Racist bake sale, Pay by race. - CNN

[QUOTE="comp_atkins"]meh.. media hyping this way more that it should be. it's a stupid protest bake sale. you don't have to buy a cupcake. just go across the street to the non-racist dunkin donuts. surrealnumber5

[QUOTE="airshocker"]]Affirmative action does none of those things. All it does is make race a bigger issue than it really is. I'm sure there are people out there who are racists and discriminate, but I think the vast majority of America doesn't. That's why affirmative action is wrong, and not required anymore.ShuLordLiuPei

Affirmative Action: The soft racism of low expectations.

"Poor minority. You know he can't make it without our help."

This isn't the 1950s anymore. The racists don't run the south anymore. The only place institutionalized racism exists in this country anymore IS affirmative action.

When picking my heart surgeon, I gave extra points to the Asians because I really don't care much about how well they can operate on me but more about where their ancestors originated from. Clearly this is an importat factor when making a decision.

I also demand more financial aid and easier admission requirements for left-handed people like myself. The right-handers are the majority and we are the minority, therefore, the playing field needs to be equaled out. Just like the oh-so important factor of skin color. We need diveristy in our schools people.

I can say with all sincerity, that both my wife and I will never forget that meeting. It literally was one of the biggest lessons we had learned (in life up to that point, anyway).

Planet_Pluto

Just out of curiosity, should you have been eligible for more financial aid, or should she have been eligible for less?

[QUOTE="The-Apostle"]I support this because any law that tells people to consider race and/or gender is racist and/or sexist.rawsavon

The only real strong indirect issue with race was what i learned last spring.

I was in need of an internship, and i had my resume written down with my real name - Abdullah. For nearly a month and a half sending out resumes and applications, i only got ONE interview. ironically with an American defense firm called Oshkosh Defense.

frustrated had my resume looked at and i changed my name to nickname - Adam. quite literaly nothing else was changed on the resume. Three days into sending applications i got 3 interviews, followed by two others later on.

Reminded me of the freakonomics documentary, and the underlying race issues that caused the riots in France.

All it required on my part was a name change and i was getting more hits for interviews.

[QUOTE="Planet_Pluto"]I can say with all sincerity, that both my wife and I will never forget that meeting. It literally was one of the biggest lessons we had learned (in life up to that point, anyway).

MrGeezer

Just out of curiosity, should you have been eligible for more financial aid, or should she have been eligible for less?

[QUOTE="ShuLordLiuPei"][QUOTE="airshocker"]]Affirmative action does none of those things. All it does is make race a bigger issue than it really is. I'm sure there are people out there who are racists and discriminate, but I think the vast majority of America doesn't. That's why affirmative action is wrong, and not required anymore.MetalGear_Ninty

The only real strong indirect issue with race was what i learned last spring.

I was in need of an internship, and i had my resume written down with my real name - Abdullah. For nearly a month and a half sending out resumes and applications, i only got ONE interview. ironically with an American defense firm called Oshkosh Defense.

frustrated had my resume looked at and i changed my name to nickname - Adam. quite literaly nothing else was changed on the resume. Three days into sending applications i got 3 interviews, followed by two others later on.

Reminded me of the freakonomics documentary, and the underlying race issues that caused the riots in France.

All it required on my part was a name change and i was getting more hits for interviews.

SaudiFury

In all honesty, it was probably discrimination over religious beliefs than it was race specifically. Someone I know whose native country is India had a similar issue. He converted to Islam and changed his name to a Muslim name before coming here. The name was very simple -- Faisal.

He barely got a hit. The ones he did gave him a "don't call us, we'll call you vibe". No follow-ups, etc.

Then he decided to use his birth name -- Seshadri. He had much better luck then, and had a few offers within a month.

I'm still not 100% sure the name was the issue, and all things like this are anecdotal, but he definitely saw an improvement when he switched to his Hindu birth name.

Either way though, it is sad he had to change anything to be considered.

I have gotten scholarships because on the essay questions my mom told me "Write about all your struggles with asperger's" and despite my objections she made me write my essay basically being "I am a poor pitiful boy with asperger's, please give me monies." She even supervised me to make sure I wouldn't exactly try to write something good and thoughtful instead of making myself look bad so people would feel sorry for me.

That being said I see no discount for people with autism and that highly offends me. :P

the same either way.

surrealnumber5

That's not remotely the same.

What expectation is there that he actually was entitled to more financial aid than he ended up getting? If she received less money in financial aid, that doesn't somehow mean that he'd get more financial aid.

The only real strong indirect issue with race was what i learned last spring.

I was in need of an internship, and i had my resume written down with my real name - Abdullah. For nearly a month and a half sending out resumes and applications, i only got ONE interview. ironically with an American defense firm called Oshkosh Defense.

frustrated had my resume looked at and i changed my name to nickname - Adam. quite literaly nothing else was changed on the resume. Three days into sending applications i got 3 interviews, followed by two others later on.

Reminded me of the freakonomics documentary, and the underlying race issues that caused the riots in France.

All it required on my part was a name change and i was getting more hits for interviews.

SaudiFury

i got that you come from another culture and what not but that is kinda the point, uncommon names are more of an unknown, and unknowns are not a good thing. unknown means you vary well might pull the discrimination card if i see you, now whoever is welcome if i know someone who would vouch for them. i cant speak for most or anyone else, but risk mitigation is high on my ordinal employment scale.

[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"]the same either way.

MrGeezer

That's not remotely the same.

What expectation is there that he actually was entitled to more financial aid than he ended up getting? If she received less money in financial aid, that doesn't somehow mean that he'd get more financial aid.

[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"]the same either way.

MrGeezer

That's not remotely the same.

What expectation is there that he actually was entitled to more financial aid than he ended up getting? If she received less money in financial aid, that doesn't somehow mean that he'd get more financial aid.

I'm usually good at picking out your point ahead of time, well before the textual denouement, but this time I'm not quite sure. With most other factors being equal, and issues like race and gender preference out of the way, would you expect something less than equivalent amounts?

I'm usually good at picking out your point ahead of time, well before the textual denouement, but this time I'm not quite sure. With most other factors being equal, and issues like race and gender preference out of the way, would you expect something less than equivalent amounts?

m0zart

And again, what are the proper amounts? Would he be happier if she were getting less financial aid? Or should he get more financial aid just so the two amounts are equal?

[QUOTE="m0zart"]

I'm usually good at picking out your point ahead of time, well before the textual denouement, but this time I'm not quite sure. With most other factors being equal, and issues like race and gender preference out of the way, would you expect something less than equivalent amounts?

MrGeezer

And again, what are the proper amounts? Would he be happier if she were getting less financial aid? Or should he get more financial aid just so the two amounts are equal?

I could see why that would matter if this discussion were covering ground specific to the efficacy and feasability of financial aid, or if it were questioning criteria other than race and gender in the computation of the amounts. As it stands, the question of what the proper amount of financial aid to any given individual should be, or what other criteria would be used to determine these amounts, would be orthogonal to whether that criteria should include race or gender.

Why would it not be sufficient to simply say that race and gender shouldn't be criteria, and that all other criteria being equal, equal amount should be given, in answer to such a question, at least in the context of this discussion?

[QUOTE="m0zart"]

I'm usually good at picking out your point ahead of time, well before the textual denouement, but this time I'm not quite sure. With most other factors being equal, and issues like race and gender preference out of the way, would you expect something less than equivalent amounts?

MrGeezer

And again, what are the proper amounts? Would he be happier if she were getting less financial aid? Or should he get more financial aid just so the two amounts are equal?

I could see why that would matter if this discussion were covering ground specific to the efficacy and feasability of financial aid, or if it were questioning criteria other than race and gender in the computation of the amounts. As it stands, the question of what the proper amount of financial aid to any given individual should be, or what other criteria would be used to determine these amounts, would be orthogonal to whether that criteria should include race or gender.

Why would it not be sufficient to simply say that race and gender shouldn't be criteria, and that all other criteria being equal, equal amount should be given, in answer to such a question, at least in the context of this discussion?

m0zart

Because I was replying to a specific situation in which a dude and his wife applied for financial aid, and she got more because she was from south america.

I'm not even talking about the general issue of whether or not race and gender should be a criteria. A specific scenario was brought up, and I'm asking what was so upsetting about it. Was it her getting too much money, or him not getting enough?

he would be happy with whatever was given to him and or his wife, it was financial aid, as long as he got more than what he valued the time it took to fill out the forms he would be happy with it, that does not mean he wishes harm to his WIFE because she got more. he only noted that based on sex she got more than he did and how wrong that is. i dont know why you want to turn this into an attack from a man to his wife.

surrealnumber5

Actually, he seemed to be making a big deal out of it, as if it was some kind of huge injustice.

I'm the one saying, "so what if she got more money?"

I mean, somewhere, somebody's going to be getting financial aid that I don't apply for because I'm not the right race/gender/etc. So what? It's not as if they're taking anything away from me by getting more financial aid, so why should I particularly be bothered about that?

Because I was replying to a specific situation in which a dude and his wife applied for financial aid, and she got more because she was from south america.

I'm not even talking about the general issue of whether or not race and gender should be a criteria. A specific scenario was brought up, and I'm asking what was so upsetting about it. Was it her getting too much money, or him not getting enough?MrGeezer

Ok at least I understand the context now. I guess what threw me off is that I thought (perhaps mistakenly) that the answer was obvious -- that it was the double standard itself that was upsetting. Not everyone is in a position to benefit from both grants as a married couple is, and not everyone thinks only of the immediate benefits of their unique situation but of the ethics behind the situation at large.

However, I can see how I might have read that reasoning into his post.

[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"] he would be happy with whatever was given to him and or his wife, it was financial aid, as long as he got more than what he valued the time it took to fill out the forms he would be happy with it, that does not mean he wishes harm to his WIFE because she got more. he only noted that based on sex she got more than he did and how wrong that is. i dont know why you want to turn this into an attack from a man to his wife.

MrGeezer

Actually, he seemed to be making a big deal out of it, as if it was some kind of huge injustice.

I'm the one saying, "so what if she got more money?"

I mean, somewhere, somebody's going to be getting financial aid that I don't apply for because I'm not the right race/gender/etc. So what? It's not as if they're taking anything away from me by getting more financial aid, so why should I particularly be bothered about that?

he brought up the biggest apples to apples comparison possible, two people who have the same economic position comparable grades from the same school and you are attacking him personally to get rid of the evidence.

surrealnumber5

First off, I'm only "attacking" him insofar as I'm asking questions. HE brought up his personal situation in order to make a point. If questioning that point constitutes a personal attack, then he should've thought better than to use his own personal life as an example.

His point seems to have been that they both should have gotten the same financial aid since their backgrounds and qualifications were almost identical. And I'm asking what it would mean for them to get the same financial aid. Does that entail her getting less money, or him getting more money? That's a serious question. I'm asking him if he thinks that she got more money than she deserved, or if he got less money than he deserved.

[QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"][QUOTE="ShuLordLiuPei"] Affirmative Action does what it's meant to: level the playing field for minorities. Nearly every aspect of the education system, like much of society, is tailored by the majority for the majority. Race is a huge issue, I don't see how anyone can deny that. I especially don't see how anyone can claim that Affirmative Action is making race a "bigger issue than it really is."ShuLordLiuPei

As for literature, do you honestly expect teachers to give as much importance to works from other languages as much priority as English literature? Of course not, and like it or not, the best writers of English in history have been white men.

Your comment on science is idiotic beyond belief, and doesn't even deserve my refutation.

Even if what you say is true, then I don't see how this effectively disadvantages minorities, as your whole argument is based on the premise that minorites are intrinsically more interested in the history and literature of those who share the same race, and thereby less interested in the lives of white men. Do you have to be white now to appreciate the genius of Shakespeare? Do you have to be white to listen to Mozart? At the end of the day, white history and literature is just more relevant to Americans then black history or Asian history.

[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"]he brought up the biggest apples to apples comparison possible, two people who have the same economic position comparable grades from the same school and you are attacking him personally to get rid of the evidence.

MrGeezer

First off, I'm only "attacking" him insofar as I'm asking questions. HE brought up his personal situation in order to make a point. If questioning that point constitutes a personal attack, then he should've thought better than to use his own personal life as an example.

His point seems to have been that they both should have gotten the same financial aid since their backgrounds and qualifications were almost identical. And I'm asking what it would mean for them to get the same financial aid. Does that entail her getting less money, or him getting more money? That's a serious question. I'm asking him if he thinks that she got more money than she deserved, or if he got less money than he deserved.

What do you expect? MetalGear_Ninty

Your missing the point. It is not about who deserves what in absolute terms, but rather what they deserve relative to each other. They desereved the same amount of money as each other regardless of the absolute quantity. This should be easy to understand.MetalGear_Ninty

Which again means...either someone's getting too much money, or someone's not getting enough (or both).

It sort of is about absolute terms. If I can look at somebody who's making more money than me, and say that we should be making the same amount of money, then that statement by itself doesn't actually mean anything. Either they're making too much, or I'm not making enough. If I don't know which is the case, then I should probably avoid asking for the amounts to be equal in the first place.

[QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"]Your missing the point. It is not about who deserves what in absolute terms, but rather what they deserve relative to each other. They desereved the same amount of money as each other regardless of the absolute quantity. This should be easy to understand.MrGeezer

Which again means...either someone's getting too much money, or someone's not getting enough (or both).

It sort of is about absolute terms. If I can look at somebody who's making more money than me, and say that we should be making the same amount of money, then that statement by itself doesn't actually mean anything. Either they're making too much, or I'm not making enough. If I don't know which is the case, then I should probably avoid asking for the amounts to be equal in the first place.

In the example given previously, of course the man would rather he have his money raised rather than the woman have her pay reduced. He would be insane to think otherwise, and in general people would much rather earn more to equal the pay of others rather than have another party have their pay reduced to meet their earnings.

Only in cases of sheer bigotry and spitefulness would people wish otherwise (given both outcomes are possible).

im currently living in New Zealand and am doing a Bachelor of Nursing. im american, but yea that maori situation IMO is incredibly racist. don't they also get paid for just doing nothing? pygmahia5

OK, If you wish to be pedantic then I'll comply:

In the example given previously, of course the man would rather he have his money raised rather than the woman have her pay reduced. He would be insane to think otherwise, and in general people would much rather earn more to equal the pay of others rather than have another party have their pay reduced to meet their earnings.

Only in cases of sheer bigotry and spitefulness would people wish otherwise (given both outcomes are possible).

MetalGear_Ninty

Now you see that we have a potential problem. If the husband gets more financial aid just to make things fair, then more financial aid is being paid out to the couple.

That might not be terribly undoable when talking about one couple, but I sort of wonder how that would play out in regards to an entire country. A non-minority can absolutely complain about how they're getting less money than a minority. But unless we start taking money away from the minorities, then I'm wondering how feasible it would be to increase financial aid for non-minorities. At some point we've gotta start asking where all that money is actually coming from.

Anyway, I sort of suspect that many of the people saying how "unfair" this is are sort of oversimplifying the issue.

I guess we could just take the extra aid away from minorities in order to make evrything equal. But like you said, at some point that sort of seems like it'd just be spiteful.

Affirmative Action does what it's meant to: level the playing field for minorities. Nearly every aspect of the education system, like much of society, is tailored by the majority for the majority. Race is a huge issue, I don't see how anyone can deny that. I especially don't see how anyone can claim that Affirmative Action is making race a "bigger issue than it really is."ShuLordLiuPei

The playing field doesn't need to be leveled. People get hired based on their merits all the time, and race isn't even a factor. All affirmative action does is make it seem like there's a race issue in America when there isn't, at least not at the level people like you make it out to be.

[QUOTE="trugs26"]

I'm sorry that you didn't get in, but there is a fact of the matter out there that minorities like Maori aren't achieving what they could. It's also unfortunate that Maori make up a large part of the lower socio economic group, keep that in mind. Consider that if you were born Maori, there is a high chance that you won't go to university. We need these scholarships out there to encourage minorities to achieve what is possible.

Iantheone

For you on a personal level, I suggest trying to go to university at the age of 21. You can qualify for adult entry. Good luck with that.

In NZ getting into university is hardest as a white male. There are no scholarships for you (But there are for every other race and gender) and some other races get preferential entry. I didnt get into university, but if I were born a Maori (NZ native) I would be in no problem, no questions asked. I would also have a job. Iantheone

[QUOTE="Iantheone"]In NZ getting into university is hardest as a white male. There are no scholarships for you (But there are for every other race and gender) and some other races get preferential entry. I didnt get into university, but if I were born a Maori (NZ native) I would be in no problem, no questions asked. I would also have a job. LiftedHeadshot

Here's a basic run-down. Have you ever taken a world history class? That, in itself, is a misnomer; in the American school system it would be correctly labeled "Europeans in the world history." In literature, you find Shakespeare and Longfellow and Yates, but (barring the token characteristically African, Asian, or general non-European piece), how often do you truly find African, Asian, or Latin works? Speaking from experience, even in college rarely does "Comparative World Literature" get further than the occasional Rumi or Gilgamesh, the rest being European works. Art and art history teach the European and American traditions, with brief mentions of (again, characteristically so) non-western art. Music courses are strictly based on European and Americans works, styles, and composition. Science functions solely on the European philosophy of empiricism. Schools, and society in general, instill Judeo-Christian and western values, viewing all outside sources from an extreme etic perspective. And don't forget the delegitimization of cultural aspects such as African American Vernacular, teaching that it is uneducated and inferior. To summarize, the American education system has the ethnocentric view that if it does not conform to European norms and values, then it is not worth teaching. ShuLordLiuPei

[QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"][QUOTE="ShuLordLiuPei"] Affirmative Action does what it's meant to: level the playing field for minorities. Nearly every aspect of the education system, like much of society, is tailored by the majority for the majority. Race is a huge issue, I don't see how anyone can deny that. I especially don't see how anyone can claim that Affirmative Action is making race a "bigger issue than it really is."ShuLordLiuPei

I cannot tell if this is serious.

[QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"]OK, If you wish to be pedantic then I'll comply:

In the example given previously, of course the man would rather he have his money raised rather than the woman have her pay reduced. He would be insane to think otherwise, and in general people would much rather earn more to equal the pay of others rather than have another party have their pay reduced to meet their earnings.

Only in cases of sheer bigotry and spitefulness would people wish otherwise (given both outcomes are possible).

MrGeezer

Now you see that we have a potential problem. If the husband gets more financial aid just to make things fair, then more financial aid is being paid out to the couple.

That might not be terribly undoable when talking about one couple, but I sort of wonder how that would play out in regards to an entire country. A non-minority can absolutely complain about how they're getting less money than a minority. But unless we start taking money away from the minorities, then I'm wondering how feasible it would be to increase financial aid for non-minorities. At some point we've gotta start asking where all that money is actually coming from.

Anyway, I sort of suspect that many of the people saying how "unfair" this is are sort of oversimplifying the issue.

I guess we could just take the extra aid away from minorities in order to make evrything equal. But like you said, at some point that sort of seems like it'd just be spiteful.

[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"] he would be happy with whatever was given to him and or his wife, it was financial aid, as long as he got more than what he valued the time it took to fill out the forms he would be happy with it, that does not mean he wishes harm to his WIFE because she got more. he only noted that based on sex she got more than he did and how wrong that is. i dont know why you want to turn this into an attack from a man to his wife.

MrGeezer

Actually, he seemed to be making a big deal out of it, as if it was some kind of huge injustice.

I'm the one saying, "so what if she got more money?"

I mean, somewhere, somebody's going to be getting financial aid that I don't apply for because I'm not the right race/gender/etc. So what? It's not as if they're taking anything away from me by getting more financial aid, so why should I particularly be bothered about that?

Yes, in fact they are...there's a finite amount of financial aid to go around...

What if black people had to pay $2 fora cupcake and whites only $1? Why should the black people want the white people to pay just as much as them? It's not harming them that the price is $1 for whites, and the cupcake sales people could not stay in business if everyone paid $1.

Instead of race how about we decide financial aid based on income and ones economic standing? It would still help disadvantaged minorities. HoolaHoopMan

No, because if we do that then poor white people get helped out too. We just can't have that!

:lol:

I expected something stupid/trollish,

but find this a hilaious way to highlight a problem there

[QUOTE="The-Apostle"]I support this because any law that tells people to consider race and/or gender is racist and/or sexist.rawsavon

im currently living in New Zealand and am doing a Bachelor of Nursing. im american, but yea that maori situation IMO is incredibly racist. don't they also get paid for just doing nothing? pygmahia5

Anyone in Nz can get paid for doing nothing, not just Maori. You have to have been out of work for three months, attend weekly sessions to show Work and income NZ that you are at least trying to find a job, they set you up with interviews that you have to attend. If you cant get those jobs then you get a average amount of money to support yourself (it isnt too much).

That is how it's supposed to work anyway, I know it depends on which Winzs you attend as some are slack at inforcing all the policies. In NZ its fact that more Maori are on the benefit than any other race, I guess thats what you were getting at.

We got it the first 37 this was done.

Ah, I knew you would go down this route of thinking. You have got to understand that my response was constructed within the simplistic model of the couple and the benefactors in exclusion of any other extraneous factors. However, now that you are introducing more concepts and ideas into the model then I have to make a different response pertaining to the 'new model' presented. I think that, if it is not economically feasible to simply increase the pay of everyone, then rather than have a situation of affirmative action, the pay of minorities should be reduced to allow an increase in pay that is equal for all parties. It may seem spiteful, but it is the error of the institution that introduced the discriminatory policy, and the new governing body would just be rectifying this issue. If a robber steals a toy from another kid and gives it to his child, then surely the toy should still be taken from that child and given to its original owner?MetalGear_Ninty

Here's the thing though...do those other people actually deserve an increase in money?

I mean, really...what is the problem? Is the problem that I'm getting less money than some other minority with equal credentials? Or is the problem simply that I'm not getting paid what I deserve?

Here's the difference. If I'm not simply getting the money that I deserve, then it WOULD be fair to take some money from someone who is getting more than he deserves and give it to me. However, on what basis am I entitled to say that I deserve more money? Maybe the minority IS getting too much aid, but that sure as hell doesn't mean that I actually deserve more aid. Take away money from the minority's financial and...why exactly should I assume that one single penny of that money should then go to me?