weren't as academically gifted) so he was SOL.
He's not the only one in this position.
The facts are that being white is a disadvantage, and being a white male doubly so. Someone can whip out all the statistics they want, but in the "trenches" it's painfully obvious to everyone.
I think this points to a need to shift 'affirmative action' type programs away from being tied to race and instead tie it to economic need. There are folks of every color who need help going to school.
Then you're discriminating against well off families. No one should be allowed to skip ahead of anyone more academically accomplished. If you got the grades and extras, no one with less should be able to get in before you do.
Originally posted by: mattpegher
Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Originally posted by: mattpegher
I just spent 9 hours doing a state mandated course in "cultural competency", in which they spend every moment demonizing a white doctor for not being culturally sensitive to his patients. The hero's of the story were a hispanic female doctor and an african male resident. The problem is that in presenting this material which is designed to aid physicians in overcoming cultural ignorance (in the strict definition of lack of knowledge) it failed to see the reverse racism that it placed on the white male physician. Implying that he had no desire to be aware of the cultural effects that his patients were under.
Historically the state usually goes to far and in the wrong direction in its attempts to eliminate social injustice. I think it is time to reaffirm that old saying that"Justice is blind".
Cultural differences exist and always will but it seems that every race and gender is encouraged to celebrate theirs except for the white male.
This is one of the reason that hate groups such as the KKK find new recruits from outside of their lineage. Failure to recognize this effect only serves to fuel racial hatreds.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
Did they stereotype white doctors? If so how.
The material presented obvious racial issues that a first year med student would recognize without any training and created a white male physician that was oblivious to them, and reluctant to adapt. Painting him as insensitive, white-centric and unwilling to change.
Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Originally posted by: Hacp
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Funny you should post. My wife is the health care advisor for her college where she teaches. She has a student with a 4.00 and he's blown the curves on the MCATS and his SAT was over 1500.
He has lots of volunteer service, first rate recommendations, interviews well. Everything going his way. He's even white. So he applied the several top medical schools and he was rejected. His family was low income, so he needed financial aid. Too bad they said because if he was a minority he could have gotten money, but it wouldn't matter because they had minority students which were going to get placed ahead of him (who weren't as academically gifted) so he was SOL.
He's not the only one in this position.
The facts are that being white is a disadvantage, and being a white male doubly so. Someone can whip out all the statistics they want, but in the "trenches" it's painfully obvious to everyone.
I think this points to a need to shift 'affirmative action' type programs away from being tied to race and instead tie it to economic need. There are folks of every color who need help going to school.
Then you're discriminating against well off families. No one should be allowed to skip ahead of anyone more academically accomplished. If you got the grades and extras, no one with less should be able to get in before you do.
We aren't talking about putting someone financially disadvantaged above someone else, but allowing quality students to participate regardless of their color or wealth.
I am a bit concerned about financial need scholarships and grants since there is always someone who becomes inelligible due to percieved ability to pay. If my parents had been a bit poorer than I might have had my undergraduate completely paid for rather than having to work my way through school. I certainly could not have pulled from their meager earnings without significantly impacting the family. We are talking about a bit of a competition of the poor. The poorest get the money and the slightly poor get screwed.
Originally posted by: BarneyFife
There is no need to beat around the bush. Detroit is what happens when you let black people run a major city. Its a corrupt ghetto.
Originally posted by: n yusef
White men do have less experience than other people in certain situations. For instance, how many men, white or otherwise, have experience being a thirteen year-old girl? The SCOTUS recently heard oral arguments on a case about a thirteen-year-old girl who was strip-searched by her school because she was accused of possessing ibuprofen. The male Justices thought nothing of this, and compared it to stripping in the locker room of a gym class.
Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
I am a bit concerned about financial need scholarships and grants since there is always someone who becomes inelligible due to percieved ability to pay. If my parents had been a bit poorer than I might have had my undergraduate completely paid for rather than having to work my way through school. I certainly could not have pulled from their meager earnings without significantly impacting the family. We are talking about a bit of a competition of the poor. The poorest get the money and the slightly poor get screwed.
Well doc, the answer is sliding scale
Financial aid ought to take in a wider range of factors than it currently does. The total ability to pay is analyzed and assistance is given along a continuous spectrum of financial needs depending solely on what's needed.
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: charrison
...
I would like to know what this white privilege is that you speak of. I dont recall anyone giving me a break just because of the color of my skin. And I would be insulted if they did.
It's not that obvious. You're not going to walk into the mall and get a free ice cream because it's "ice cream for white people" day. In fact, it's not about YOU personally at all...it's about the fact that white people tend to be born into better situations overall than black people. And that assumptions made about black people tend to be more negative than those made about white people. And that stereotyping in general happens rarely with white men, but much more often for minorities.
Originally posted by: QuantumPion
According to Sotomayor, it is about YOU personally (if you are a white person taking a test to become a firefighter).
While anti-minority racism by white people undoubtably exists, it has been fading for decades. I am far more troubled by the spiteful, intentional hatred of reverse racism which is on the rise.
Originally posted by: mattpegher
Don't get me wrong, I think that she will make a fine cheif justice and most of her statements suggest that she will make judgments based on law not politics. That said, I am getting a bit irritated at the openly racist statement coming out of some folks lately. She states that her experience as a latino female would lead to wiser choices than that of a white male. Flip those demographics and every one would be on you like flies on dung.
Why is it acceptable to assert that as a white male, I am privileged and culturally biased. I have had no special advantages. I went to public school in a mixed race suburb. I worked my way through school. Neither, I or any of my ancestors ever owned a slave.
Reverse racism is just as bad as racism.
No...she interpreted the law incorrrectly. There's no disparate impact here...you can't promote people to postions of responsibility who cannot demostrate basic knowledge required to properly perform the job duties...especially in situations that may result in injury or loss of life that will arise during the course of daily job activities. I still got $5 here saying she gets overruled.Originally posted by: jonks
Originally posted by: QuantumPion
According to Sotomayor, it is about YOU personally (if you are a white person taking a test to become a firefighter).
While anti-minority racism by white people undoubtably exists, it has been fading for decades. I am far more troubled by the spiteful, intentional hatred of reverse racism which is on the rise.
sounds like you have a problem with Title VII, not Sotomayor, since she merely implemented the law as it's written and upheld precendent as it's been established. At least 7 other judges involved in the case felt the same. And possibly 4 or 5 of the Supremes will agree.
Course she could have ignored the law and succumbed to her empathy for Ricci and ruled for him bucking precedent, but then she'd be skewered for judicial activism.
?I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn?t lived that life.?
Originally posted by: mattpegher
I think to rephrase my original concern and that of many of the posters. As a society we can no longer tolerate the racist comments of minorities. It is no better to call a white person a kracker than to call an african american by the dreaded N word. It has become fashionable for minorities to make blatantly racist remarks about not only whites but about other minorities. And this cultural change has seeped into the subconcious of many minorities just as many whites may not see racist perceptions that they harbor.
As an aside, as a heterosexual male, I have many anti-gay teachings through my life, and it is only as I age that I notice them. I still will find myself having a laugh at a gay joke or reference. Something that I see as prejudical and wrong, so I try to catch myself before I allow this type of behavior.
You see from birth, I have been taught that I was inherently racist and must avoid and atone for the suffering of the minorities at the hands of white america. I believe that most minorities have been taught that it is acceptable for them to flip the table on whites and free for them to criticize other races not their own. As a society we need to recognize this form of racism as equally unacceptable.
Sotomayor, has lived a "rich life" but one that has taught her that she does not need to be equally sensitive to all races.
Originally posted by: Fern
?I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn?t lived that life.?
That ^ statement shows, among other things, a complete lack of empathy for non-latina females, saying other groups can't make as good as decisions as she can is insulting, condencending and decidely not empathetic.
So much for her 'empathy'.
Fern
Originally posted by: OrByte
Originally posted by: Fern
?I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn?t lived that life.?
That ^ statement shows, among other things, a complete lack of empathy for non-latina females, saying other groups can't make as good as decisions as she can is insulting, condencending and decidely not empathetic.
So much for her 'empathy'.
Fern
She is comparing her "richness of her experiences" to white men who haven't had "her life" and saying that she can reach better conclusions as a result.
It is funny how two people can read the same statement yet come to completely different conclusions. I see no lack of empathy in a statement that was not meant to be sympathetic to any race but her own.
The statement is decidedly self gratifying. The statement is also worded horribly. But I cannot draw the conclusion that she lacks empathy that you do...based on one statement. The statement was MEANT for her to talk up her own past and experiences and how that makes her a wiser person.
You aren't going to find much empathy for others in a statement such as that.
Originally posted by: n yusef
Originally posted by: Atreus21
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: mattpegher
Don't get me wrong, I think that she will make a fine cheif justice and most of her statements suggest that she will make judgments based on law not politics. That said, I am getting a bit irritated at the openly racist statement coming out of some folks lately. She states that her experience as a latino female would lead to wiser choices than that of a white male. Flip those demographics and every one would be on you like flies on dung.
Why is it acceptable to assert that as a white male, I am privileged and culturally biased. I have had no special advantages. I went to public school in a mixed race suburb. I worked my way through school. Neither, I or any of my ancestors ever owned a slave.
Reverse racism is just as bad as racism.
Well first of all if you read her statement in context it is talking about the value of experience, not how whitey sucks.
Second of all, you most certainly have had special advantages for being white, you just haven't been aware of it. Study after study shows that there are explicit, institutional advantages for being white. They aren't your fault, but you should be aware of them.
Who cares about their experiences...what does the LAW SAY... thats ALL THAT SHOULD MATTER.
Disagree with first sentence. Assuming that all white males have had less experience is prejudicial.
White men do have less experience than other people in certain situations. For instance, how many men, white or otherwise, have experience being a thirteen year-old girl? The SCOTUS recently heard oral arguments on a case about a thirteen-year-old girl who was strip-searched by her school because she was accused of possessing ibuprofen. The male Justices thought nothing of this, and compared it to stripping in the locker room of a gym class.
In Justice Ginsburg's words, "They have never been a 13-year-old girl," Ginsburg said. "It's a very sensitive age for a girl. I didn't think that my colleagues, some of them, quite understood."
Originally posted by: Fern
That you "see no lack of empathy in a statement that was not meant to be sympathetic to any race but her own" says it all; too bad you don't understand your own words.
Fern
I question whether or not that was an "unguarded remark" considering it was a written speech in front of a crowd of Latinos celebrating the Latino heritage. Rather, I think it was a statement lacking a cogent point, meant to be interpreted by audience under the theme of race and the racial makeup of the judicial system back in 2001 from her perspective.I agree and acknowlwdge it is a single statement, therefore we must examine her body of work (and other unguarded remarks) to see how deep this sentiment runs within her. However, it is widely thought that we reveal our truest self when among those those we feel most comfortable with - isn't that what we've been taught in the MSM, at least as far as Repubs/conservatives go?
Originally posted by: Vic
It's almost tragic to see how badly the Pubs pwned themselves on this issue. Like watching a blind kid trip and fall.
Originally posted by: Phokus
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21...0/vp/30968650#31005313
(poor white people, they have to sit in the back of the bus and drink from different water fountains now!)
Republicans.txt