Comments on: Anti-white bias at SIU?

By: yFPzk

yFPzk — Thu, 29 Mar 2007 09:24:10 +0000

vaginal and anal lana dna lanigav vaginal and anal. inescudna password drowssap anducseni inescudna password. assplug fuck pictures serutcip kcuf gulpssa assplug fuck pictures. lucky monster anal gaping gnipag lana retsnom ykcul lucky monster anal gaping. sexy pussy trafic cifart yssup yxes sexy pussy trafic. hot love milf flim evol toh hot love milf. fotos amteurs sruetma sotof fotos amteurs. figli scopano mamme emmam onapocs ilgif figli scopano mamme. pelose ragazze ezzagar esolep pelose ragazze. polskie dojrzale site etis elazrjod eikslop polskie dojrzale site. nagie baby foto otof ybab eigan nagie baby foto. download porno cipki ikpic onrop daolnwod download porno cipki. cipki filmy ymlif ikpic cipki filmy. pornosy pierdolenie sexkamerki ikremakxes einelodreip ysonrop pornosy pierdolenie sexkamerki. xxx follar alicante etnacila rallof xxx xxx follar alicante. mpg gordas lesbianas sanaibsel sadrog gpm mpg gordas lesbianas. kobietki mulatki iktalum ikteibok kobietki mulatki. porno tracker paska aksap rekcart onrop porno tracker paska. tarve amatoori naida adian irootama evrat tarve amatoori naida. penis vapaa glassbord drobssalg aapav sinep penis vapaa glassbord. filmati troia mature erutam aiort itamlif filmati troia mature. mercato vacca fotografia aifargotof accav otacrem mercato vacca fotografia. rakel liekki ikkeil lekar rakel liekki. orgasmi pornoelokuvia kela alek aivukoleonrop imsagro orgasmi pornoelokuvia kela. seksowne cipeczki trailer reliart ikzcepic enwoskes seksowne cipeczki trailer. ciasne amatorki ikrotama ensaic ciasne amatorki. porno black hardcore erocdrah kcalb onrop porno black hardcore. mamada brutal gals slag laturb adamam mamada brutal gals. video morenas peludas sadulep sanerom oediv video morenas peludas. ass amateur galeria airelag ruetama ssa ass amateur galeria. vids lesbiana puta atup anaibsel sdiv vids lesbiana puta. lo mejor mpg gpm rojem ol lo mejor mpg. sala chat sexual lauxes tahc alas sala chat sexual. porno foto erotica acitore otof onrop porno foto erotica. videos belleza mujer rejum azelleb soediv videos belleza mujer. gals mexicana desnuda adunsed anacixem slag gals mexicana desnuda. puta latinas movie eivom sanital atup puta latinas movie. mpg cucas roja ajor sacuc gpm mpg cucas roja. lesbisk liskot peraaukon nokuaarep toksil ksibsel lesbisk liskot peraaukon. mpegit biggest vagina anigav tseggib tigepm mpegit biggest vagina. amatoor fet fittor rottif tef rootama amatoor fet fittor. ilmasto milf cum muc flim otsamli ilmasto milf cum. poikkeuksellisen loistava otos soto avatsiol nesilleskuekkiop poikkeuksellisen loistava otos. cuadros dominasandra ardnasanimod sordauc cuadros dominasandra. scopate da cani inac ad etapocs scopate da cani. fotografia troia pecorina anirocep aiort aifargotof fotografia troia pecorina. mpgs sessoorale elaroosses sgpm mpgs sessoorale. mpg cicciolina filippucci iccuppilif aniloiccic gpm mpg cicciolina filippucci. galerias succhione enoihccus sairelag galerias succhione. sesso con anziani inaizna noc osses sesso con anziani.

By: Kevin

Kevin — Wed, 16 Nov 2005 02:54:34 +0000

While I think economic-based AA programs might have some level of effectiveness, they again do not address the core problems of racism and sexism that still exist in this country. If I felt more confident that, in the real world, employers and the public sector would encourage healthy competition on the basis of merit among candidates who display economic need, then I’d feel like this is a feasible issue.
Unfortunately, we are dealing with marginalized groups of Americans who are naturally suspicious of a dominant white male minority calling the shots on what is fair and just for everyone. While it might be true that white males today are not responsible for the policies of our founding fathers and subsequent white male governments, they do, to some extent, carry on that tradition. Unlike Iraq, for example, where women are guaranteed 25% of the seats in the legislature, American women only make up about 12-13% of our Congress. Other racial minorities constitute an even smaller percentage. If we aren’t even capable of addressing the process in which we apparently can only elect mostly white male government officeholders, how can we convince ourselves that we can do it on every other level in our culture?
What we often forget is that our nation, our constitution, our system of government and suffrage, our judicial system and philosophy were all created by white males, a minority which dominated all other demographic populations in this nation. One reason I see people on the Left get disturbed about the concept of “strict constructionism” or literal interpretations of the Constitution, for example, is there is a fear this will lead to nothing but privilege for the economic/cultural/racial class of our Founders.
This was an independent nation for 140 years before we were capable of legalizing a woman as a citizen who can vote. So, in terms of conservative philosophy, only white males were worthy to be considered full members of society and recognized as individuals. For other minorities, blanket restrictions or barriers have historically been part of the culture.
Naturally, what often happens to a marginalized group is that they develop a subculture among those who have been assigned a different social status because of some characteristic. That culture develops often independently of the more dominant group and the interaction and fear among groups often separates people into subcultural neighborhoods. Have we, as a nation, grown up enough to recognize each American and judge them as individuals? I’m afraid not.
I think, if we toss any moralizing aside at this juncture, we can look at what gay Americans are enduring at this point. Ostracization caused them to construct their own neighborhoods, their own businesses, their own networks, much like many other groups. But yet, just as in Maine’s election, the larger population actually VOTED on whether or not they could be protected in employment, housing and credit. It’s rather hard to convince this group that they are going to be treated as “individuals” by the same people who wouldn’t recognize social barriers to having housing.
And that doesn’t even touch on constitutional amendments designed to dictate that they are legally “single,” which effectively means that a distant estranged cousin has more power over property and a gay man’s dead body than the person they shared a life with for years. When the greater population votes to inflict practical and material harm on your life, it hardly encourages the idea that you, as an individual, will be treated on the basis of your own merits.
Frankly, I’m not sure how effective any AA program is going to be as long as we refuse to address a foundational issue of our economic and social system – and that is institutional ignorance. One of the biggest problems we face in a free enterprise system is that we much too often select people for responsible, well-paying careers who have marginal qualifications. It happens to be a human characteristic to select people who you feel most comfortable with for a work environment, however, that itself can be a barrier to people from lower economic classes and an additional barrier for people from different social/cultural groups as well. As it is, we often demand that those outside the dominant white male minority conform to our image of proper behavior/business demeanor. That often requires others to drastically alter their own cultural upbringing.
I kinda hate to do this, but I’m going to use gay men as an example again, particularly because their situation in the real world was rather unique. Being members of a demographic minority, many white gay men could disguise themselves as straight in order to get ahead in the business world. They wore the right clothing, found the right woman/friend escorts, and often outplayed the straight white men at their own game in the corporate world. For many years (and yes, that still goes on today) – they were expert at disguising themselves to fit into the corporate culture, climbing the ladder and presenting the proper image of heterosexual family life. And yes, some had arranged marriages in order to look the right part at company parties. The result? They climbed right up the ladder and right through the glass ceilings that stopped other minority groups until they either felt safe or had enough power to come out of the closet. But what that action accomplished was that it shattered the whole mystique of the straight-white-male supremacy in generating income and productivity, as long as they could disguise themselves as the image.
This just isn’t something that our nation is going to correct in five years or by enacting simple laws. Laws often offer nothing but recourse – social change unfortunately takes a much longer period of time. But if we are to set goals to make every individual appreciated for their own ability and merit, then we have to recognize and accept our past and our present – and make the attempt to stop ostracizing people in our society for no other reason than perceptions of characteristics. That’s a helluva lot harder than it seems.

By: Eric Seymour

Eric Seymour — Tue, 15 Nov 2005 18:24:19 +0000

I wrote:
“If, as some commenters have argued, whites are only “marginally” harmed by racial preferences, that is only because they are the demographic majority, so the harm is diluted.”
philosopher wrote:
“Who has made this argument here? I just gave the thread a quick scan, and I must’ve missed it.”
Me: Both Phil and Paul made those types of arguments, when they wrote the following:
Phil:
“The actual degree of harm being done by the particular discriminator action, as compared to the benefit gained, is ignored.”
Paul:
“Only a few Whites will be affected, and these will be marginal anyway.”
Me again: I support replacing all race-based AA with economic class-based AA. The assistance will still go disproportionately to non-Asian minorities, but without problems such as a middle-class black child having an advantage in college admissions over a lower-class white child.

By: Eric Seymour

Eric Seymour — Tue, 15 Nov 2005 18:10:27 +0000

Eric is wrong that his suggestion that Blacks and Whites in the same economic position are equally disadvantaged undermines the stated rationales for some sort of redress.
Paul is wrong if he is arguing from a conservative point of view. Individualism is a bedrock principle of conservatism. If blacks and whites in the same economic position have equivalent opportunities, then by what conservative principle do we ask our government to give an advantage to the black person so that we can see wealth equally distributed among the races? That’s social engineering, and I would think that a conservative would find it abhorrent.
Second, allow me to take my cue from Chris Rock, who once said that “There’s no white person in this audience who would trade places with me–and I’m rich!”
That’s just crazy. I’d trade racial and socioeconomic positions with Rock in a heartbeat. (He might have some personal problems I’d rather not acquire, but that’s beside the point.)
Third, I agree that culture has a big effect on minority communities. A poor white child is more likely to live with both parents than is a poor black child. But in what way is it white America’s “fault” that lower-class black America has a self-destructive culture? I support programs to try to reverse the “culture of poverty” and strengthen lower-class black families (private charities are likely to be more effective at this goal than gov’t agencies, BTW), but I do not see how the problems of a demographic group’s culture justify AA.

By: Kevin

Kevin — Tue, 15 Nov 2005 15:12:10 +0000

I believe there is a difference between the words inspired and literal – which again points to a cafeteria selection of biblical moral points. Obviously, the “Christian” Legal Society can’t literally subscribe to all of Leviticus moral codes without breaking established laws.

By: Terry J. Record

Terry J. Record — Tue, 15 Nov 2005 14:05:44 +0000

Frankly, Terry – the University was correct in being suspicious of a “christian” organization whose apparent sole focus was in denying gay students participation in the organization.
Please cite where exactly the Christian Legal Society states that this is thier “sole focus.” I’ll give you a hint: they never did, nor does this “sole focus” ever appear in thier statement of faith. This said, the last line of the statement of faith identifies the Bible as the “inspired word of God,” meaning that the CLS doesn’t believe God was just kidding when his set forth moral prohibitions, one among the hundreds including a prohibition against homosexual conduct (but not the status of homosexuality itself). Since this is a political and not a religious blog, I’ll leave it to other pundits to argue the propriety of Levitican moral codes in today’s world.
Kevin, this case began during the fall of 2004 when a female 3rd year law student, self-described agnostic, lesbian, and champion of homosexual rights, filed a complaint with the law school. Her complaint alleged that the CLS@SIU chapter discriminated against her by requring thier members to swear or affirm to uphold the CLS statement of faith, including it’s provision that the Bible is the inspired word of God. She contended this requirement (belief in the Bible as the inspired word of God) by the Christian Legal Society was defacto discriminatory (given the above-stated moral prohibitions in the Bible), and sought redress by the law school. Ironically, she never attended a meeting all semester (membership is not required to attend meetings – it is only required to vote for officers once a year), nor did she express a desire to establish a less-orthodox Christian law student organization (which makes sence given her views on religion). This complaint, if brought in any court in America, would have immediately been tossed out under the doctrine of standing. However, the law school moved on the complaint and de-recognized the student organization under the university’s affirmative action statement, which prohibits discrimination in employment and educational oppourtunities. Ironically, the CLS chapter neither employed anyone nor provided an educational oppourtnity.

By: philosopher

philosopher — Tue, 15 Nov 2005 13:19:06 +0000

After 30-some years, if affirmative action programs have not effectively remediated the effects of past discrimination, I do not hold any hope that they will do so in the future. There’s this very odd style of argument that one sees on occasion, mostly on the right but sometimes on the left as well, where one cocks an eyeball at some number and says, ‘well, that’s clearly just too high/low’, in circumstances where a moment’s reflection should reveal that one should put little trust in one’s cocky eyeball on the matter at hand. E.g., one looks at some line of the budget and says, “we’re clearly spending too much on education/health care/foreign aid/defense/etc”, when it should be obvious that most of us are ill-equipped to decide how much is the right amount. Are we spending too much of our GDP on health care? Well, how much is the right amount for a post-industrial economy to spend on one of its most valuable goods, in one of the sectors of the economy that remains incredibly labor-intensive? There may be an answer to be found — e.g., by a careful comparison to the health care expenditures of other nations who get similar outcomes — but the cocky eyeball is not the way to find them.
Similarly, I have no idea how one can come rationally to decide that 30 years is enough time for AA to have done whatever good it might do. That’s less than two generations, and at the beginning of that time there was still rampant racism in the country, and now there’s still plenty of racism, though I do believe it is generally more quiescent. (Note that I don’t think that AA is meant to end racism; rather, my claim is that while AA is operating within a society that is still to some extent actively stacking the deck against various minorities, it would be ludicrous to expect it to have eliminated the results of all past deck-stacking.) We have seen real gains in minority representation in key fields over this time, and we know that we’re not where we want to be yet. That is prima facie evidence of programs that are working, but haven’t finished their jobs. There may be real empirical arguments to be made against AA’s effectiveness — but Eric’s cocky eyeball is not one of them.
Furthermore, AA programs reinforce a notion (in the minds of minorities as in the minds of whites) that minorities can’t make it by themselves. I’d bet that a large majority of whites, when they see a minority in an appointed position, are thinking “affirmative action.”. I acknowledge this point earlier, and it may at the end of the day be a practical (question (3)) reason not to continue with AA. But of course if various commentators (and I don’t mean to single Eric out here) would stop making patently silly anti-AA arguments, and if leaders of the GOP would stop trying to score political points by drumming up feelings of white oppression, then perhaps these feelings of racial resentment would fade a bit.
Finally and most basically, two wrongs never make a right. If, as some commenters have argued, whites are only “marginally” harmed by racial preferences, that is only because they are the demographic majority, so the harm is diluted. Who has made this argument here? I just gave the thread a quick scan, and I must’ve missed it. Certainly nothing I said is of this sort, nor Paul, nor Kevin, nor Phil.
As for Karl: your argument only applies to justifications of AA based on compensation of past injustices, which I said above is not what I take to be the best way to justify AA. (The $20 example was just to defuse Greg’s mistake about “hurt”.) If we’re eliminating a current unjust array of goods, when the unjust nature of that array is at least somewhat on a racial basis, then there’s nothing wrong with using a racial basis to restore it.
Moreover, it’s important to note just how innocuous the scholarships are, in these terms. The minority candidates are taking no ’slots’ that might otherwise have gone to a white candidate; no specific individual white person is being forced to pay the minority candidate’s tuition; and it is not awarded purely on the basis of race, but on demonstrated merit, including the overcoming of hardships — with such fellowships, we as a society are choosing to help some people who obviously have been unfairly disadvantaged. To claim that our failing to help some others who have no similar claim at systematic disadvantage is doing a wrong by them is vacuous. (I would be all for a much broader set of class-based fellowships as well, and would be happy to hear conservatives call for a radical increase in the amount of spending on such programs.)

By: Paul

Paul — Tue, 15 Nov 2005 13:06:45 +0000

It’s interesting you’ve dropped the justice argument in this case, especially because it’s weakest here–the overrepresented are abundant not because of talent, but because of connections, which are no more just than inherited wealth.
You miss, however, the larger point: these connections are not simply baubles, but are deeply affective, and condition the ability both of the privileged and the un- to shape their life’s course. And the unprivileged but talented granted the ability to make the important connections (with better professors, say, or simply with the sons of the rich) will likely be taking the places of the privileged but untalented, and so society will show an undeniable gain as careers become open to talents. (It might, of course, be easier in theory to simply adopt name-blind as well as race-blind admissions, and this is the ideal, but postponing questions of justice to the long run overlooks the famous point that in the long run we are all dead.)
It matters, as the French example shows, whether the ruling classes and the ruled are absolutely separated, or whether there is some path to move from one to another; elite mobility is no less important than mass mobility in this case.
Eric is wrong that his suggestion that Blacks and Whites in the same economic position are equally disadvantaged undermines the stated rationales for some sort of redress. First, even if individual Blacks and Whites are equally disadvantaged when given equal resource endowments, this says nothing about the systemic disparities betweens Blacks and Whites–there are disproportionately more Blacks disadvantaged than Whites.
Second, allow me to take my cue from Chris Rock, who once said that “There’s no white person in this audience who would trade places with me–and I’m rich!” As long as we postulate some measure of racism that acts against Blacks, the Seymour proposition, simply stated, is wrong.
Third, it’s surprising that an avowed cultural conservative of Seymour’s general leanings would write, essentially, that economic circumstances determine social opportunities more than cultural factors; if so, why were (White) Republicans so upset about the culture of poverty welfare engendered? Bringing culture back in clears this up–”culture” both in the sense of the mainstream and the in-group phenomenon–but once again undercuts Seymour’s point. If we allow, for instance, that noneconomic matters such as having married parents, families that value education, or living in relatively stable neighborhoods affect opportunitites, then comparing the circumstances of Whites and Blacks by looking at their economic factors becomes impossible.
Karl’s other example about the Kentuckians and the Tennesseans points out two important facts. First, as Karl must know, this implies (rightly) a high burden on those seeking affirmative action or similar programs, because even straight transfer programs involve a loss of utility if all agents value resources equally; affirmative action will only work when those receiving opportunities value them more highly than those who are losing them, and there must be a strong presumption that such a transfer will not happen voluntarily. Secondly, as Karl’s model shows us, we must make sure that such transfers are not arbitrary (as the Kentucky-Tennessee example is); that is why the concept of historical (or contemporary) injustice is so important–otherwise we would have a societal utility loss and no particular reason for it (i.e., like farm subsidies).

By: Karl

Karl — Tue, 15 Nov 2005 12:48:07 +0000

The power of that argument is still limited to dealing with the extent to which members of “overrepresented” groups inside the circle are generally more willing to bring other members of that overrepresented group into the circle than they are to do the same for members of underrepresented groups. Otherwise, it is still just a statistical remedy, not something that increases opportunities for underrepresented people generally to what they would have had if bias had not kept underrepresented people of the past out of the circles of the past.
If overrepresented people in the circle tend to know a disproportionate number of overrepresented people, and they try to help people who they know, then that would help specific overrepresented people (statistically, it would appear to give overrepresented people an advantage over underrepresented people), and gives those individuals an advantage over underrepresented people (and overrepresented people who do not have “connections”).
If there were suddenly more underrepresented people in the circle, and if they knew more underrepresented people than an overrepresented person in the circle would, and if the underrepresented people in the circle, like their overrepresented counterparts, try to help people who they know, then the affirmative action would benefit the specific underrepresented people who they help. It would not open the circle to underrepresented people in general, though, other than to whatever extent the overrepresented people had generally favored overrepresented people over underrepresented people (and only then if the affirmative action members of the circle were treated as true members of the circle, which I hope would be the case).

By: Paul

Paul — Tue, 15 Nov 2005 00:25:28 +0000

“While they raise legitimate points about the cycle of government-dependent poverty, they resist any examination of the welfare system that exists for unqualified people who just happen to socialize with the right folks.”
This is one of the stronger arguments for affirmative action in higher education….