Cool, more "reverse racism" and "reverse sexism". Remember folks, if we want to be unified we need to segregate. Love is hate. Peace is war.
Orwell must be rolling in his grave - doublespeak is truly the language of the future.
EDIT: Since the view that affirmative action is positive is so prevalent, and that I hadn't previously given it an in-depth look, I've been reading around the subject.
> As an illustration of what that would mean, they constructed a rough profile of 700 black students admitted in 1976 under race-conscious policies. Of the 700, 225 obtained professional degrees or doctorates; 70 are now medical doctors, 60 are lawyers, 125 are business executives and more than 300 are civic leaders. Their average annual earnings are $71,000.
As expected, getting people into higher level education substantially improves their quality of life.
> A more troubling question, the authors acknowledge, regards the white students whom these black students displaced. Would society have been better off if they had attended instead of the blacks?
> "That is the central question," the authors write, "and it cannot be answered by data alone." It is a clash of "principle versus principle, not principle versus expediency." They come down firmly on the side of admitting the blacks, saying that society needs them because of the scarcity of black professionals.
> "In the case of universities and colleges, race turns out to be very relevant because we are interested in what students can teach one another and race is a part of that in an increasingly diverse society. Well-prepared minorities have a special leadership role because there have been so few in the past. So what is fair involves the question of the purpose of a university. And, ultimately that question is not soluble with data."
In summary, a subset of people are earning substantially more than another subset, where both were equally qualified for the position, because their skin was a particular color. The justification for this is that the minority is a minority. The proponents assert that whether this is right or wrong is a question of principal. They assert that this causes a minimal impact on the majority population and a significant benefit for the minority population. They do not apply concrete numbers to this last assertion and instead state percentages. Ofcourse, those percentages translate into living, breathing human beings who, in the absence of race-based discrimination would be living a very different life.
Fairness is not an obvious thing, it seems. Fairness depends on what you're trying to accomplish. If your target is making sure that the year book photos have the right balance of color, by all means discriminate. If your target is giving people a fair opportunity based on their abilities then a meritocracy might suit you better.
Can't we all just be equal? Can't we just share with people who have less than us and help them get on their feet without disenfranchising someone else? Can't we make room for everyone, no exclusions? Call this idealistic but I'm just being real about it.
The way HN works nowadays (per my observations) your comment will almost indubitably get deleted and your account banned, because you've made a worthless comment (void of any reasonable argument or explanation).
But I'm requesting HN mods that be to not do that please. Because this is such a recurrent response, I'd rather that one of our elders and wiser ones respond to this with their insights. Bigotry is best expunged from minds and hearts by free speech -- talking about it openly helps clear up things a lot.
Could you elaborate on how the GP's post was bigoted. All I read from it was the claim that racism/sexism does not exist, and a request against affirmative action.
Granted, the entire comment was void of any argument, and meets my definition of worthless, but I do not see the bigotry in it.
>All I read from it was the claim that racism/sexism does not exist, and a request against affirmative action.
I'm actually making the argument that prejudice is alive and well and that that is the whole problem. We should be blind to who prejudice is directed at and attempt to reduce it as a whole, not "fight fire with fire" or "racism with racism."
Are you capable of cogent thought? How is this racist or sexist? If you had taken the time to investigate you would have seen that both men and women along with people from different ethnicities support this program.
Was it racist or sexist when Andrew Carnegie took it upon himself to personally fund the Tuskegee Institute of Technology in the early part of the 20th century to address the same problem?
Now do yourself a favor and put some thought into your comments before you decide to speak again.
If you happen to be a nerdy kid in a school of jocks and happen to form a club for nerds to address the issue of isolation and lack of "nerdiness" in said school - is that reverse discrimination against jocks?
The story was posted to highlight the fact that the founder did what every entrepreneur (not "wantrepreneur") does - identify a pressing problem and solve it.
If you have a way of addressing the fact that there are few women of color in the tech space, please post your link.
It's discriminating based on the color of skin and sex.
>If you have a way of addressing the fact that there are few women of color in the tech space, please post your link.
Here's one - provide equal opportunity to all races, colors and creeds and disallow discrimination in any way, shape or form. Share with people who have less. Exclude nobody.
If you'd like to cut out the personal insults, I'd appreciate it.
Is it your contention that this one micro-mini program is preventing anyone who may not be black, native american or latino (or a woman) from getting a job????
Seriously, I need to better understand the nature of your thinking process.
Lol. Do you actually know one woman of color in technology? Perhaps you should consider speaking to one (or several) over theories you read in a journal (we all know how objective every single academic paper one reads is).
Everyone reading this knows you have never had one single conversation with a black/native american/latino woman of color in technology.
I'm sure your next comment will be something like "that's irrelevant".
You remind me of Americans who don't have a passport yet go on and on about how "under-developed" the rest of the world is.
And by the way, do you know how many women and/or people of color are on this forum?
They continue to stay anonymous because of comments like those you make.
Quite frankly what I sense in your comments is nothing short of fear.
> Everyone reading this knows you have never had one single conversation with a black/native american/latino woman of color in technology.
Hey, someone reading that here. I am mildly offended by your claim that I know Supreme never talked to a black/native american/latino woman of color in technology.
What I did read from his posts is that a program exclusively for black girls is racist and sexist. Given that the program takes people based on their race and sex, I do not see how that claim is controversial.
The solution to race/gender inequality may or may not be strategic racism/sexism. However, pointing out when something is racism/sexism, and suggesting that forbidding all forms of racism/sexism might be a better approach hardly sounds unreasonable.
What I would like to see happen is have legal protection against groups from engaging in discriminatory actions (on 'irrelevant' metrics, which would need to be determined but almost definitely includes race and sex). Yes, that would make this group (as I understand it) illegal. What we could have is a group that targets underprivileged areas, that may or may not be disproportional high in some group of people.
The problem with the group currently (as I understand them) is that if someone who is not a black girl, but does have a similar disadvantage in life wanted to join, they would not be permitted (or have a high barrier to entry).
13 comments
[ 2.8 ms ] story [ 62.9 ms ] threadOrwell must be rolling in his grave - doublespeak is truly the language of the future.
EDIT: Since the view that affirmative action is positive is so prevalent, and that I hadn't previously given it an in-depth look, I've been reading around the subject.
From the horse's mouth (http://www.mat.jhu.edu/~sormani/affirm-impact.html):
> As an illustration of what that would mean, they constructed a rough profile of 700 black students admitted in 1976 under race-conscious policies. Of the 700, 225 obtained professional degrees or doctorates; 70 are now medical doctors, 60 are lawyers, 125 are business executives and more than 300 are civic leaders. Their average annual earnings are $71,000.
As expected, getting people into higher level education substantially improves their quality of life.
> A more troubling question, the authors acknowledge, regards the white students whom these black students displaced. Would society have been better off if they had attended instead of the blacks?
> "That is the central question," the authors write, "and it cannot be answered by data alone." It is a clash of "principle versus principle, not principle versus expediency." They come down firmly on the side of admitting the blacks, saying that society needs them because of the scarcity of black professionals.
> "In the case of universities and colleges, race turns out to be very relevant because we are interested in what students can teach one another and race is a part of that in an increasingly diverse society. Well-prepared minorities have a special leadership role because there have been so few in the past. So what is fair involves the question of the purpose of a university. And, ultimately that question is not soluble with data."
In summary, a subset of people are earning substantially more than another subset, where both were equally qualified for the position, because their skin was a particular color. The justification for this is that the minority is a minority. The proponents assert that whether this is right or wrong is a question of principal. They assert that this causes a minimal impact on the majority population and a significant benefit for the minority population. They do not apply concrete numbers to this last assertion and instead state percentages. Ofcourse, those percentages translate into living, breathing human beings who, in the absence of race-based discrimination would be living a very different life.
Fairness is not an obvious thing, it seems. Fairness depends on what you're trying to accomplish. If your target is making sure that the year book photos have the right balance of color, by all means discriminate. If your target is giving people a fair opportunity based on their abilities then a meritocracy might suit you better.
Can't we all just be equal? Can't we just share with people who have less than us and help them get on their feet without disenfranchising someone else? Can't we make room for everyone, no exclusions? Call this idealistic but I'm just being real about it.
The way HN works nowadays (per my observations) your comment will almost indubitably get deleted and your account banned, because you've made a worthless comment (void of any reasonable argument or explanation).
But I'm requesting HN mods that be to not do that please. Because this is such a recurrent response, I'd rather that one of our elders and wiser ones respond to this with their insights. Bigotry is best expunged from minds and hearts by free speech -- talking about it openly helps clear up things a lot.
Granted, the entire comment was void of any argument, and meets my definition of worthless, but I do not see the bigotry in it.
I'm actually making the argument that prejudice is alive and well and that that is the whole problem. We should be blind to who prejudice is directed at and attempt to reduce it as a whole, not "fight fire with fire" or "racism with racism."
Was it racist or sexist when Andrew Carnegie took it upon himself to personally fund the Tuskegee Institute of Technology in the early part of the 20th century to address the same problem?
Now do yourself a favor and put some thought into your comments before you decide to speak again.
If you happen to be a nerdy kid in a school of jocks and happen to form a club for nerds to address the issue of isolation and lack of "nerdiness" in said school - is that reverse discrimination against jocks?
The story was posted to highlight the fact that the founder did what every entrepreneur (not "wantrepreneur") does - identify a pressing problem and solve it.
If you have a way of addressing the fact that there are few women of color in the tech space, please post your link.
We would all like to see it.
It's discriminating based on the color of skin and sex.
>If you have a way of addressing the fact that there are few women of color in the tech space, please post your link.
Here's one - provide equal opportunity to all races, colors and creeds and disallow discrimination in any way, shape or form. Share with people who have less. Exclude nobody.
If you'd like to cut out the personal insults, I'd appreciate it.
Is it your contention that this one micro-mini program is preventing anyone who may not be black, native american or latino (or a woman) from getting a job????
Seriously, I need to better understand the nature of your thinking process.
> A more troubling question, the authors acknowledge, regards the white students whom these black students displaced.
Everyone reading this knows you have never had one single conversation with a black/native american/latino woman of color in technology.
I'm sure your next comment will be something like "that's irrelevant".
You remind me of Americans who don't have a passport yet go on and on about how "under-developed" the rest of the world is.
And by the way, do you know how many women and/or people of color are on this forum?
They continue to stay anonymous because of comments like those you make.
Quite frankly what I sense in your comments is nothing short of fear.
Fear that the status quo is being disrupted.
And guess what? It is.
Hey, someone reading that here. I am mildly offended by your claim that I know Supreme never talked to a black/native american/latino woman of color in technology.
What I did read from his posts is that a program exclusively for black girls is racist and sexist. Given that the program takes people based on their race and sex, I do not see how that claim is controversial.
The solution to race/gender inequality may or may not be strategic racism/sexism. However, pointing out when something is racism/sexism, and suggesting that forbidding all forms of racism/sexism might be a better approach hardly sounds unreasonable.
What I would like to see happen is have legal protection against groups from engaging in discriminatory actions (on 'irrelevant' metrics, which would need to be determined but almost definitely includes race and sex). Yes, that would make this group (as I understand it) illegal. What we could have is a group that targets underprivileged areas, that may or may not be disproportional high in some group of people.
The problem with the group currently (as I understand them) is that if someone who is not a black girl, but does have a similar disadvantage in life wanted to join, they would not be permitted (or have a high barrier to entry).