Lowering Standards

[daleduke17]

http://www.sj-r.com/News/stories/27733.asp

This was an article in yesterday's paper. Basically, the city fire and police departments aren't diverse enough for one of the councilpeople. She says that too much emphasis is placed on the interview and that they are subjective. She is concerned about miniorities not being retained, or even making it through the hiring process.

A few months ago the same paper ran an article about recruitment for the same departments. They were actually holding testing in Beardstown (a city with a high Latino population) and in a section of Chicago with a high African-American population. They (the city) were also giving the minority candidates more calls to remind them about the different stages of the process were than non-minorities.

I'm just irritated that it seems like the standards are being lowered on two things that should have some of the highest standards in a city, that being fire and police protection. What is wrong with minorities not wanting to apply? The city says it is an equal opportunity employer, but, then articles like this are printed that are showing that they'll almost skip over a well-qualified applicant to get a minority on their rosters.

When I tried out for a different agency, I had to remember what days the events were on (I did get a nifty magnet with the dates at least) and pass all of the events (which I didn't) without assistance.

Yep, let's have non-qualified people driving the apparatus around town. Once a few 500,000 dollar engines or ladder trucks get trashed, we'll know this was a bad idea.

[Boozy]

Where are you getting this "lowering standards" thing from?

They are simply discussing changing the weighting of certain hiring criteria, partly because they are concerned that certain minorities who would be very good at the job are being counted out unfairly. As the alderwoman said, "I am not convinced that the person who gets 100 on a test is going to be the best person to handle an encounter on the street." You can agree or disagree with that statement, but it has nothing to do with lowering standards.

You don't have to lower your standards to hire a minority.

[DarthRetard]

I believe he may be talking about hiring quotas. It does happen quite frequently here in America. Equal Opportunity is a policy which has been shown to sacrifice quality for quota.

[daleduke17]

Yes, Darth, that is correct. I just have a bad way of putting words to keyboard.

Boozy, I'm not saying that you have to lower standards to hire a minority, but, it ends up lowering the standards when you overlook the best and brightest because they don't fit the demographic flavor of the week.

If there are five open positions and 10 people apply. I want the people who scored 1-5 hired. I don't care if they are white, black or purple with pink polka-dots.

[Seshat]

A few months ago the same paper ran an article about recruitment for the same departments. They were actually holding testing in Beardstown (a city with a high Latino population) and in a section of Chicago with a high African-American population.

Excellent ideas.

As folks know, I'm actively feminist. I've spoken with people who said 'we don't have female staff because we don't get female applicants' - and when I asked where they advertised, most of their online ads where in places where the prevailing culture discouraged female readers. They weren't getting female applicants because they weren't advertising where the women were.

In this case, the goal is to actively encourage people from disadvantaged areas to apply. Putting testing/recruiting centres in their areas will do that. Especially if the normal places for them are places where disadvantaged people are unwelcome, or which are costly or difficult to get to.

They (the city) were also giving the minority candidates more calls to remind them about the different stages of the process were than non-minorities.

One of the subtler problems of disadvantage is cultural. Most people here are accustomed to living by the calendar, keeping track of appointments and the like. One of my problems with my disabilities is that I am accustomed to living by pain. I do things on good days, don't do things on bad days. It's a struggle to live by both pain and the calendar.

One of the problems with people raised culturally Australian-Aboriginal is that they're not used to living by the calendar. They live by the weather, by seasons, and by what needs to be done.

Someone raised Aboriginal who wants to become a cop may need assistance getting to the stage of training, and assistance during training to learn how to live by the calendar (and a whole lot of other cultural things that mainstream Australians don't think of). But this person could be the best damn cop possible for certain Aboriginal communities. Or one of the best cops possible for search-and-rescue in the particular type of wilderness he was raised in. Or might turn out to be a computer genius.

(Note: I have no idea of cultural problems or differences in the Latino or African-American populations.)

I'm just irritated that it seems like the standards are being lowered on two things that should have some of the highest standards in a city, that being fire and police protection.

So long as the applicants are up to most standards at application stage, and up to mainstream standards on cultural things by the end of training, I'm in favour of making sure minorities get a fair go.

What is wrong with minorities not wanting to apply? The city says it is an equal opportunity employer, but, then articles like this are printed that are showing that they'll almost skip over a well-qualified applicant to get a minority on their rosters.

Minorities tend to learn not to bother trying. Articles like this are intended to say 'hey, go ahead and try. See? We understand the barriers to you trying, and we're going to give you a fair go'.

The mainstream doesn't get special treatment, because the normal application process IS the special treatment for the mainstream.

[Boozy]

If there are five open positions and 10 people apply. I want the people who scored 1-5 hired.

I agree, as any reasonable person would.

However, the article also makes no mention of hiring quotas. I think you're setting up a strawman here.

They simply want to make sure there are no barriers in the hiring process that prevent skilled minorities from getting the jobs. Here's another quote from the article:

"The city intends to put more emphasis on preparing all candidates, minority or not, for the oral interview process."

What's wrong with that?

[Greenday]

Blah blah blah blah affirmative action blah blah affirmative action blah affirmative action

It's a load of crap. Good in theory, being used in so many wrong ways.

[crazylegs]

I'm aware of a number of UK police forces that selected a number of people from ethnic minorites over those who were WASPs, merely on the basis of skin colour.

All the forces have now been subjected a large fine under race equality legislation.

Advertising in areas which have different demographics is an excellent way to attract different people to your organisation, as long as the interviews are weighted the same and you're not scored according to the colour of your skin I can't see the problem.

[lordlundar]

They can disguise this any way they want, the point is they are trying to hire based on race to meet a particular minimum. just because they aren't saying it doesn't mean they aren't thinking it. They would not be making the changes they are if they didn't see it as a problem.

They want to take the subjectivity of the hiring process out, which is an error as far as I'm concerned. Would you want to trust your life to someone who acts like a wannabe gangsta? They can do and say everything perfectly, but if their attitude stinks, then it's better chances this individual will be a problem when they have their badge.

Being a officer is a subjective job. They have to watch for small things that a normal person wouldn't notice, most of it subjective. There is no reason potential officers shouldn't be put under the same scrutiny that they are required to put on others. If you have an officer, irregardless of colour, who grew up in a violent area and saw concealed weapons as a regular part of life, they are going to accept these things with the badge, which puts lives at risk.

The reason why it appears only the minority are hit is because of the culture. The black people often proclaim that gansta rap and gangsta attitude is a part of their culture and should be flaunted. This means a positive reinforcement toward violence, weapons, abuse, and most notably an often violent disrespect for authority. If my life is on the line, I certainly wouldn't want someone expressing a gangsta attitude protecting me.

The oral exam typically puts them in situations where it boils down to choosing either your culture or society as a whole, and due to people like Reverend Al Sharpton, who say that if you don't embrace the culture, you betray it, most potential black officers go toward their culture instead. Those that pass and quit are most often the ones who thought they weren't going to be held to account from that test, only to find out they are.

The whole "preparing them to handle the test better" is a load of crap. The whole point of the test is to put them on the spot and see how they perform, because the only way to change that response is through vigorous training at an almost military level, which most police agencies don't have time for. This test was never meant to be one you can study for. Their approach may get more minorities into the force, but it's going to get more in that can't cope as well.

[Rapscallion]

I'm aware of a number of UK police forces that selected a number of people from ethnic minorites over those who were WASPs, merely on the basis of skin colour.

All the forces have now been subjected a large fine under race equality legislation.


Interesting. Could I get your opinion on something? You know far more about this than I do.

When we recruit at my place, we have a panel of interviewers, and we score people based on their answers/actions. This is in a number of categories. However, there is also some score weighting - extra points automatically if someone is of an ethnic minority, extra points if the applicant is female, and extra points if they are below a certain age. The intent was not to exclude people, but as far as I can see to make the company more like society. Our place is still heavily biased towards white males, and we needed some more younger people for continuity of the company.

As a white male of mid-to-late thirties age at the time, I got in by being sodding awesome, as you might expect. However, how legal is this?

Rapscallion

[crazylegs]

extra points automatically if someone is of an ethnic minority, extra points if the applicant is female, and extra points if they are below a certain age.

Is this a pop quiz on how many laws can be broken at once?

Race Relations Act
Sex Discrimination Act
Employment Equality (Age) Regulations

All of the above are being breached, by favouring one candidate over another purely on these qualities if all others are equal is unlawful.

Imagine if you placed emphasis on White Middle Aged Males (such as yourself) and that outweighed other factors, there would be uproar.

You're HR or management (whoever implemented the policy) could be in for a serious shit storm if an unsuccesful applicant ever learns about this, you could be sued and they would win. In addition your company could be prosecuted (if prosecution powers are within the relevant acts and the prosectuting authority decides to prosecute).

In short, your companies policy is HIGHLY ILLEGAL and should be stopped immediately.

[Rapscallion]

Our personnel department - generally regarded as those who will be first against the wall when the revolution comes. They do what they want and perpetuate a 'no blame' culture, which actually works if people accept responsibility for their actions.

That's a rant for another day.

I'm not sure at what stage the above weighting is used - it may be at the paper application stage, or at the group stage. I know it's not used at the final assessment, since I've been on those. I may investigate further.

Rapscallion

[Seshat]

They would not be making the changes they are if they didn't see it as a problem.

I think that if the police force isn't broadly representative, it IS a problem. And I'll use your words to explain why.

Being a officer is a subjective job. They have to watch for small things that a normal person wouldn't notice, most of it subjective.

If you don't have any officers who can distinguish between culturally-variant-but-healthy and culturally-variant-but-unhealthy, they'll make the wrong subjective decisions. It's important to have officers who are familiar with the healthy versions of the different cultures in the community.

Now, I'm not sufficiently familiar with US cultural variations to be able to say anything useful about them - especially 'gangsta culture', which I know only from media. But I do know that around here (Aussieland), we have enough cultural variation to totally confuse a largely White Anglo-Saxon Protestant police force. Fortunately, we don't have one. ;)

It works well that way. Through getting to know their counterparts, the WASPs learn how to tell the difference between a woman who's fine but culturally reclusive and a terrified culturally reclusive woman. All officers getting to know their counterparts educates all of them on the many cultural variations we have.

If you have an officer, irregardless of colour, who grew up in a violent area and saw concealed weapons as a regular part of life, they are going to accept these things with the badge, which puts lives at risk.

Maybe, maybe not. Individuals change. And someone who grew up in a violent area has knacks and sensitivities that the others only develop as they progress through their field work. I think they should be individually assessed.

The reason why it appears only the minority are hit is because of the culture.

Certain cultural elements should (IMO) be allowed for at the application process. Some allowances, such as simple access to recruiting stations, I think none here would object to. Other allowances are more problematic: on the less objectionable side are issues like permitting religious head coverings provided they don't interfere with safety gear or fields of vision; or accepting & training people who've not learned some of the aspects of modern life (see my earlier post).

More questionable are allowances like literary or mathematical standards, or issues of attitude. My preference would be that if the society can afford to trial people with these issues and weed them out after a period of training & assessment, the society should give them a go. But not all societies can afford that.

Regarding Australian Aboriginals who were raised in the culture and wish to become police (or firefighters or whatever), my own attitude is that mainstream Australia has a responsibility to give them a fair chance. Many Aboriginal communities still have inadequate resources, and that's our failure, not theirs.

The black people often proclaim that gansta rap and gangsta attitude is a part of their culture and should be flaunted.

In this, I bow out due to lack of knowledge. I know nothing of gangsta culture.

[AFPheonix]

T
They want to take the subjectivity of the hiring process out, which is an error as far as I'm concerned. Would you want to trust your life to someone who acts like a wannabe gangsta? They can do and say everything perfectly, but if their attitude stinks, then it's better chances this individual will be a problem when they have their badge.


Yes, obviously all black people are like that. [/sarcasm]
Racism is alive and well here in the good ol' US of A.

[crazylegs]

I'm not sure at what stage the above weighting is used - it may be at the paper application stage, or at the group stage. I know it's not used at the final assessment, since I've been on those.

It doesn't matter at which stage its used, its unlawful and needs to be stopped, you (the company) will get sued for a metric fucktron of money if this gets out (which, with the Freedom Of Information Act/Data Protection Act it will eventually).

[Boozy]

Would you want to trust your life to someone who acts like a wannabe gangsta?

Whoa! Where did this come from?

It certainly wasn't in the news article. You're the first person to bring it up here. I'm not even sure that anyone said anything about blacks specifically.

You heard the word "minority" and jumped to the conclusion that the problem was a "gangsta" attitude. Why?

[lordlundar]

Wow. so many people jumped on an example as being my only point of view. And I like how people are calling me racist because I said wannabe gangsta, even though I didn't mention race any time I'm quoted.

Shall I reiterate? The gangsta culture is an example, one that is one of the most prevalent in the US. You can take any racist point of view and stick it in and still make my point of that situation. White Supremacist? I don't trust them any more than wannabe gangstas, irregardless of colour. But no, you call me a racist because I made a possible legitimate connection in the article. Note I said possible. I never said it was the reason, but it is the most likely one.

Why did I choose the gangsta culture? Because the article did mention black people as the minority, and the most vocal people say that this culture should be endorsed by the black community. This is also a culture that is most against law and order and embracing it has a habit of a conflict of interest for officers. A "do I uphold the law or do I support my homies" issue if you will.

So thank you for calling me a racist when the only mention of race I made was as an example of embracing a culture that counteracts law enforcement. By the way, show me were I said I would trust a white person flaunting their gangsta attitude over a black person being responsible. You drew that racist conclusion, not me.

I'm part German, does that make me a Nazi? If you honestly think that it does than you can take your racist declaration, make a flag out of it, run it up a pole and salute because you are more racist than I. For the record, very few of my friends were/are white, with most of them being other colours.

And Seshat, with you mentioning individuals change, I do not argue that, which is a big point of the test. It is to see if they can react properly when put on the spot. And I do agree that their should be cultural differences allowed and there are certain levels that are fine. But once again, it is a blurry line there, and certain levels that shouldn't be crossed. That is where the subjective comes into play. If an officer sees a weapon, I would definitely be in fear for my life if said officer said it's normal. Most likely, those officers failing the test and those that quit shortly after are ones who couldn't handle it.

You are right, having a police force not representative of the population is a problem, but (and I speak from a perfect world perspective here) skin colour should not be a part of it. They're not rejecting people because of skin colour, they're rejecting them because when they're on the spot, they make the wrong choice. This should not change.

[AFPheonix]

The reason why it appears only the minority are hit is because of the culture. The black people often proclaim that gansta rap and gangsta attitude is a part of their culture and should be flaunted. This means a positive reinforcement toward violence, weapons, abuse, and most notably an often violent disrespect for authority. If my life is on the line, I certainly wouldn't want someone expressing a gangsta attitude protecting me.

The oral exam typically puts them in situations where it boils down to choosing either your culture or society as a whole, and due to people like Reverend Al Sharpton, who say that if you don't embrace the culture, you betray it, most potential black officers go toward their culture instead. Those that pass and quit are most often the ones who thought they weren't going to be held to account from that test, only to find out they are.


You don't understand why any of what I'm quoting is racist? Can you come up with any legitimate stats on where black officers overall are more corrupt and give a pass to black people than white cops do to white people?

[lordlundar]

You don't understand why any of what I'm quoting is racist?

Because I said I wouldn't want a person who thinks they're a gangsta protecting me? Because I never said I wouldn't want a black person protecting me. News flash, it can be a person who's white, yellow, black or green with polka dots. If they embrace a culture that accepts shooting someone because they look at you wrong is acceptable, I don't want them having a badge.

And yes, black people have claimed gangsta culture as their culture, and yes, Al Sharpton is decidedly racist and has referred to white people as "white interlopers" and yes, black people with an axe to grind do listen to him and "fight the white". And yes, they are more likely to accept the culture they are surrounded with. It is simple biology; surround yourself with an influence and you accept that influence as the only point of view. Colour is irrelevant, but because black people embrace the culture, it is more likely to happen.

That said, at no point did I say it was absolute. There are people who ignore those trappings and who look at society at large first, and I honestly wish that more of these people would apply. But a history of abuse (I'm talking slavery) and a current culture to hate others for no legitimate reason is a very big pull to overcome, and I commend those people who can, but I do not draw the conclusion that because you are black, you are a gangsta.

Can you come up with any legitimate stats on where black officers overall are more corrupt and give a pass to black people than white cops do to white people?

No, because I never said that black are more corrupt, just that when the snap decision came down to it, the decision was wrong. I never said they would side with their race. If an officer pulls over a car and the driver was acting like a gangsta, I would like said officer to notice something out of the ordinary and not accept it as part of the culture. Partially for the safety of the general public, but also for their own safety. Remember, this is a culture that give positive reinforcement toward anti-law. A wrong decision here means death. Give me more people like Martin Luther King and Bill Cosby, who can get people of any race to pull together and less people like Al Sharpton, who try to drive the wedge deeper, and the ratio is more likely to even out than any "training" that can be done.

I admit my wording of black officers going toward their culture being wrong. It really should be "most potential officers go to their culture instead." At least other people's lives weren't on the line when I made that mistake, and the test makes sure that if potential officers can't make the right calls, they don't have the badge. If you want an environment where your life is on the line because someone chooses to let a possible suspect go based on culture, fine by me. A number of people "beat the system" because of an attitude like that.

[AFPheonix]

When you say "The black people often proclaim that gansta rap and gangsta attitude is a part of their culture and should be flaunted. This means a positive reinforcement toward violence, weapons, abuse, and most notably an often violent disrespect for authority.", you are inferring that ALL black people are that way.
That makes about as much sense as "The white people often proclaim that country music and a hick attitude is a part of their culture and should be flaunted. This means a positive reinforcement to cow tipping, Jack Daniels, hitting your barefoot and pregnant wife, and most notably an often violent yet somehow cool disrespect for authority by jumping the General Lee over a large gap".

Probably a better corollary to what you're trying to say would be to link social class and location to attitudes and culture, rather than simply skin color. That might make better sense, and would give us as a nation a place to work towards to achieve true equality.

[Seshat]

Give me more people like Martin Luther King and Bill Cosby,

Amen to that. The world could use a hell of a lot more Martin Luther Kings and Bill Cosbys. And the various Aboriginals who have performed for Play School (an Australian kid's show - usually played as a two-fer with Sesame Street). Hm. Almost anyone who's played for Play School, or Sesame Street, now I think about it.

Mr Hooper. We could use more Mr Hoopers. :) (That was the name of the guy who ran the store at Sesame St, wasn't it?)

[powerboy]

I am with Lordlunder on this. I would not want a Gangsta to protect me. And yes people, Gangstas could be of any race.

[AFPheonix]

They certainly could, but Lundar specifically linked Black culture to Gansta culture, and that's why I rode his ass a bit.

I don't know how familiar you are with the process to becoming a police officer, but there is a pretty exhaustive battery of tests and background checks to get in. I suspect that someone who is involved in gang activity to any degree or other illegal activities is not going to pass those personality and background checks.

[Fuzzykitten99]

They certainly could, but Lundar specifically linked Black culture to Gansta culture, and that's why I rode his ass a bit.

I don't know how familiar you are with the process to becoming a police officer, but there is a pretty exhaustive battery of tests and background checks to get in. I suspect that someone who is involved in gang activity to any degree or other illegal activities is not going to pass those personality and background checks.

I have been reading this whole set with interest, as I & DH have a good friend (Justin) who went to school to be a police officer or law enforcement of some kind. Currently, he works part time at Home Depot, and PT at a city jail, to get experience.

He jumped through all the hoops at school and has done numerous internships. He recently applied to a nearby county's precinct and I got the phonecall from the screening person, basically asking about his character and personality.

This person interviewing me, asked me what boiled down to the same question, only reworded or about different situations. Of course I never changed my answers, because I was telling the 100% truth about what I knew of Justin.

I was on the phone for about 45 minutes with the lady doing this.

Now, I just would like to point out that I would hope that they are looking at Justin's credentials and test scores both in school and ones that they administer the same as any other person, regardless of sex or race. If they give higher scores to someone else *just because* they are black or a woman, that itself is discrimination based on color and gender.

[daleduke17]

http://www.sj-r.com/News/stories/28271.asp

Here's another article about the Springfield Police Department and their hiring of officers. There's one part that stands out to me like they don't want to raise the standards based on minority recruitment:


He said some aldermen want a higher education level for recruits, while others are worried the requirement could hurt minority recruitment.


I'm sorry, last I knew minorities were allowed into schools that offer Criminal Justice courses (including Lincolnland Community College and UIS - both in Springfield) and also into all of the police training institutes in the state. So, how exactly is a requirement of a four-year degree going to hurt minority recruitment?

I am just getting irritated reading everywhere (like I posted in the past) "minorities encouraged to apply" or "we have to be diverse" or any other language that states "we have to have more minorities".

Just hire whoever the best candidate is. If it is a black man, fine. If it is a Latino, fine. If it is (apparently God forbid) a white guy, fine.

[Seshat]

Given what I've been told in other threads about the condition of the US education system, and the access (or lack thereof) to scholarships and other funding for disadvantaged students: a high educational requirement can act as an effective barrier to minority/disadvantaged access to particular fields of work.

However, lowering educational standards for the actual working intake is not an appropriate response to the problem. The appropriate response, IMO, would be to make remedial education and scholarships/funding available to people who pass a pre-education test.

Basically, my vote is that anyone (white, black, latino or polka-dotted) who has the right personality traits, potential health, and other necessary but not education-based qualifications should be able to apply for remedial education and a means-tested scholarship to the police college. Possibly also means-tested health care. Certain types of cultural variation should also be acceptable at this stage - see earlier in this thread about 'living by the calendar'.

Those who pass the schooling, make necessary cultural adaptations, and finish with appropriate health, are therefore equally qualified for the job regardless of background - and those who needed an assist to become qualified, will have received it.

[DarthRetard]

Probably a better corollary to what you're trying to say would be to link social class and location to attitudes and culture, rather than simply skin color. That might make better sense, and would give us as a nation a place to work towards to achieve true equality.


For starters, true equality can't be acheived because we all feel cheated somehow. It's great to work towards it, and we should never lose sight, but I'll be damned if you can convince me that total equality for all men (and women too, of course), is 100% acheivable.

Second, I think you need to get off Lundar's back a bit. Yeah, he's not putting his ideas in the best context, of course, but sometimes we all get misunderstood. Believe me, I know. Here's why I think it's a little unfair to jump the gun on him, and feel free to "correct" me:

1. Gang Culture is NOT limited to just NY, CHI, MIA, and LA. It's really not. I understand the theory behind it, and it is an applicable one, but not in practice. It's everywhere.

2. Second, it's pretty easy to link one race with a certain type of behavior. Stereotypes exist, good and bad. Accept them, embrace them, laugh at them, and stop being oversensitive about them.

3. I think we're still afraid of saying what we feel as WASPs, to be honest, because we're afraid the Sharpton's and Jackson's, that as being a part of "whitey", we have all been responsible for our black bretheren's downfall. Anyone overly accusing someone of being overly stereotypical and judgemental is really only fertilizing the excuse for gang culture to lash out.

4. How come there's no White Entertainment Television? That'd be racist. No NAAWP? You know what's funny? A black/latino/chinese/greek/whatever man/woman can stand a white man down, and accuse them of prejudice, and be called a fighter against the system. A white man fights against a negative stereotype being perpetuated by the black community themselves, and he's a racist.

5. If the black community honestly had a problem with the way hip/hop and gang culture was perpetuating and fostering violence in the community, they'd fight back against viacom and do some real parenting themselves. I grew up in a pretty violent neighborhood, havent killed anyone. I listen to hip/hop, and havent killed anyone. The music isnt the problem. It's the culture created by it, which in turn get's IDOLIZED by the younger african-american community and saturated in the streets of Anywhere, USA.

Reason no 5 is why it's a class based issue.

In closing, I will be the first to point out that it's not solely blacks, whites, latino/as, or asians, or whatever, that perpetuate this issue, but I have to ask: Please regard my statements as mere speculation and not statement. My best friend Khaled is from Jordan, and the owner of my hang out is african american and we hang out frequently. I'm just here in the interests of the 1st Amendment and Contrarianism. <3

[AFPheonix]

I don't know if true equality will ever exist, but that doesn't mean that we can just put our fingers in our ears and hope that those darn interlopers won't come and spoil our perfect suburban life with their problems. We can still work to becoming as close to ideal as possible.

You're right. Gang culture can be found in as innocuous places as Boulder, Colorado. It's origins are in large city centers, however, and has transported with people as they moved. It' still found mostly in urban and poor areas.

It may be easy to link race with one type of behavior, but that doesn't make it right. It's really easy for me to hang out all day in my underpants but that doesn't make it right, either.

I don't feel necessarily responsible for the way blacks were treated in the past, seeing as I'm a 2nd generation immigrant, but I can certainly be responsible for my attitudes today. The attitudes expressed on this particular thread I find disturbing.

Seriously? White entertainment tv? We like to call that ABC, NBC and CBS. It also covers pretty much every other channel with perhaps the exception of the spanish channels.

Yes. All black parents are bad. Of course.

Show your black friend this thread and what Lundar and you have said. I'd be interested to hear what he'd have to say.

[DesignFox]

Seriously? White entertainment tv? We like to call that ABC, NBC and CBS. It also covers pretty much every other channel with perhaps the exception of the spanish channels.


I don't know, I think Darth had a good point with that one. How are those channels "white" entertainment? Seriously. I'd say the networks are pretty diverse nowadays.

The point is you can call something "black only" or "hispanic only" and it's not considered racism, despite the fact that white people are being excluded.

Point in fact- scholarship programs. The NAACP doesn't give scholarships to white kids. They are only for "children of color".

No way in hell could you ever specify that a scholarship was only to be given to a white child. Oh no. That's RACIST! :eek:

Discrimination is wrong. Both ways.

Lowering standards so you can hire minorities...wrong on so many levels! That implies that minorities aren't as good! What bullshit! The same standard should be held for all candidates!

If you want to try and take people out of the ghetto, if you want to hire more people with different ethnic backgrounds- that's admirable. We need diversity. But don't lower the bar. That's insulting to everyone involved. Hold the same standards, but give people who have no access to the education a chance to get it. Level out the playing field rather than hand out advantages for arbritrary reasons.

And I hate to say it but, stereotypes exist for a reason. We all need to work to eliminate them- some of us by being less judgemental, and others of us by working not to reinforce our stereotype.

[Seshat]

3. I think we're still afraid of saying what we feel as WASPs, to be honest, because we're afraid the Sharpton's and Jackson's, that as being a part of "whitey", we have all been responsible for our black bretheren's downfall. Anyone overly accusing someone of being overly stereotypical and judgemental is really only fertilizing the excuse for gang culture to lash out.

Just as a curiousity: I'm not a WASP. I also know other people on this board who aren't.

[DarthRetard]

Fine, leave out the WASP description. There's still cultural segregation wherever you look, and it just so happens it can swing against whites now too.

AFPhoenix, my black friend was looking at this thread while I typed it, and he agreed, for the most part. He's not always on my side about everything, and he keeps my ass in check if i step over a line, but sometimes I'll step that damned line anyways.

The issue in question here is special interest groups and racial quotas. Even the military does it. For instance, the Coast Guard wouldn't accept me because I'm a white male, and they have "too many". Forget that I'm young, healthy, want to serve, love the water, and knew the Coast GUard's history seeing as I know half the recruiters. They wanted more minorities out of requirement.

Colleges do it. Scholarship programs do it. It's meant to seem fair, and in the paperwork it sounds fair, but in reality the NAACP and ACLU are still trying to make us "right" wrongs our forefathers committed close to 300 years ago. I see stories all the time about kids from urban areas without a hope making it to big schools and becoming successful in whatever they do. I'm not saying we shouldn't help them, but making it so they have a foot in wherever they go when I'm still knocking at the goddamned door makes it a bit unfair, dont you think?

[AFPheonix]

I don't know, I think Darth had a good point with that one. How are those channels "white" entertainment? Seriously. I'd say the networks are pretty diverse nowadays.


Who owns those channels? Old white guys. Who stars mainly on those channels with the exception of a few token minorities? White people. Same for movies coming out of Hollywood for the most part.
What do you guys even think a "white entertainment channel" would look like? The Lawrence Welk show?

As for lowering the bar for minorities, show me where in the original article it said that was going to happen.
Here's what they said they were going to do to rectify the problem:
The city intends to put more emphasis on preparing all candidates, minority or not, for the oral interview process, Miller said. That includes workshops and providing tips on how to interview well.

No one's getting special help. Relax.
I'm sorry you are having issues getting into the Coast Guard. If it makes you feel any better, the Pharm D program I've been trying to get into has been extremely competitive, too. However, I'm not going to sit back and blame my lack of entry on my white bread status. I am doing everything in my power to make myself attractive, including volunteering and taking more classes to up my GPA even further. The only things we have control over are our own actions and attitudes.

As for scholarships, they offer scholarships to anyone with something a little different about them. Hell, there were scholarships available to left-handed people. Are we going to accuse that particular group of being prejudiced against righties?

[DarthRetard]

I don't know, I think this thread got pretty derailed into an over paranoid issue, seeing as the article really doesn't say anything about lowering standards or showing preferential treatment. However, I can see DaleDuke's point about that just being in the subtext, you know? First it's "reaching out", then it becomes "quotas". All in all I'm always game for more diversity, it brings so many different ideas and backgrounds to the table and makes things more comprehensive and understandable.

[AFPheonix]

Perhaps, but if you read down in the comments on the article that DaleDuke posted, the mayor of Springfield doesn't even have a 4 year degree. Actually, most of the argument was about educated vs non educated. There was not a lot of concern about minorities.
I suppose if their concern is that high school graduates from their schools can't write or speak worth a crap, perhaps they need to be increasing the time spent on writing and speaking in their curriculum.

[Seshat]

Fine, leave out the WASP description. There's still cultural segregation wherever you look, and it just so happens it can swing against whites now too.

Never said there wasn't, and never said it didn't. There is and it does, and I think I've said that previously in this thread. If not, I said it in other threads.
(But I don't expect people to remember everything I've said, so - eh. I'll repeat myself.)

The issue in question here is special interest groups and racial quotas.

The sensible moderates in the minorities I'm a member of are strongly AGAINST quotas. The sensible moderates in the minorities I've spoken to are also strongly AGAINST quotas.

You know who wants quotas? Mostly Rich White Men (tm)(*) who happen to be powerful and comfortable in their positions and see it as an easy way to manage the risk of a discrimination suit.

Certainly much easier than genuinely solving the issues causing unfair disadvantage/unfair advantage.

(*) Also people of other gender, races and classes who fit the rest of the description.

It's meant to seem fair, and in the paperwork it sounds fair,

Yup - because it's there to be something to point to and say 'see? We don't discriminate'. Legal ass-covering.

but in reality the NAACP and ACLU are still trying to make us "right" wrongs

No comment: I know little about the two groups.

our forefathers committed close to 300 years ago.

In Australia, there were serious wrongs committed to the Aboriginal peoples in the 1950s and 1960s. And neglect continuing in some areas to today. So we're working on things that are our fault, and that impacted people currently living. This gives us a different perspective.

I see stories all the time about kids from urban areas without a hope making it to big schools and becoming successful in whatever they do.

It's only newsworthy if it's rare.

I'm not saying we shouldn't help them, but making it so they have a foot in wherever they go when I'm still knocking at the goddamned door makes it a bit unfair, dont you think?

You know how ironic that sounds to someone who is a minority (or two)? That's exactly what the experience of being a political minority is - everywhere. Not just jobs, but everything.

Of course, if that's the typical experience where you are for an able, educated, upper working class or higher white heterosexual (or closeted) male who speaks the dominant language as his native language, then yes, the pendulum has swung too far.

(If that's not your description, then you're a minority of whichever type(s) doesn't describe you.)

[Boozy]

In Australia, there were serious wrongs committed to the Aboriginal peoples in the 1950s and 1960s. And neglect continuing in some areas to today. So we're working on things that are our fault, and that impacted people currently living. This gives us a different perspective.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe I read that Kevin Rudd recently apologized to the Aboriginals for past mistreatment.

That was a real cool thing to do, in my opinion.

Sorry for the off topic interruption.

[DesignFox]

Who owns those channels? Old white guys. Who stars mainly on those channels with the exception of a few token minorities? White people. Same for movies coming out of Hollywood for the most part.
What do you guys even think a "white entertainment channel" would look like? The Lawrence Welk show?
<snip>


I don't know. I don't think we should ever have one. I'm just making the point that you can use certain words if you're a minority, but not if you are in the majority.

And the second article does make the statement that they are concerned that raising the educational bar would make it harder for the recruiters to hire minorities.

That's implying that minorities don't go to college and so won't be able to get the job. I think that's insulting to the minorities.

I also think it's bullshit. If candidates should have a college degree...they should have a college degree. You shouldn't hesitate to raise standards because you might not be able to hire minorities. Find those people that want an education and help them get it. Don't lower the bar so any schmo can reach it.

And yes, Phoenix, I understand the point about the scholarships. I'm just making the point that it's a double standard. If you can say only ____ can qualify for this scholarship, then anybody should be able to set any standard they want. No one should be able to cry foul if I say I only want my money going to a white boy (just for example).

When I was in high school, McDonald's offered 4 scholarships. I could only apply for 1 of the 4 because I am not black or latino. And the 1 I could apply for, all the blacks and latinos could also apply for. I don't see that as being diverse or fair. I literally got a lesser chance of earning a scholarship from a big name corporation in the name of diversity.

(thankfully there were plenty of OTHER scholarships I could and did apply for...)

I'm just making the point that shit goes both ways. If you can have a foundation that primarily helps children based on their race... then why is it wrong to have an equal foundation that only helps children of a different race?

More importantly, why should that even factor into it to begin with?

Maybe when a few more decades pass everyone will stop being so uppity about shit...I don't know.

[AFPheonix]

True, a few of the aldermen in that town were worried about minority recruitment lowering due to the college degree requirement. I was just pointing out that the people who actually live in Springfield were more concerned with problems with the requirement other than race. Actually overall, race had an extremely small part to play in that article.

Back to the scholarship thing: why does it bother you so much that some people are offered scholarships (by private entities) based on race, and not due to other differences, such as place of employment, hobbies, groups joined, or other physical differences? Does it bother you that there's scholarships available to people only with disabilities? Should those scholarships be opened up to able people?
Should the 4-H scholarship I earned be opened up to FFA kids?

Keep in mind that we're still in a transition period in this country as far as getting minorities on a level playing field. It really wasn't all that long ago that southern states had to be forcefully desegregated. We might perceive that they're getting "extra" benefits based on their ethnicity, but compared to what we get simply because we're the majority, it's not a whole lot.

[DarthRetard]

AFPhoenix, for me, it's not the act of offering the deals and such, it's the motive behind it, you know? If you give someone a scholarship for being black because you WANT more diversity in your school, than that's fine, it's your school, do as you please. However, if that person gets a scholarship because they're black and it's motivated by the NAACP or some sort of guilt or lawsuit enforcement, it's done for all the wrong reasons.

Forcing minorities into schools who don't want to accept them yet doesn't make them any less segregated or left out, you know what I mean? That's just my view, and to be honest, I'm all for designating time and effort to get more minorities and diversity in our large universities and schools, I really am. A smarter America can only be good for me, not harm me.

[DesignFox]

To answer your question Phoenix, it doesn't bother me directly. What bothers me is the double standard. If I can choose to help only left handed children, then someone else should be able to choose to help only right handed children and there should be no hard feelings.

THAT'S what I have a problem with.

[Norton]

A little anecdote regarding race and scholarships:

From age 2 to age 20, I lived in a predominately black neighborhood. My family is white (there was one other white family whose kids went to private school). In my senior year of highschool, there was a ceremony where awards and scholarships were given out. I was very suprised when someone won a *my neighborhood* scholarship. I had never heard of it before. The option was never presented to me. I have no proof, but I believe I was never considered because of my skin color. As I understood, the *my neighborhood* scholarship should have been available to all kids living in *my neighborhood*


Another regarding school:

I was homeschooled in 7th grade. I hated it, and signed back up for public school in 8th grade. I wanted to take honors classes, but was told that it was too late, classes were full, etc. Somehow, I got into honors classses anyway. I was told that the administration had found a way to fit me in.

A couple of months later, I was called to a classroom for a special field trip. I was the only white person in the room. The teacher looked at me and said "I think there's been some confusion." She did some checking, and found out my most recent records said I was black. It's understandable, since my last name is common to both white and black people, but still I nor my mother would mistake my race on school forms.

I think it's no coincedence that my race was changed on my records and that I was accepted into "full" honors classes.

What I want to know is why didn't I deserve the same kind of help as my next-door neighbors? We were no richer, for sure. We lived in the same enviroment all through our childhoods. My parents had no money to send me to college. The time I spent in college was paid for 100% by me, working a crummy food service job.

I believe black people are no different from me. Isn't that the meaning of equality? So why are they being treated differently, as if they were handicapped?

[DesignFox]

That's another point I was trying to make Norton.

I was lucky. I managed to earn a few scholarships. It didn't pay 100%. Not by far, but I did get some help.

During school, I worked a campus job. And of course I have loans that I'll be paying off for the next ten years. I consider myself lucky, and still thank my donors at every opportunity I get.

Unfortunately, the one program I benefited from got cancelled...but I spoke at their dinners, I spoke at my college, and every year I wrote essays for them to help keep it going. Oh well.

Back to the topic....:)

[Boozy]

I was very suprised when someone won a *my neighborhood* scholarship. I had never heard of it before. The option was never presented to me.

I received lots of financial aid and scholarships, and not one of them was just presented to me without any effort on my part. I had to research what scholarships were available and apply for them.

I can only assume that if you hadn't heard of this scholarship, then you didn't apply for it. Its very easy to blame your skin colour, but frankly, if you wanted a scholarship, you needed to be more proactive.

[DesignFox]

Yes, you do need to search out the scholarships. I had to go to my guidance counselor to pick up the necessary forms, research online, etc. My school made the new forms available each week, and we had to go down to the office to pick them up.

I don't know how it worked at your school Norton.

[Norton]

All graduating seniors met with guidance counselors, who would put together a list of scholarships that the student qualified for. I was offered a few, but never knew about the *my neighborhood* scholarship* until it was given out at the ceremony.


Just to clarify, this isn't jealousy. Since I hadn't decided which college to attend, I would not have gotten any scholarships whether I applied or not. However, I was still given the option for scholarships in case I made up my mind. *my neighborhood* scholarship was not one of them.

[AFPheonix]

Ah, that makes a little more sense. I can see that point, and I do look forward to a time where all of us are on a level playing field and such extra help to minorities are not needed. I don't think we're there yet, though. Of course there's exceptions to every rule, but on average minorities have a harder time getting into and staying in college than whites. That's just the cold hard reality.
Is this a messy way to fix it? Yes. I don't have any better ideas, though, other than the many on school reform that I've beaten into a bloody pulp on various other threads.

Darth, the scholarships we're talking about are not offered by the schools, but by private entities and trust funds. They can give money to whomever they like.

[DarthRetard]

So those private entities are just like special interest groups in the legislature, if you ask me. I don't really have a problem with those scholarships, i really don't. There are so damn many it doesn't even matter. Fastwebs.com can prove that.

I still think there's a teeter-totter weighing in favor of the minorities, here, and I think it's simply because we're STILL sitting on the backlash of a civil rights movement from 40 some odd years ago, that certain people like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton refuse to use as a foundation for advancement, and not revenge.

[Seshat]

All graduating seniors met with guidance counselors, who would put together a list of scholarships that the student qualified for. I was offered a few, but never knew about the *my neighborhood* scholarship* until it was given out at the ceremony.

Then your guidance counselor messed up. Or was racist (against whites). That's not evidence of systemic racism, that's evidence of your counselor's incompetence, racism, or instructions to behave in a racist manner.

It's possible that your counselor's behaviour is a symptom of systemic racism (especially if he/she was instructed to behave that way); but your anecdote gives me too little information to make that call.

[AFPheonix]

I still think there's a teeter-totter weighing in favor of the minorities, here, and I think it's simply because we're STILL sitting on the backlash of a civil rights movement from 40 some odd years ago, that certain people like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton refuse to use as a foundation for advancement, and not revenge.

Then it's a teeter-totter in favor of all minorities including the disabled and gay kids, too, as there are scholarships out there available only to those groups of people.
Government loans and grants cannot discriminate on those criteria, only on income earned. Even then, there's still Stafford loans available to kids in higher income brackets.