bi-racial -- the new minority? does AA work for or against us?

[trustno1]

out of curiousity, are any of you a minority?

[TimMitchell]

I disagree with AA completely.

If AA is in effect, I would say that bi-racial people would qualify. In your particular case, Japanese is usually not considered URM.

AA has good arguments in favor of it, as well as against it.  I think it's a noble idea gone wrong.  Basing AA on socio-economic background rather than race would be a step in the right direction.  AA was never intended to assist Carlton Banks or the Huxtable kids.

I disagree that is was ever a good idea, but I do agree the people who started it had good intentions. There was a much stronger arguement (sic) for it after segregation, but I don't think there is any instituional (sic) racism present today, especially at our Universities.

    

I shouldn't have said that there is NO institutional racism today, but I would contend that their is very, very little. Especially at American Universities, where diversity is often valued more highly that scholarship and merit. The same can be said about corporations.

What I mean by institutional racism is there isn't a wide scale deliberate attempt to discriminate against minorities in a certain organization. In most cases minorities have the advantage. Anyway, there are plenty of threads on how much AA sucks, I don't think we need another.

All we can do is roll our eyes.  I've given up on actually making a difference.

[pikey]

I disagree with AA completely.

If AA is in effect, I would say that bi-racial people would qualify. In your particular case, Japanese is usually not considered URM.

AA has good arguments in favor of it, as well as against it.  I think it's a noble idea gone wrong.  Basing AA on socio-economic background rather than race would be a step in the right direction.  AA was never intended to assist Carlton Banks or the Huxtable kids.

I disagree that is was ever a good idea, but I do agree the people who started it had good intentions. There was a much stronger arguement (sic) for it after segregation, but I don't think there is any instituional (sic) racism present today, especially at our Universities.

    

All we can do is roll our eyes.  I've given up on actually making a difference.

I shouldn't have said that there is NO institutional racism today, but I would contend that their is very, very little. Especially at American Universities, where diversity is often valued more highly that scholarship and merit. The same can be said about corporations.

What I mean by institutional racism is there isn't a wide scale deliberate attempt to discriminate against minorities in a certain organization. In most cases minorities have the advantage. Anyway, there are plenty of threads on how much AA sucks, I don't think we need another.

That's exactly what institutional racism isn't.  Please do some more research before using terms that you don't understand.

Btw, I fixed your quote.

[TimMitchell]

I disagree with AA completely.

If AA is in effect, I would say that bi-racial people would qualify. In your particular case, Japanese is usually not considered URM.

AA has good arguments in favor of it, as well as against it.  I think it's a noble idea gone wrong.  Basing AA on socio-economic background rather than race would be a step in the right direction.  AA was never intended to assist Carlton Banks or the Huxtable kids.

I disagree that is was ever a good idea, but I do agree the people who started it had good intentions. There was a much stronger arguement (sic) for it after segregation, but I don't think there is any instituional (sic) racism present today, especially at our Universities.

    

All we can do is roll our eyes.  I've given up on actually making a difference.

I shouldn't have said that there is NO institutional racism today, but I would contend that their is very, very little. Especially at American Universities, where diversity is often valued more highly that scholarship and merit. The same can be said about corporations.

What I mean by institutional racism is there isn't a wide scale deliberate attempt to discriminate against minorities in a certain organization. In most cases minorities have the advantage. Anyway, there are plenty of threads on how much AA sucks, I don't think we need another.

That's exactly what institutional racism isn't.  Please do some more research before using terms that you don't understand.

Btw, I fixed your quote.

What I mean by institutional racism is there isn't a wide scale deliberate attempt to discriminate against minorities in a certain organization.

I was trying to make the point that although racism still exists ,institutional racism, the wide scale deliberate attempt to discriminate against minorities in an organization, largely does not.

[mbw]

out of curiousity, are any of you a minority?

Screen name = beloved pan-tribal food
Avatar = Abenaki girls
Signature = Buffy St. Marie lyrics

Clearly I'm just a huge cultural appropriator.  Now pass me my crystals and kachinas, and book me a sweat with my favorite shaman.

[pikey]

I disagree with AA completely.

If AA is in effect, I would say that bi-racial people would qualify. In your particular case, Japanese is usually not considered URM.

AA has good arguments in favor of it, as well as against it.  I think it's a noble idea gone wrong.  Basing AA on socio-economic background rather than race would be a step in the right direction.  AA was never intended to assist Carlton Banks or the Huxtable kids.

I disagree that is was ever a good idea, but I do agree the people who started it had good intentions. There was a much stronger arguement (sic) for it after segregation, but I don't think there is any instituional (sic) racism present today, especially at our Universities.

    

All we can do is roll our eyes.  I've given up on actually making a difference.

I shouldn't have said that there is NO institutional racism today, but I would contend that their is very, very little. Especially at American Universities, where diversity is often valued more highly that scholarship and merit. The same can be said about corporations.

What I mean by institutional racism is there isn't a wide scale deliberate attempt to discriminate against minorities in a certain organization. In most cases minorities have the advantage. Anyway, there are plenty of threads on how much AA sucks, I don't think we need another.

That's exactly what institutional racism isn't.  Please do some more research before using terms that you don't understand.

Btw, I fixed your quote.

What I mean by institutional racism is there isn't a wide scale deliberate attempt to discriminate against minorities in a certain organization.

I was trying to make the point that although racism still exists ,institutional racism, the wide scale deliberate attempt to discriminate against minorities in an organization, largely does not.

::sighs::

Once again, you're loud, strong, and completely wrong.  A quick google search will tell you that institutional racism is not a deliberate attempt to discriminate against minorities.  Rather, it is the policies and structures that have an unintentional effect of disadvantaging certain racial and ethnic groups.  One could argue that legacy admissions programs are a form of institutional racism, since minorities are less likely to have parents or grandparents who graduated from elite institutions.  Another example is the 1935 Soc.Sec. Act, which excluded domestic and agricultural workers, who were disproportionately minorities.  These individuals had less opportunity to pass on wealth to future generations since they were not guaranteed income in retirement.  A third example is standardized testing, which some argue is biased towards a certain social and cultural background that minorities are less likely to have.  A fourth is the disparity in access and quality of health care between minorities and non-minorities.  None of these are deliberate attempts to discriminate against minorities.

I really shouldn't have to educate college educated adults about stuff like this.

::remembers why I usually stay away from the aa board::

[Astro]

All we can do is roll our eyes.  I've given up on actually making a difference.

Look, Mr. Canadian or whatever you are.  In this country, we can say whatever we want to say.  And I think if we preface whatever we want to say with "I think," then whatever we say is the truth, got it?

 

I think you're wrong, Hamhocks.

[EarlCat]

out of curiousity, are any of you a minority?

The individual is the smallest minority.

[Astro]

out of curiousity, are any of you a minority?

Screen name = beloved pan-tribal food
Avatar = Abenaki girls
Signature = Buffy St. Marie lyrics

Clearly I'm just a huge cultural appropriator.  Now pass me my crystals and kachinas, and book me a sweat with my favorite shaman.

179!!!

(Would've been 180 if done in a non-European language.)

[Astro]

I disagree with AA completely.

If AA is in effect, I would say that bi-racial people would qualify. In your particular case, Japanese is usually not considered URM.

AA has good arguments in favor of it, as well as against it.  I think it's a noble idea gone wrong.  Basing AA on socio-economic background rather than race would be a step in the right direction.  AA was never intended to assist Carlton Banks or the Huxtable kids.

I disagree that is was ever a good idea, but I do agree the people who started it had good intentions. There was a much stronger arguement (sic) for it after segregation, but I don't think there is any instituional (sic) racism present today, especially at our Universities.

    

All we can do is roll our eyes.  I've given up on actually making a difference.

I shouldn't have said that there is NO institutional racism today, but I would contend that their is very, very little. Especially at American Universities, where diversity is often valued more highly that scholarship and merit. The same can be said about corporations.

What I mean by institutional racism is there isn't a wide scale deliberate attempt to discriminate against minorities in a certain organization. In most cases minorities have the advantage. Anyway, there are plenty of threads on how much AA sucks, I don't think we need another.

That's exactly what institutional racism isn't.  Please do some more research before using terms that you don't understand.

Btw, I fixed your quote.

What I mean by institutional racism is there isn't a wide scale deliberate attempt to discriminate against minorities in a certain organization.

I was trying to make the point that although racism still exists ,institutional racism, the wide scale deliberate attempt to discriminate against minorities in an organization, largely does not.

I see what you're getting at, but that's exactly why pikey said that that is what institutional racism is NOT.

If you're trying to say that overt, systematic, structured racism within organizations does not exist anymore, that may be a better argument, although there are still arguments that cut the other way.  If you're merely trying to say that it's not accepted anymore and, if it exists, is now covert, we may be in agreement.

But I don't think you're saying the latter.