Trump wants justice department to come to the aid of beleaguered white people

[Paratus]

Bitching about AA is like bitching about not receiving money from the class action lawsuit against NV for the 970.

If you didn't get any money back it's because you weren't harmed. And in fact you benefited from a larger epeen because your card was faster by comparison.

 

[pcgeek11]

Sounds like click bait to me.The Times made this up due to a job posting.

“This Department of Justice has not received or issued any directive, memorandum, initiative, or policy related to university admissions in general,” she added. “The Department of Justice is committed to protecting all Americans from all forms of illegal race-based discriminations.”

Instead, Flores said the department was looking for lawyers to investigate a 2015 complaint filed with the Department of Education over Harvard University's race-based quota system. The complaint alleges the Ivy-League school requires Asian students to have SAT scores 140 points higher than white students, 270 points higher than Hispanics and 450 points higher than black students.

Late Tuesday, The New York Times reported that it obtained an internal DOJ job announcement that sought lawyers interested in a project on “investigations and possible litigation related to intentional race-based discrimination in college and university admissions.”

 

[senseamp]

If colleges only looked at raw test scores, same contingent of white people would then complain there are too many Asians in college.

 

[senseamp]

Also, legacy admission was devised as a way to stop Jews from taking too many college slots from Protestant whites. Basically affirmative action for whites, yet you don't hear most people complaining about AA suing to stop legacy admissions.

 

[JSt0rm]

Also, legacy admission was devised as a way to stop Jews from taking too many college slots from Protestant whites. Basically affirmative action for whites, yet you don't hear most people complaining about AA suing to stop legacy admissions.

lazy entitled whites need all the legacy help they can get.

 

[x26]

You know those white people who are the largest suffers of discrimination in this country. Those white people who don't wield power in this country. Those white people who were virtually 100% of the makeup of the White House interns. Those white people who are mistreated in a disproportionate rate by the criminal justice system. Civil rights have long been denied to white people so Trump to the rescue.

Wonder if its those same white people where males represent 30% of the population but control almost 95% of the wealth? Yes Trump thinks they need more help.

http://people.com/politics/trump-affirmative-action-discriminatation-white-college-applicants/

You are consumed with Race Hatred.

You are nothing but a Hate-monger!!

 

[HomerJS]

All of them aren't white....

Maybe only a few other colors applied for internship. Maybe the ones selected as most qualified just happened to be white except for a few. Maybe we don't know and are trying to make it racist when it isn't.

When the intern demographic is 44% minority you hire almost 200 people with only 1 person of color. Ok, you got me its 99.5% white. Did you look at the Democratic intern pictures? Those kind of numbers just based on statistics are virtually impossible absent intentional or unintentional exclusion. I can't think of any other explanation considering Democrats didn't have problems recruiting people of color.

My point being if Republicans want to be an inclusive party it would be in their interest to have some sort of minority outreach in their hiring program. I'm saying Republicans seem to be only interested in people that look like them despite the lip service. Its called affirmative action. You know that thing Republicans call evil.

If its your contention having an all (99.5%) white White House is ok there's nothing I can say to convince you. People of color being excluded from one of the most prestigious internships in the country is a classic example of a more widespread problem.

 

[Atreus21]

I believe the argument for affirmative action is that it is an explicit counterbalancing force against the implicit advantages enjoyed by the majority.

For example, if you believe that people in hiring positions consciously or subconsciously tend to favour people of their own skin colour, and that most of the people in hiring positions in the country are of one skin colour, then it makes sense to try to counterbalance that effect with explicit rules about hiring candidates of the other skin colours.

The assertion that has to be believed here is that the implicit bias does exist. It's a difficult area to study and I'm not up to date on the research, but it's hard to disbelieve it when you hear of so many cases of discrimination. This isn't just a U.S. thing, either - Canada, the UK and Australia all need to do better.

I don't believe in implicit bias, at least not as any phenomenon that can be redressed by legal means. It means that people are guilty of bias for a reason other than their actions or speech. Therefore you're guilty or innocent by default, by virtue of your skin color, or some other characteristic that prejudice seizes upon. White people are biased because they are white. Black people are not biased because they can't possibly be biased.

That's simple racism, and prejudice. If we are to use King's definition of racism (content of character, not any other superficiality), then that sword cuts both ways.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

I don't believe in implicit bias, at least not as any phenomenon that can be redressed by legal means. It means that people are guilty of bias for a reason other than their actions or speech. Therefore you're guilty or innocent by default, by virtue of your skin color, or some other characteristic that prejudice seizes upon. White people are biased because they are white. Black people are not biased because they can't possibly be biased.

That's simple racism. If we are to use King's definition of racism (content of character, not any other superficiality), then that sword cuts both ways.

It's also possible that the notion of bias is simply a manifestation of human's requirement to over-categorize and over-examine, as we've already witnessed on a few occasions AI acting with similar bias. Although that could just be the bias of the programmers coming through?

 

[Atreus21]

It's also possible that the notion of bias is simply a manifestation of human's requirement to over-categorize and over-examine, as we've already witnessed on a few occasions AI acting with similar bias. Although that could just be the bias of the programmers coming through?

If we truly want to combat bias, the best way to do that is remove any capability whatsoever for interviewers to determine the race, sex, or any other superficiality on which discrimination might be practiced, from the process. Let them consider the candidate's merits, and absolutely nothing else.

I don't see why that should be controversial.

 

[pauldun170]

If they get rid of AF, what excuse will white guys use for not being able to get into job\school of choice?
How will Asians and white people rationalize the presence of black guys on campus?

Based on the hushed chatter around campuses, only reason any black is on campus is because of affirmative action.

I don't think people are thinking this through. They might have to admit that Jamal actually earned his way vs making assumptions.

 

[chucky2]

I'm sure gop lackeys think they're right.

That doesn't mean much Fail, you're sure about a lot of things and look how that works out for you...

 

[pauldun170]

If we truly want to combat bias, the best way to do that is remove any capability whatsoever for interviewers to determine the race, sex, or any other superficiality on which discrimination might be practiced, from the process. Let them consider the candidate's merits, and absolutely nothing else.

I don't see why that should be controversial.

You would have to remove name and residence.
How will you handle club memberships, awards and activites that hint at the applicants race? "Memeber of African American Student Alliance"
Hints like that on applications are things that results in candidates being declined.

 

[Atreus21]

If they get rid of AF, what excuse will white guys use for not being able to get into job\school of choice?

Their own incompetence.

How will Asians and white people rationalize the presence of black guys on campus?

"Well, I guess they earned it."

Based on the hushed chatter around campuses, only reason any black is on campus is because of affirmative action.

I don't think people are thinking this through. They might have to admit that Jamal actually earned his way vs making assumptions.

That's right. Exactly.

 

[gamervivek]

Sounds like click bait to me.The Times made this up due to a job posting.

“This Department of Justice has not received or issued any directive, memorandum, initiative, or policy related to university admissions in general,” she added. “The Department of Justice is committed to protecting all Americans from all forms of illegal race-based discriminations.”

Instead, Flores said the department was looking for lawyers to investigate a 2015 complaint filed with the Department of Education over Harvard University's race-based quota system. The complaint alleges the Ivy-League school requires Asian students to have SAT scores 140 points higher than white students, 270 points higher than Hispanics and 450 points higher than black students.

Late Tuesday, The New York Times reported that it obtained an internal DOJ job announcement that sought lawyers interested in a project on “investigations and possible litigation related to intentional race-based discrimination in college and university admissions.”

Indeed, the racial issue isn't always black and white, in this case it isn't even asian and blacks, but asians and jews, in the ivy league,

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/the-myth-of-american-meritocracy/

If they get rid of AF, what excuse will white guys use for not being able to get into job\school of choice?
How will Asians and white people rationalize the presence of black guys on campus?

Based on the hushed chatter around campuses, only reason any black is on campus is because of affirmative action.

I don't think people are thinking this through. They might have to admit that Jamal actually earned his way vs making assumptions.

The same reasoning that Francis Galton used,

 

[OutHouse]

If they get rid of AF, what excuse will white guys use for not being able to get into job\school of choice?
How will Asians and white people rationalize the presence of black guys on campus?

Based on the hushed chatter around campuses, only reason any black is on campus is because of affirmative action.

I don't think people are thinking this through. They might have to admit that Jamal actually earned his way vs making assumptions.

Everybody does this including the minorities. Hiring or admitting students to meet quotas based on race is pure racism.no matter how you lemmings spinit.

 

[Atreus21]

You would have to remove name and residence.

No problem. Remove anything other than strictly relevant criteria, if we're determined to eliminate any possibility of bias.

How will you handle club memberships, awards and activites that hint at the applicants race? "Memeber of African American Student Alliance"

Same way they do now I suppose. Affirmative action doesn't really apply when clubs are explicitly race-based.

 

[HomerJS]

Everybody does this including the minorities. Hiring or admitting students to meet quotas based on race is pure racism.no matter how you lemmings spinit.

Excluding minorities isn't? Are we saying you must have 10 people of color. No, but look at that picture again and compare it to the Democrats. Seems you are saying Republicans think only white people qualify for or are entitled to those positions.

Making an extra effort to recruit people of color is not racism, its including people from diverse backgrounds, the entirety of America.

BTW - I would have the same position if Democrats excluded white people from their intern staff.

 

[agent00f]

That doesn't mean much Fail, you're sure about a lot of things and look how that works out for you...

Your work here as a tool against @96Firebird types is already done.

 

[pauldun170]

Everybody does this including the minorities. Hiring or admitting students to meet quotas based on race is pure racism.no matter how you lemmings spinit.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/438/265

 

[chucky2]

Your work here as a tool against @96Firebird types is already done.

LOL...

 

[pcgeek11]

When the intern demographic is 44% minority you hire almost 200 people with only 1 person of color. Ok, you got me its 99.5% white. Did you look at the Democratic intern pictures? Those kind of numbers just based on statistics are virtually impossible absent intentional or unintentional exclusion. I can't think of any other explanation considering Democrats didn't have problems recruiting people of color.

My point being if Republicans want to be an inclusive party it would be in their interest to have some sort of minority outreach in their hiring program. I'm saying Republicans seem to be only interested in people that look like them despite the lip service. Its called affirmative action. You know that thing Republicans call evil.

If its your contention having an all (99.5%) white White House is ok there's nothing I can say to convince you. People of color being excluded from one of the most prestigious internships in the country is a classic example of a more widespread problem.

Well, you being dead set on everything is racial regardless of the facts that you are making up as you go along.... You're guessing and supposing. There is not much else to say is there?

 

[HomerJS]

Well, you being dead set on everything is racial regardless of the facts that you are making up as you go along.... You're guessing and supposing. There is not much else to say is there?

Care to name one thing I said that was in error or "made up"

 

[shortylickens]

Well, I'M sure beleaguered, but thats mostly thanks to Trump.

 

[yllus]

I don't believe in implicit bias, at least not as any phenomenon that can be redressed by legal means. It means that people are guilty of bias for a reason other than their actions or speech. Therefore you're guilty or innocent by default, by virtue of your skin color, or some other characteristic that prejudice seizes upon. White people are biased because they are white. Black people are not biased because they can't possibly be biased.

That's simple racism, and prejudice. If we are to use King's definition of racism (content of character, not any other superficiality), then that sword cuts both ways.

I used to think the same, but I've come to terms with the fact that there is implicit bias due to skin colour / facial features everywhere, all of the time.

Have you seen the comic strip A Short Story About Privilege? It illustrates its point brilliantly, and I don't think a reasonable person can really argue that something along those lines happens every day. The race-is-in-everything argument is similar; let me attempt to illustrate through two anecdotes:

1. There is plenty of evidence indicating that male black children are seen as less 'innocent' than their white peers. Similarly, there are studies that indicate that blacks and other minorities are not only often called upon less in school, but they're generally seen as less capable and have lower expectations made of them than their peers. This has many quietly terrible consequences; black children are seen by teachers and their classmates as not the stars or even equals that they can be, but as drags on a team / class. They don't get asked to join prestigious non-physical extracurricular teams, or get that important TA job for a brilliant professor, or get sought out to join that promising startup while it's still being formed.

2. In the workforce, there's rather strong evidence that your last name can advantage or disadvantage you when it comes to being hired - and also when it comes to getting a promotion. I know exactly the problem that's happening here - with a last name of Syed, I've likely lived it - the hiring manager looks at a promising resume, sees my last name or the last name of Chan, and wonders if I've got a strong accent or poor English skills that'll make me unsuitable for the job, even if my technical qualifications are strong. It's actually a pretty rational thought for that hiring manger to think: Hiring takes up their precious time, and the better you can filter out obvious duds, the better. Safer to go with candidates with the last name of James or Bundy who have pretty good qualifications as well. I've even had those thoughts myself, but thankfully I'm aware of such and can self-correct.

We're not post-racial yet. And people who make unconscious choices to discriminate most of the time aren't the racists that Hollywood shows us; they're mostly good people who are rushing through their already busy day. But could society use a bit of rebalancing to correct for our biases? I don't think it's the worst idea.