Racist Whites

[If you are white and you go for a job interview where there is a black candidate who is much better qualified than you but you get the job would you turn it down?]

If you are white and you go for a job interview where there is a black candidate who is much better qualified than you but you get the job would you turn it down?

Yes

 15 (10.2%)

No

 132 (89.8%)

Total Members Voted: 114

[amelus]

How about we make the admissions process race blind. If someone wants to claim that an economic disadvantage, let him and then allow the adcomm to decide if it is worthy. This way diversity, if this is the actual goal, can be accomplished through personal merit, not skin color.

i'm sorry, this is an unacceptable suggestion.  it addresses all the significant issues that people disadvantaged by their socioeconomic backgrounds face in a more simple, more fair, and less politicized way than the current system.  no major organization or institution can take that seriously. 

Because the only way URM students are disadvantaged is economics?  Family income is a huge issue, but it's far from the whole of the disadvantage encountered by minorities.  Biases by teachers and classmates (both in terms of academic expectations and social acceptance) can make a huge difference in education and in the way that education shows up on a transcript or in a testing room.

Is it possible that being the only non white face in a room changes how relaxed you feel about taking a test?  Is it possible teachers will give a student a lower grade if they feel a little uncomfortable around them, or if the student's dialect is different from their own, or if they don't draw from the same kind of experiences the teacher has?  No, of course not, because obviously the US is a perfect, racially harmonious, and colorblind society.

i said socioeconomic background...learn how to read before you rant.

[_BP_]

ha, yes, that works for me.  so that means you agree with what i wrote?

This would follow if we assumed that race was not a significant issue faced by people disadvantaged by their socioeconomic backgrounds i.e race plays absolutely no part in any disadvantage faced.

So the short answer to your question on if I agree, is "NO".

i dont understand that at all.  if race played a factor in an individual's disadvantaged socioeconomic background then it would be included in the consideration of that candidate as a subcategory.  if it played no role, then it would be ignored.  in other words someone who currently gets a urm boost, but has grown up financially secure, in a solid family, and faced minimal difficulties, wouldnt get a huge boost, while someone who had severe financial and social difficulties, but currently doesnt count as a urm, would get a significant boost.  i'm sure you've heard this before, but i dont see what the problem is.  when race is a relevant and significant factor it is accounted for, when it is not, then it is discarded.  what's wrong with that?

Well you have to admit that you explained yourself much better in this post.  I see no problems with this.

[blk_reign]

this topic never gets old huh ...hope you don't have this kind of time when contracts kicks your ass in the fall..

[amelus]

ha, yes, that works for me.  so that means you agree with what i wrote?

This would follow if we assumed that race was not a significant issue faced by people disadvantaged by their socioeconomic backgrounds i.e race plays absolutely no part in any disadvantage faced.

So the short answer to your question on if I agree, is "NO".

i dont understand that at all.  if race played a factor in an individual's disadvantaged socioeconomic background then it would be included in the consideration of that candidate as a subcategory.  if it played no role, then it would be ignored.  in other words someone who currently gets a urm boost, but has grown up financially secure, in a solid family, and faced minimal difficulties, wouldnt get a huge boost, while someone who had severe financial and social difficulties, but currently doesnt count as a urm, would get a significant boost.  i'm sure you've heard this before, but i dont see what the problem is.  when race is a relevant and significant factor it is accounted for, when it is not, then it is discarded.  what's wrong with that?

Well you have to admit that you explained yourself much better in this post.  I see no problems with this.

fair enough.  well there's my problem.  as simple and just as this system seems, self-proclaimed moderates on both sides seem to refuse to join together to push for this type of system.

[amelus]

this topic never gets old huh ...hope you don't have this kind of time when contracts kicks your ass in the fall..

and you never get tired of posting the same exact pointless phrase (pointless, b/c your readers are a group of people who clearly do care to continue discussing this and thus will ignore your childish lines)

[blk_reign]

interesting amelus..considering the fact that i typically engage in these conversations.. the point that i'm making is that all throughout the affirmative action board.. the same issues are discussed over and over..and they all lead to the same exact medium..


people aren't going to agree.. there's no way to convince some people that there's a need for affirmative action.. and there's no way to convince other's that there's no need for it...

at the end of the day none of us are in control of the policies and continuously trying to educate people that the basis of AA isn't limited to a person's skin complexion is pointless when they aren't trying to hear it..

[amelus]

interesting amelus..considering the fact that i typically engage in these conversations.. the point that i'm making is that all throughout the affirmative action board.. the same issues are discussed over and over..and they all lead to the same exact medium..


people aren't going to agree.. there's no way to convince some people that there's a need for affirmative action.. and there's no way to convince other's that there's no need for it...

at the end of the day none of us are in control of the policies and continuously trying to educate people that the basis of AA isn't limited to a person's skin complexion is pointless when they aren't trying to hear it..

it's funny you say people wont agree in a thread where, within a matter of half a dozen short posts, biting panther and i have come to an agreement.

also, you cant defend your dismissive line from before with an argument "i typically do get involved in these discussions" because that only says that you yourself should recognize how lousy and pointless that line was.

if you want to be cynical and pessimistic, ok, that's your perogative.  but the aforementioned line does nothing (except elicit a response that it does nothing )

[blk_reign]

trust.. it isn’t pessimism.. look around this board outside of this specific thread and see how many people you can actually get to agree on the topic Affirmative Action..

[amelus]

trust.. it isn’t pessimism.. look around this board outside of this specific thread and see how many people you can actually get to agree on the topic Affirmative Action..

but you posted your comments in this thread

[blk_reign]

so amelus.. how do we achieve a multicultural democracy?