A Biblical Response on Race

[777]

Wrong yet again - that is NOT for affirmative action is, neither in definition nor practice - from wiki:

Affirmative action (known as employment equity in Canada, reservationin India and Nepal, and positive discrimination in the UK) is the policy of favoring members of a disadvantaged group who currently suffer or historically have suffered from discrimination within a culture.

Notice that does NOT say anything about the historically disadvantaged group member getting the nod in a tie. That is not what AA is all about:

In 2009, Princeton sociologist Thomas Espenshade and researcher Alexandria Walton Radford, in their book No Longer Separate, Not Yet Equal, examined data on students applying to college in 1997 and calculated that Asian-Americans needed nearly perfect SAT scores of 1550 to have the same chance of being accepted at a top private university as whites who scored 1410 and African Americans who got 1100.

Now official quotas are illegal but in many governmental jobs you get a bonus from the start if you are a minority, a woman, and/or a veteran. Colleges and employers just know better not to write the number down.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/24/u...irmative-action-university-of-texas.html?_r=0

what happened there was there was some state program where all you had to do to get into some of their college was to graduate in the top 8%. SAT scores were ignored, so this was a boon to college sports as a result of grade inflation. Color-blind society indeed.

 

[TCassidy]

Now official quotas are illegal but in many governmental jobs you get a bonus from the start if you are a minority, a woman, and/or a veteran.

Yes, but as a veteran I am of the opinion a veteran has earned that bonus, often with, literally, a pound of flesh.

Being a veteran is a matter of choice. Being a woman or a minority is not.

 

[JonC]

That's affirmative action. All things are equal and the nod is given to the person who traditionally hadn't been afforded the opportunity.

If you're complaining about something else, your not complaining about affirmative action.



Yes it is AA in the real world. You and a lot of folks who aren't cheat about what aa is have blamed it wrongly.



Yes it should be. But if THAT were the case, Christians wouldn't be supporting a man or woman for the office of President who is at odds with God's word.

Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk

Zaac, I'm going to add this:

I think that you make some good points, although I do believe that sometimes you apply them too broad. What is more important, IMHO, is that you have the capability not only to genuinely empathize with the white man who is theoretically unemployable because of his race but also to recognize the inherent racism in such a system that would either hire or deny employment or benefit with race as the final determining factor.

In your explanation you said that all things being equal the position should be determined by race - it should be given to "those" who have not been traditionally afforded the opportunity. It is important to note that those who have not been traditionally afforded the opportunity is a racial statement (you are associating individuals with a certain race, a solidarity based on the color of one's skin). We are not talking of individuals who have been passed by but people who belong to a race which has traditionally faced discrimination. So you suggest they be given the job because of their race to what end? If the only race is the human race then why would race even be a factor? What would you say to the man who was rejected solely because of the color of his skin?

 

[Zaac]

First, Brother, I am not complaining about anything.

You call it whatever you like. You made a statement about AA and like so many folks who have complained about AA in the past, what you mentioned was not AA.

I agree that there is a population that has faced racial barriers, and even that there are generations that suffer because of racist ideologies of the past. My argument is that it is wrong to maintain that model. I simply made an observation in passing that apparently struck a cord with you.

Wrong to maintain the model that those who have suffered and still suffer from racist ideologies of the past should still be given opportunity where it was historically denied?

There's nothing wrong with that model

At an individual level, all things are equal and the position, scholarship, promotion, or job is given to a man because of his race and denied another because of his race then what we have is racism in it's purest form. If, as you say, race is the determining factor in AA then it cannot be anything but racism.

That ain't racism. And before AA, minorities who met the qualifications weren't even considered. The determining factor is giving someone equally qualified the same opportunity.

Now, if you were speaking of the ultimate decision being blind to race then that would be a different story. But as it is, in your ideological situation (the determining factor in AA favoring the minority race) is wrong on an individual level. It victimizes one race with the pretense of being "fair".

How are you being victimized when the other person was equally qualified and considered when in the past he wasn't considered?

On a larger scale you can talk about elevating one race of people (which doesn't matter at an individual level as evidenced by the poverty level among whites as well...percentages do not matter at an individual level).

I'm talking about loving your neighbor as yourself.

For 450 something odd years the majority has discriminated against the minority. Yet some of you are upset that a demographic with a net family worth of 11000 to 140,000+ for white families has been given the opportunity to be considered the last 50 years?

The mentality is ultimately to bring one race down and raise another so that the percentages are equal.

Nope. Wrong again. That is NOT the purpose of AA.

That, IMHO, is anti-Christian.

And that ain't what AA does.

There is still a man who cannot feed his family because he is a certain color. It was wrong in the past and it is wrong now. Race cannot be the determining factor.

It is and that ain't because of AA.

AA is still racism.

And not considering them is racism too. So remove AA and see what real racism looks like.

 

[Smyth]

Why are they "less qualified?"

What do you mean asking such a question?

 

[Zaac]

Zaac, I'm going to add this:

I think that you make some good points, although I do believe that sometimes you apply them too broad. What is more important, IMHO, is that you have the capability not only to genuinely empathize with the white man who is theoretically unemployable because of his race but also to recognize the inherent racism in such a system that would either hire or deny employment or benefit with race as the final determining factor.

That system was in place long before AA and is still in place. For the sake of federal jobs, minorities have to be considered where they didn't have to be before.

In your explanation you said that all things being equal the position should be determined by race -

Nope. They are to be given consideration.

it should be given to "those" who have not been traditionally afforded the opportunity.

Nope. Those who have traditionally not been considered are now considered.

It is important to note that those who have not been traditionally afforded the opportunity is a racial statement (you are associating individuals with a certain race, a solidarity based on the color of one's skin).

It is important to note that those of a certain skin tone who have not allowed them to be considered for said positions in the past is also a racial statement. What's the problem with that?

We are not talking of individuals who have been passed by but people who belong to a race which has traditionally faced discrimination. So you suggest they be given the job because of their race to what end?

I suggested no such thing and that isn't what AA does either.

If the only race is the human race then why would race even be a factor?

Because sin is in the world. And when one group has enslaved another and set up a history of one group being able to prosper while another doesn't, then it will remain a factor.

What would you say to the man who was rejected solely because of the color of his skin?

I'd say you're welcome at my house.

 

[JonC]

Wrong to maintain the model that those who have suffered and still suffer from racist ideologies of the past should still be given opportunity where it was historically denied?

There's nothing wrong with that model

I'm going to stop here because I am not sure where you are going with your statement. The model I mentioned was using race as the determining factor of opportunity. If you believe that there is nothing wrong with that model then why do you complain about racism in this nation? Is it perhaps because you believe that there is nothing wrong with affording opportunity to one race as long as it is not the white race?

How do you justify denying employment to a man because he is white but employing another because he is black? Would it not be better to have a sign once you get to a certain level of qualification stating "whites need not apply"? Wouldn't that be more efficient and honest to the model?

 

[Zaac]

Liberalism (the art of dishonesty) will flat out lie and deny Affirmative Action is about giving less qualified minorities a job (or school admissions, or whatever). "Non-discrimination" is the term for hiring without regard to race. It's not much of a secret that government AA programs consist of giving extra points to minorities. And, statistics show the result of those racial preferences, such as *black police officers are much more likely to use their guns -- and people die as a result of those racial preferences.


*"A study conducted University of Pennsylvania criminologist Greg Ridgeway in 2015 that determined black cops were 3.3 times more likely to fire a gun than other cops at a crime scene. "

Apparently the radical right lies too and continues to show that it doesn't know what affirmative action is.

 

[TCassidy]

What do you mean asking such a question?

I mean, "Why. are. they. 'less. qualified?'"

 

[JonC]

That system was in place long before AA and is still in place. For the sake of federal jobs, minorities have to be considered where they didn't have to be before.

Yes, I remember...not too fondly...when I was a USAREC recruiter.

I'd say you're welcome at my house.

My question was how you justified to a person passing them over based on their race. Do you lie to them and pretend the other guy was better qualified? Or do you tell them that it is because they are white?

I understand the overall goal of AA. But I disagree on Christian principle that race should be the determining factor. If all things are equal, and there is no advantage one way or the other then flip a coin...that would be better than racism as a system. Or increase the qualifications until someone comes out on top. But racism as a system should be foreign to Christianity.

 

[Zaac]

I'm going to stop here because I am not sure where you are going with your statement. The model I mentioned was using race as the determining factor of opportunity.

Why wouldn't race be used as a determining factor of opportunity when the attempt is to give those an opportunity for consideration who in the past, because of race, weren't considered?

If for 450 years race was used as a filter, then why shouldn't it now be used as a determinant for opportunity?

If you believe that there is nothing wrong with that model then why do you complain about racism in this nation?

Because they are mutually exclusive. AA isn't racism.

Is it perhaps because you believe that there is nothing wrong with affording opportunity to one race as long as it is not the white race?

Jon, I know you think I've got something against the "white race"(as you often imply on the sly) which in and of itself is stupid. What you and other white folks fail to comprehend is that white people have been afforded opportunity since the beginning of this country and still are afforded certain levels of opportunity over folks of other skin colors.

It might offend folks. But it's time people started dealing with the truth no matter how uncomfortable it makes them.

How do you justify denying employment to a man because he is white but employing another because he is black?

I justify it by saying for 450 years we gave deference to people with skin that looks like yours. Today we chose someone just as qualified as you but with skin that's a different color than yours because as a part of the government or private or public organization, we want to represent ALL of our people.

Would it not be better to have a sign once you get to a certain level of qualification stating "whites need not apply"?

Is that what the Fortune 500 companies do when it comes to minorities? Is that what the NCAA football DI teams do when it comes to head coaches?

Wouldn't that be more efficient and honest to the model?

Then get the organizations who already have that glass ceiling in place for minorities to put up their signs.

 

[Zaac]

Yes, I remember...not too fondly...when I was a USAREC recruiter.
My question was how you justified to a person passing them over based on their race.

Like this:

I justify it by saying for 450 years we gave deference to people with skin that looks like yours. Today we chose someone just as qualified as you but with skin that's a different color than yours because as a part of the government or private or public organization, we want to represent ALL of our people.

Do you lie to them and pretend the other guy was better qualified?

That's NOT AA.

Or do you tell them that it is because they are white?

I tell them for 450 years we gave deference to people with skin that looks like yours. Today we chose someone just as qualified as you but with skin that's a different color than yours because as a part of the government or private or public organization, we want to represent ALL of our people.

I understand the overall goal of AA. But I disagree on Christian principle that race should be the determining factor.

Race isn't the determining factor. Diversity and representing the people you sell to or serve is.

If all things are equal, and there is no advantage one way or the other then flip a coin

That's silly. If 100% of my workforce is white and I'm selling to a clientele that's 40% minority, then I don't have to flip a coin.

...that would be better than racism as a system. Or increase the qualifications until someone comes out on top.

Nope. That's still skewed towards the folks who have always been in the majority because they have again been afforded the opportunity to do the things that get the extra qualifications.

But racism as a system should be foreign to Christianity.

Apparently not as Christians flock to DT.

 

[JonC]

Wrong yet again - that is NOT for affirmative action is, neither in definition nor practice - from wiki:

Affirmative action (known as employment equity in Canada, reservationin India and Nepal, and positive discrimination in the UK) is the policy of favoring members of a disadvantaged group who currently suffer or historically have suffered from discrimination within a culture.

Notice that does NOT say anything about the historically disadvantaged group member getting the nod in a tie. That is not what AA is all about:

In 2009, Princeton sociologist Thomas Espenshade and researcher Alexandria Walton Radford, in their book No Longer Separate, Not Yet Equal, examined data on students applying to college in 1997 and calculated that Asian-Americans needed nearly perfect SAT scores of 1550 to have the same chance of being accepted at a top private university as whites who scored 1410 and African Americans who got 1100.

Now official quotas are illegal but in many governmental jobs you get a bonus from the start if you are a minority, a woman, and/or a veteran. Colleges and employers just know better not to write the number down.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/24/u...irmative-action-university-of-texas.html?_r=0

what happened there was there was some state program where all you had to do to get into some of their college was to graduate in the top 8%. SAT scores were ignored, so this was a boon to college sports as a result of grade inflation. Color-blind society indeed.

The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights and the National conference of State Legislatures seems to agree.

http://www.civilrights.org/resource...maction.html?referrer=https://www.google.com/

http://www.ncsl.org/research/education/affirmative-action-overview.aspx

 

[777]

So, some Asian pre-med can't get into med school, despite having top grades and test scores, because 450 years of racial discrimination?

Yes, but as a veteran I am of the opinion a veteran has earned that bonus, often with, literally, a pound of flesh.

Being a veteran is a matter of choice. Being a woman or a minority is not.

On second thought, maybe I shouldn't have lumped the veterans in with the others - they ought to have preference in government employment because they essentially do have experience in government employment.

It's the legacy preference in college admissions that I don't know about, but that's not affirmative action in practice, either. This old study:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/...ionid=D7F89ECCAFB4E3BA381A712FD5327F17.f01t02

• Whites (non-recruited athlete/non-legacy status): 0 (control group)
• Blacks: +230
• Hispanics: +185
• Asians: –50
• Recruited athletes: +200
• Legacies (children of alumni): +160

based on the old 1600 score - in theory, you could be a legacy asian athlete, so you'd get a +310 bonus there. Legacy admissions are payback for all the alumni donations.

 

[JonC]

Why wouldn't race be used as a determining factor of opportunity when the attempt is to give those an opportunity for consideration who in the past, because of race, weren't considered?

Because those people were not denied an opportunity in the past. People of their race were denied opportunity, and this denial has rippled to the present in the form of disadvantage. But those people were not denied opportunity.

I do not care about politics (I gave up hope in that game long ago). But we can simply leave it here - If you would deny a man an opportunity because he is white then you are no better than those who would deny a man an opportunity because he is black. I'm sorry, but that's the only way I see it. But I would still welcome you in my home (we'd just talk about something else) .

 

[Zaac]

So, some Asian pre-med can't get into med school, despite having top grades and test scores, because 450 years of racial discrimination?



On second thought, maybe I shouldn't have lumped the veterans in with the others - they ought to have preference in government employment because they essentially do have experience in government employment.

It's the legacy preference in college admissions that I don't know about, but that's not affirmative action in practice, either. This old study:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/...ionid=D7F89ECCAFB4E3BA381A712FD5327F17.f01t02

• Whites (non-recruited athlete/non-legacy status): 0 (control group)
• Blacks: +230
• Hispanics: +185
• Asians: –50
• Recruited athletes: +200
• Legacies (children of alumni): +160

based on the old 1600 score - in theory, you could be a legacy asian athlete, so you'd get a +310 bonus there. Legacy admissions are payback for all the alumni donations.

You're scared of TC. j/k But the consideration you just gave him is the same type of consideration that Blacks and other minorities have asked be considered when they say they are systemically mistreated by police or when they say race has played in issue in a happening. See how easy that was?

That's called EMPATHY. You listened and you considered what he had to say as a possibility. Many Christians don't do that when it comes to Blacks because of preconceived notions they have about Blacks.

 

[Smyth]

I mean, "Why. are. they. 'less. qualified?'"

It doesn't matter why someone is less qualified. I believe you're trolling.

 

[Zaac]

Because those people were not denied an opportunity in the past. People of their race were denied opportunity, and this denial has rippled to the present in the form of disadvantage. But those people were not denied opportunity.

Enough of that same tired excuse from white America. There is a $130,000 wealth gap between the average white family and the average black family in this country. White people have benefitted from what happened in the past.

I do not care about politics (I gave up hope in that game long ago).

Then care about the truth. It is disingenuous for white Christians to act like after 400 something years of oppression that suddenly after 50 or so years, all of the effects, economic and otherwise, have been wiped away.

But we can simply leave it here - If you would deny a man an opportunity because he is white then you are no better than those who would deny a man an opportunity because he is black. I'm sorry, but that's the only way I see it. But I would still welcome you in my home (we'd just talk about something else) .

And there you go again talking like you don't know what you're talking about. Where has the white person been denied the opportunity? You see it the way you see it because you're seeing something I haven't said.

 

[Smyth]

Because those people were not denied an opportunity in the past. People of their race were denied opportunity, and this denial has rippled to the present in the form of disadvantage. But those people were not denied opportunity.

Very few white Americans have inherited wealth. America has had Affirmative Action (an euphemism for institutionalized discrimination against whites) for blacks for three generations. The only thing crippling the black community are Democrats, black leaders, and groups like BLM. Blacks should be driving the criminals out of their neighborhoods, rather than going to war with police -- as one of many examples of why the black community is really suffering.

I do not care about politics

And, yet your post is echoing political propaganda.

 

[TCassidy]

But the consideration you just gave him is the same type of consideration that Blacks and other minorities have asked be considered when they say they are systemically mistreated by police or when they say race has played in issue in a happening.

No, it is not. My veteran status is based on what I did, not on my skin tone or how I was treated. It was because I laid my life on the line to protect our way of life.