Jump to content

Interesting Article Re Byu Student Fighting Racism


Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Raskolnikov said:

I am not sure whether this is a Columbo-type routine or if it is sincere ignorance, but it is borderline offensive. Moreso, it is surprising from someone who went to law school and should have been exposed to basic principals of constitutional law. If you are sincerely trying to figure out how we arrived here (which, from your commentary and questions doesn't seem likely) and even better, why it is necessary, there is no shortage of material to provide you with something to think over. Feel free to take a look at cases and commentaries on race-based hiring, principles of diversity in employment and higher education, etc... Feel free to pick up books by Baldwin, Ellison or others. If these are truly sincere questions, take that wonderment and do try figure it out. It isn't that complicated, but my be somewhat uncomfortable. 

 

Disagreement on principle is borderline offensive? That's a bad sign. Furthermore, you are assuming something that is never safe in questions of policy: that someone who looks at the same data is guaranteed to come to the same conclusions as you. Sometimes it really isn't a matter of "educated vs. ignorant" but instead of sincere disagreement on principles. 

Quote

It isn't that complicated, but my be somewhat uncomfortable.

We've all been condescended to in these precise words many times by now. It doesn't bear repeating.

  • Like 1
Link to post
5 hours ago, smac97 said:

I appreciate you taking time to address this.

I'll try to respond to as much of this as I can, but one of the reasons I hesitated in responding was simply time constraints. So it may take me longer to respond to people than I would like. 

Quote

 

Could you elaborate on that?  Why does this posture it create difficulty or impossibility?

Also, what if the individual is expressing his heartfelt and sincere worldview?  That he really doesn't "see color?"  Is he supposed to censor that?  If so, why?

 

I haven't met anyone who isn't sincere in their beliefs about not seeing color. People are generally sincere on a number of things. But it does make it difficult to converse, because the first thing that has to be deconstructed is that colorblindness isn't necessarily a good thing all the time. And that gets people defensive. 

It's difficult because I need to disseminate lived experiences succinctly, help them view things outside of their worldview and construct as closely as possible within their context, and do so without turning them off by using words and syntax that fits into their context. I'm being asked, in essence to convince them the value of God when they're atheists and preferably without really talking about the spirit because in his/her context that's just another term for feelings and they've got those. It is sometimes impossible if they themselves aren't really willing to have their perspective and view of the world questioned

Quote

I don't understand.  Isn't explaining/substantiating your experiences going to be a normative part of a discussion about "race issues, concerns, or biases?"

....

I don't know you you mean by "they often don't see me."  What does that mean?

I also don't know what you mean by "their stance is blocking off part of my existence."  What does that mean?

It often is, BUT the problem is when evidence must match their specific standard of what constitutes evidence or reality. It sets a litmus test for what is legitimate into the hands of those not as invested in the dialogue and likely to chuck out evidence they find unimportant or in some way invalid. But this isn't a separated case for me. This is my life, my family's lives, my friends lives. SO what ends up happening is that by discarding the "evidence" they end up discarding several experiences from my life. Thus they don't really end up seeing me, but the parts of me that are most aligned with their worldview. 

Quote

 

Okay.  Why is "more than one discussion" a problem?

By way of analogy: I have recently completed a lawsuit that has taken over 3 1/2 years.  I have been lead counsel on it from its inception.  I have had dozens upon dozens of telephone, email, and in-person communications with my clients about various aspects of the suit.  I have found myself explaining, several times over, some key factual and legal elements of the case to my clients.  My clients are intelligent people, and have a vested interest in understanding the facts and the law about the legal dispute.  However, they are not trained in the law.  They lack the overarching framework to understand complexities and nuances.  So I have explained, and re-explained, things.  It's not particularly efficient, but it's necessary in order for them to be informed and up-to-speed.

Now, I suppose I could just skip to the end and tell them what I think they should do.  But that approach creates a different set of problems.  As noted above, my clients are pretty smart in their own right, and have often raised issues and made observations that I had overlooked.  So in communicating with each other, and having information and ideas flow both ways, we end up with a synergy ("the interaction or cooperation of two or more organizations, substances, or other agents to produce a combined effect greater than the sum of their separate effects").  This has taken a lot of time and effort on all our parts, but it has very much been worth it.

 

I'm not getting paid for these heart-to-hearts. And I don't have 3.5 years to make my case. Sometimes I'm given 3-5 minutes to make my case while raising a baby, taking care of my family, managing my job, and trying to reach my personal goals. Sometimes there's not even that and I'm needing to explain why what they just said isn't okay or appropriate without using the R word and turning them off/defensive in 10 seconds flat. The circumstance around it is usually what makes more than one question difficult. 

Besides that these aren't court cases, again they're parts of my life. It's one thing to pull evidences meant for court that you are likely not directly effected by.  It's quite another to pull examples from your life and have those picked apart and judged on. Besides the emotional and vulnerability aspects involved, it's also tangibly hard to "prove" an experience.  

Quote

 

Are these assumptions derogatory?  Offensive?  Demeaning?  And if they are, won't patience, kindness, forgiveness, communciation, etc. help to correct those assumptions?

People make assumptions about me all the time.  Some of these assumptions are correct, some are not, and some are wildly wrong.  Some are wrong, but essentially benign.  Some are wrong and offensive, and hence should probably be corrected.  I correct the substantially incorrect and/or misleading assumptions, but otherwise I'm not particularly bothered by them.

 

They are usually not inherently offensive no. Most often it's assumptions about how I identify and my racial background and throw in a few innocuous stereotypes. Which is usually just a little awkward or uncomfortable the first time or 2. The 10th it becomes annoying and frustrating. And I don't lambaste them for getting it wrong. Usually I just correct them if I have the vested desire to do so. But it's not necessarily always mine to fix. As much as I could (and usually do) do a number of those things mentioned, they could also spend some more time in their own life learning more about specific issues and concerns on their own. I have a friend who's done just that. She grew up in a part of idaho with literally no black people and few minorities period. But she's listened to different stories and experiences and grown more aware of other people's concerns outside of her immediate cultural and racial background. She's not perfect, but she's humble enough to know as much and take correction and input when needed.  And honestly that's what most people I know expect or want. 

Quote

 

I don't understand.  How has a person who claims colorblindness cut himself off "from racial experiences and dialogue?"  How do you know that this has happened?

 

It becomes apparent in the stories they talk about and share and how they interact with stories and experiences outside their reference point. 

Quote

 

I apologize for saying this again, but I don't understand.  What does "ignore parts of people's character inadvertently" mean?  

Is skin color a part of a person's "character?"  Dr. King seemed to juxtapose the two (skin color v. character).

 

Skin color is obviously nothing more than a physiological characteristic. what that means and how it shapes experiences in ones community is likely to effect not only your character, but moreso how you view and see things. Being mixed has shaped some of my character because of the society I live in. 

Quote

How do you know this?

How do you mean? The same way I'd learn about anything....experience, listening to others experiences, reading, educating myself, etc. Accruing knowledge and experience over the years. In someways it's just logical. If you don't acknowledge and recognize an experience or problem, you're likely not going to fix it.

 

This took a while to respond to. Expect as much with the other responses as my kiddo only allows so much writing in the day. 

 

With luv, 

BD

  • Like 1
Link to post
5 hours ago, smac97 said:

This just in:

CBS-BIPOC-600x234.png

So race-based hiring criteria are okay when the targets to be discriminated against are white, I guess?

This is not a healthy way to go.

Thanks,

-Smac

40-50% of the population would be representative of the whole, depending on where the jobs are it might still be far from the environment.  It seems to me you are over reacting.  

Link to post
6 hours ago, smac97 said:

The "principle" here is to categorically exclude white people from 40% (and, next year, 50%) of writing jobs at CBS based solely on the color of their skin.

But CBS is not speaking of "backgrounds" they are speaking specifically of skin color.

I wonder why that is strange.  Why are we seemingly conditioned to be indifferent to, or even supportive of, discrimination based on race when the person being discriminated against is white?

Isn't that fairly self-evident?  They are being excluded from 50% of the writing jobs at CBS based solely on the color of their skin.

So race-based discrimination against the majority race is okay?

I'm trying to figure out how we arrived that these rules.

I'm trying to figure out how to explain this to my kids: "Hey, if you ever want to work as a writer at CBS, you will be at a severe disadvantage right from the outset.  Not because of your skills.  Not because of your background or education.  The disadvantage is based solely and entirely on your skin color.  White people are categorically excluded from half the writing job slots at CBS because of the color of their skin, whereas non-whites have access to 100% of the writing job slots at CBS because of the color of their skin.  That's the world we live in.  But somehow, it's not 'racism.'"

Thanks,

-Smac

We did not arrive at these rules - they are the result of failed social engineering that we learned was a dead end....once already.  

When it is only skin color we are seeking then the quality of the work is suspect. Maybe better, but a bigger chance of it being a lot worse.  

Also, who gets to be the winner of the skin color game?  Are Asians going to be included or has the minority learned that they should be shunned due to their perception of being hard workers; being punctual; etc.?  Does it just mean Black people or will it be all POC?  Do Indians get to be included? If Indians and Asians are included, how soon do you think the Minority Elite will come up with new rules to discount these races in an effort to limit the benefit to the truly deserving....whatever standard is used I know not for identifying the deserving?

  • Like 1
Link to post
7 hours ago, Calm said:

Except white people I know don’t. Mormon time is what, ten minutes late or at least it was growing up. Robinson (my extended family) time is half an hour late and stuff takes twice as along as predicted. 
 

I agree businesses and schools function that way, but individuals in my experience don’t if they have a choice (if they won’t get a tardy, lose their appointment or job, etc).  Church meetings didn’t start on time often until we started stacking 3 wards in a building and having meetings end and start a half an hour apart so you caused problems for others if not keeping to the clock. 
 

Be interesting to take a poll and see how others perceive things.

I can get that. My (white) mom is constantly late for everything. When they’re traveling i assume they’ll start 4-6 hours later on their journey than they said. It used to drive me nuts until i just accepted that she may show up between a certain window and never expect her at your place earlier than noon when she’s visiting from out of town. 
But when talking about this, i think it’s meant more about the cultural value of promptness and timing. My mom’s just mom in this. But the overarching culture that is the dominant feature in american life currently values structure, time, and routines. And several of those values delineate from a northern european/English cultural value which all other communities were often expected to assimilate into or remain separate (and thus less valued). And that has become part of the cultural norms around whiteness...though it’s far more likely to be described as normal.

And since their views are historically and currently over represented in institutions, there’s still cultural expectations and values that people are expected to work within. I remember this as especially grating to me in my master’s program. It took me a while to even describe the problem..but my brain and mind and how i framed my world didn’t often jive with western institutional education values or expectations. I often felt stifled and with a low burn irritation and even a little dumb at times. 

Another small example, culturally dancing and warm greetings and smaller personal bubbles are normal in a lot of latin cultures. But my husband hates close contact. We went dancing for our first date and because he didn’t know me he was so uncomfortable dancing bachata he literally winced. And his sister HATES dancing. These are individual variations but it doesn’t remove that in aggregate there are cultural norms. 

with luv 

BD

Edited by BlueDreams
  • Like 2
Link to post
On 7/14/2020 at 11:38 AM, let’s roll said:

Thanks for posting this.

I think your POV has some merit, but also see some merit in Kofi’s POV.  

While there is more diversity at BYU now than there was when I attended, it remains a unique place.  His advice that POC need to be prepared for that is sound, not just for POC, but for non-LDS as well.

I also agree that the entire student body should “see” the unique journey that POC and non-LDS have at BYU and be supportive.  In my view, that support can at times manifest itself through “colorblind” acts but at times should also manifest itself through actions that acknowledge and embrace the uniqueness that POC and non-LDS students bring to the BYU community.

What happens at BYU is rather just an extension of what happens in the Church in middle America. The Church does not reflect the make up of the community, for the most part, (except perhaps on the coasts). It remains predominantly white and thus it (the members) tends to ignore what happens in the lives of the tiny minority of converts of other races (not just black). I don't  believe it is racial animus but rather disregard, apathy and ignorance on the part of most members.

It comes down to shallow, untested, vernier-like faith in the members, regardless of their "history" in the Church. They forget (or maybe they don't know) that true righteousness and the fulfillment of the law requires the presence and outpouring of love towards God and their neighbors. 

"...he must needs have [love]; for if he have not [love] he is nothing; wherefore he must needs have [love]." Mor. 7:44

Mild mannered polite expressions and superficial gestures of cordial "togetherness" will never equal to the pure love of Christ that should be the  hallmark of a true Saint. Without true love there is no true frienship, nor can we have true and honest conversations about race (or any other subject), or much less be "family", as pretended. Thus, they that are called of God to join His Church still feel like outsiders, detached and uncared for by those that suppose to be their "family". 

  • Like 2
Link to post
12 hours ago, smac97 said:

Here's an interesting development.  The Smithsonian Institution has a website dedicated to "Whiteness."  Here's a key graphic:

whiteculture_info_1.png

Meanwhile the African American History Museum's website "says being on time is a marker of 'whiteness'":

Some observations:

Words fail me.

-Smac

Question: did you stumble across this graphic directly on the museum website on your own? 

Link to post
17 hours ago, Raskolnikov said:

I am not sure whether this is a Columbo-type routine or if it is sincere ignorance, but it is borderline offensive. Moreso, it is surprising from someone who went to law school and should have been exposed to basic principals of constitutional law. If you are sincerely trying to figure out how we arrived here (which, from your commentary and questions doesn't seem likely) and even better, why it is necessary, there is no shortage of material to provide you with something to think over. Feel free to take a look at cases and commentaries on race-based hiring, principles of diversity in employment and higher education, etc... Feel free to pick up books by Baldwin, Ellison or others. If these are truly sincere questions, take that wonderment and do try figure it out. It isn't that complicated, but my be somewhat uncomfortable. 

Right on cue.

So much for having a "discussion."  

-Smac

  • Like 2
Link to post
6 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Question: did you stumble across this graphic directly on the museum website on your own? 

Nope.  I read about it on a blog.  Does that matter?

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to post
11 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

What do you mean by collective guilt? 

Broadly speaking, it is faulting white people collectively for being wrongs committed against non-white people, regardless of whether the individual white person has said or done anything wrong.

11 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

When i talk about the underlying tone, i mean the preemptive language you’re using that assumes an attack on white people is right around the corner.

Not around the corner.  It's here.  Now.

11 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

I don’t know if that’s something you mean to be doing or not, but this reads from my in as at best leery or preemptively defensive. It also kinda read as if we talk about race within the parameters that i find acceptable, then it should be talked about.

I'm not sure what this means.

11 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

lastly when i mean race/ethnicity is freely talked about, I don’t mean there’s a deep dive every day or every week (minus maybe this june). I mean that it’s openly discussed in how it influences and colors our lives/experiences.

We are being bombarded with "talk about race/racism" advocacy.  I think the context means to talk about the bad stuff, rather than the banal stuff.  Am I wrong?

11 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

For example my full black siblings teased me for burning on our hike and my husband likes to tease me for my gringa dance when i’m excited or goofing about. I may talk send him something i’m reading about tied to race. Or he may gripe about the US issues around race and race obsession. It just is, like noting an especially hot day or talking about some aspect of the ward dynamics. From time to time that takes a serious note, but it does so fairly easily because the knowledge base for the discussion had already been apart of the collective dialogue. 

Okay.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to post
18 hours ago, Calm said:

I am dying of laughter here. 
 

So if being punctual is a quality of whiteness, does that mean nonwhites are not punctual?  Or just not clock obsessed. 

The white lady who put this together did not conclude anything about obsessed.  She marked two elements of time that are fairly common to white American thinking:  Adherence to rigid time schedules Time viewed as a commodity.

I think that's pretty true.  That hardly means, as she also suggests that all people who are white are always on time, nor does it suggest that anyone who is not white, or not white groups, do not also view time as a commodity.  

I'm confused what the big up-in-arms reaction is here.  

Link to post
29 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Nope.  I read about it on a blog.  Does that matter?

Thanks,

-Smac

It might. If the blog was of a strong political bent, it might have taken the graphic out of context. The way you are talking about it seems to me to show a very partisan response. And since you have in the past offered sources like Ben Shapiro and PragerU, I was wondering if you're also coming at the graphic from that kind of lens. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
12 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

I'll try to respond to as much of this as I can, but one of the reasons I hesitated in responding was simply time constraints. So it may take me longer to respond to people than I would like. 

Okay.

12 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

I haven't met anyone who isn't sincere in their beliefs about not seeing color. People are generally sincere on a number of things. But it does make it difficult to converse, because the first thing that has to be deconstructed is that colorblindness isn't necessarily a good thing all the time. And that gets people defensive. 

Okay.  This is helpful.  When is coloblindness a bad thing?  What are the circumstances?

12 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

It's difficult because I need to disseminate lived experiences succinctly, help them view things outside of their worldview and construct as closely as possible within their context, and do so without turning them off by using words and syntax that fits into their context. I'm being asked, in essence to convince them the value of God when they're atheists and preferably without really talking about the spirit because in his/her context that's just another term for feelings and they've got those. It is sometimes impossible if they themselves aren't really willing to have their perspective and view of the world questioned

Sure.  Mutual consent is an important factor.

12 hours ago, BlueDreams said:
Quote

I don't understand.  Isn't explaining/substantiating your experiences going to be a normative part of a discussion about "race issues, concerns, or biases?"
....
I don't know you you mean by "they often don't see me."  What does that mean?

I also don't know what you mean by "their stance is blocking off part of my existence."  What does that mean?

It often is, BUT the problem is when evidence must match their specific standard of what constitutes evidence or reality. It sets a litmus test for what is legitimate into the hands of those not as invested in the dialogue and likely to chuck out evidence they find unimportant or in some way invalid. But this isn't a separated case for me. This is my life, my family's lives, my friends lives. SO what ends up happening is that by discarding the "evidence" they end up discarding several experiences from my life. Thus they don't really end up seeing me, but the parts of me that are most aligned with their worldview. 

This is still a bit too abstract for me to grasp.  I'm trying to grasp what you are saying, honest.  But I don't know wha tyou mean by "what constitutes evidence or reality."  Evidence pertaining to what? 

What is the predicate for "litmus test?"  Colorblindness?

What does "discarding the 'evidence'" mean?

What does "they don't really end up seeing me" mean?

Talking about this in the context of "evidence" helps, as I'm a lawyer and utilize that framework a lot.  If we can expand on that framework, I'd like to understand what what the "claim" is for which you are presenting "evidence."  What are you trying to prove to a "colorblind" friend?

12 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

I'm not getting paid for these heart-to-hearts. And I don't have 3.5 years to make my case. Sometimes I'm given 3-5 minutes to make my case while raising a baby, taking care of my family, managing my job, and trying to reach my personal goals. Sometimes there's not even that and I'm needing to explain why what they just said isn't okay or appropriate without using the R word and turning them off/defensive in 10 seconds flat. The circumstance around it is usually what makes more than one question difficult. 

Besides that these aren't court cases, again they're parts of my life. It's one thing to pull evidences meant for court that you are likely not directly effected by.  

I am not suggesting that the "court" framework can or ought to be applied stringently.  But it does help clear the air.  I'm reading what you are writing.  Closely.  I want to understand your position.  We're being told to talk about race/racism, so here we are.

I don't want to force any discussion that you don't want to have.  I am asking for information and explanation, not expecting or demanding such.

12 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

It's quite another to pull examples from your life and have those picked apart and judged on. Besides the emotional and vulnerability aspects involved, it's also tangibly hard to "prove" an experience.  

I see your point.  And I'm not sure one's personal life needs to be put on public display.  

But if we're supposed to be talking about race and racism, I think we need to get down to brass tacks.  For example, the article in the OP is notably vague about Mr. Aidoo:

Quote

He said he appreciates BYU and loves his program but has noticed a huge difference between his experience as a student of color and the experiences of many of his {presumably white} peers.

If I were a BYU student, or if I worked at BYU in some capacity, I would read that and say to myself "Huh.  It sounds like this 'huge difference' in terms of experience at BYU was negative and unpleasant.  I would like to better understand what those negative experiences were.  But the article is silent."

Now, let's say that I took it a step further and privately contacted Mr. Aidoo, saying something like "I read the article about you in The Universe and appreciate your advocacy for anti-racism.  From the article it seemed that you had some unpleasant race-based or race-related experiences at BYU.  I'd like to better understand what happened so that we can improve the BYU environment at BYU.  Could you provide more information?"

In attempting to open such a discussion I am not looking for him to "'prove' an experience," just articulate it with more information and detail than what was provided in the in article (which, again, was quite vague).  I would like to understand his experience.  And then perhaps discuss some parts of it.  

12 hours ago, BlueDreams said:
Quote

Are these assumptions derogatory?  Offensive?  Demeaning?  And if they are, won't patience, kindness, forgiveness, communciation, etc. help to correct those assumptions?

People make assumptions about me all the time.  Some of these assumptions are correct, some are not, and some are wildly wrong.  Some are wrong, but essentially benign.  Some are wrong and offensive, and hence should probably be corrected.  I correct the substantially incorrect and/or misleading assumptions, but otherwise I'm not particularly bothered by them.

They are usually not inherently offensive no. Most often it's assumptions about how I identify and my racial background and throw in a few innocuous stereotypes.

Sure.  Assumptions are applied to me as a Latter-day Saint, me as a Utahn, me as a white person, me as a lawyer, me as a male, me as an adult, me as a sociopolitically conservative person, and so on.

12 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

Which is usually just a little awkward or uncomfortable the first time or 2. The 10th it becomes annoying and frustrating. And I don't lambaste them for getting it wrong. Usually I just correct them if I have the vested desire to do so. But it's not necessarily always mine to fix. As much as I could (and usually do) do a number of those things mentioned, they could also spend some more time in their own life learning more about specific issues and concerns on their own. I have a friend who's done just that. She grew up in a part of idaho with literally no black people and few minorities period. But she's listened to different stories and experiences and grown more aware of other people's concerns outside of her immediate cultural and racial background. She's not perfect, but she's humble enough to know as much and take correction and input when needed.  And honestly that's what most people I know expect or want. 

Sounds good.  This thread is part of my effort in this regard.

I also think that the "tak{ing} correction and input when needed" can, and should, be a two-way street.  I think white people would like their perspectives understood as well.  I think they become annoyed and frustrated with assumptions and stereotypes about them.  

12 hours ago, BlueDreams said:
Quote

I don't understand.  How has a person who claims colorblindness cut himself off "from racial experiences and dialogue?"  How do you know that this has happened?

It becomes apparent in the stories they talk about and share and how they interact with stories and experiences outside their reference point. 

Quote

I apologize for saying this again, but I don't understand.  What does "ignore parts of people's character inadvertently" mean?  

Is skin color a part of a person's "character?"  Dr. King seemed to juxtapose the two (skin color v. character).

Skin color is obviously nothing more than a physiological characteristic. what that means and how it shapes experiences in ones community is likely to effect not only your character, but moreso how you view and see things. Being mixed has shaped some of my character because of the society I live in. 

I still don't understand, but I won't press the point.  Some of these concepts are seemingly too abstract for a message board discussion.

12 hours ago, BlueDreams said:
Quote
Quote

MLK’s dream is often viewed as a promotion of color blundness. But I haven’t seen proclamations of color blindness actually get people to MLK’s dream, in part because it tends to ignore parts of people’s character inadvertently. In other parts, because it ignores social problems that maintain racial disparities.

How do you know this?

How do you mean? The same way I'd learn about anything....experience, listening to others experiences, reading, educating myself, etc. Accruing knowledge and experience over the years. In someways it's just logical. If you don't acknowledge and recognize an experience or problem, you're likely not going to fix it.

I guess when you said colorblindness "ignores social problems that maintain racial disparities," I took that as an imputation onto people who claim to be colorblind.  That these people are "ignor{ing} social problems that maintain racial disparities."

But I don't think that's necessarily the case.  I think a person can be "colorblind" and still cognizant of racial problems.  I think the individual can commit to and work hard at giving equal treatment and respect to people of different races, while still understanding that other people in society may not be doing that.

12 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

This took a while to respond to. Expect as much with the other responses as my kiddo only allows so much writing in the day. 

Take whatever time you need.  I have long valued your perspective on this board.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to post
17 hours ago, MustardSeed said:
Quote

the context matters, I think.  And when being chanted by violent, lawless protesters, "No Justice, No Peace" comes across as a threat of violence.

to you.  It never has to me- 

Okay.  Reasonable minds can disagree about such things.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to post
17 hours ago, Calm said:
Quote

White people are categorically excluded from half the writing job slots at CBS because of the color of their skin, whereas non-whites have access to 100% of the writing job slots at CBS because of the color of their skin. 

CFR 50% of work slots are designated hiring only POC while the other 50% is hiring white or POC as opposed to quotas that look at percentage of all the work slots. 

It looks like CBS is categorically excluding white people from 50% of the writing jobs.  I have not seen anything to suggest that the other 50% are being reserved for white people.  Consequently, a non-white candidate can be considered for 100% of the openings, whereas white candidates can only be considered for 50% or the openings.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to post
25 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

The white lady who put this together did not conclude anything about obsessed.  She marked two elements of time that are fairly common to white American thinking:  Adherence to rigid time schedules Time viewed as a commodity.

I think that's pretty true.  That hardly means, as she also suggests that all people who are white are always on time, nor does it suggest that anyone who is not white, or not white groups, do not also view time as a commodity.  

I'm confused what the big up-in-arms reaction is here.  

In the Caribbean people are also lax with time. There are cultural reasons for that which go beyond race, obviously. For once, the use of time pieces did not become ubiquitous until well into the 20th. So people looked at the sun and calculated time that way. 

In the West, and primarily in developed countries, modern management concepts shaped the perception and importance of time. Its value is linked to productivity, costs and logistics. Once you begin to think in those terms and become "trained" to organize your life on a schedule, it becomes normal and thus expected of others as well. To inject race on the subject is part of the cultural Marxism strategy of the radicals agitating the country as of late. Trust me, I breathed that refuse for a quarter of a century before I came to this country. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
19 hours ago, Danzo said:
Quote

So race-based discrimination against the majority race is okay?

I think you may be still trying to classify people according to race, when race should be meaningless.

You are referring to CBS?

19 hours ago, Danzo said:

A "majority Race" is only meaningful when one looks at people as a race.

If people stopped looking and categorizing people by their "race", "majority race" would have no meaning.

Alas, even "colorblindness" apparently can create problems.  See my discussion with BlueDreams.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to post
3 hours ago, smac97 said:

It looks like CBS is categorically excluding white people from 50% of the writing jobs.  I have not seen anything to suggest that the other 50% are being reserved for white people.  Consequently, a non-white candidate can be considered for 100% of the openings, whereas white candidates can only be considered for 50% or the openings.

It is the same as they have been doing for awhile if I understand them correctly, they have just raised the quota up to 50% nonwhite to better match the demographic of their areas.  Individual jobs are not labeled “no whites allowed”, more like HR has a sign “not hiring whites for now, have enough”.

Whites are 43% of the population of NY City where their headquarters is and 49% in Los Angeles where they likely do a lot of their hiring.   So they are still being hired more often then their demographic numbers would suggest.

Whites have apparently been getting advantageous treatment in the past in the sense of matching the demographics, if so it is not discrimination against whites but intentionally removing favoritism. 

If numbers show that whites are being hired in lower numbers than their demographic, then protective mechanisms can be put into place for them just as being put in place for BIPOC, but to complain they are lacking when whites have gotten jobs in greater numbers, not less in the past is a waste of energy. The tendency to hire whites before nonwhites, to not automatically judge them as better suited for the job based on attitudes towards race rather than the individual attributes will take awhile to dissipate, I suspect. 

Edited by Calm
  • Like 3
Link to post
1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

I'm confused what the big up-in-arms reaction is here.  

I am not up in arms. It was just so contrary to my own experience, I was surprised and amused by it. It certainly does me no harm to be assumed to be punctual if I was out looking for a job rather than the reality of a last minute, barely got there in time only because I would get fired if I wasn’t there kind of person.

Attributing punctuality to whiteness/white culture is something new to me though the other characteristics listed are quite familiar.   I assumed a much more global treatment, institutions worshipping the clock while individuals ignored it where possible, but it appears I am projecting too much of my own experience on to others.

I am not in up in arms, I am delighted to learn something new about people around me I was too dense to notice. 
 

PS:  for me “rigid” or watching the clock behaviour translates as “clock obsessed”...though it doesn’t take much to qualify as that for me due to me feeling that way when forced by circumstances to watch the clock. I realize for others it made be viewed as just being punctual.  I was talking though about how I would perceive the implications of the comments.  My life is very atypical for white Americans I know and I am assuming most other Americans.  I sleep when I am sleepy...mostly during daylight and eat when hungry, usually evening and early morning and clean house when I feel like it. There is a very vague pattern overall, but no guarantee I will hit that on any given day. In some ways, I very much enjoy this. OTOH, the fact the rest of the world is out of sync with me does cause issues, but my family has adapted, so not too much of a problem for me.  My body appears to be incapable of establishing a sleep pattern no matter how rigid I get, so I stopped fighting it. 

Edited by Calm
  • Like 1
Link to post
17 minutes ago, Calm said:

It is the same as they have been doing for awhile if I understand them correctly, they have just raised the quota up to 50% nonwhite to better match the demographic of their areas.  Individual jobs are not labeled “no whites allowed”, more like HR has a sign “not hiring whites for now”.

Whites are 43% of the population of NY City where their headquarters is and 49% in Los Angeles where they likely do a lot of their hiring.   So they are still being hired more often then their demographic numbers would suggest.

Whites have apparently been getting advantageous treatment in the past in the sense of matching the demographics, if so it is not discrimination against whites but intentionally removing favoritism. 

If numbers show that whites are being hired in lower numbers than their demographic, then protective mechanisms can be put into place for them just as being put in place for BIPOC, but to complain they are lacking when whites have gotten jobs in greater numbers, not less in the past is a waste of energy. The tendency to hire whites before nonwhites, to not automatically judge them as better suited for the job based on attitudes towards race rather than the individual attributes will take awhile to dissipate, I suspect. 

Where does qualifications come into the picture?  Among Blacks, only 23% have college degrees.  Among Hispanics only 16.4% have college degrees.  These types of quotas may be unrealistic given the limited number of candidates available. 

Link to post
Posted (edited)
48 minutes ago, Calm said:
Quote

It looks like CBS is categorically excluding white people from 50% of the writing jobs.  I have not seen anything to suggest that the other 50% are being reserved for white people.  Consequently, a non-white candidate can be considered for 100% of the openings, whereas white candidates can only be considered for 50% or the openings.

It is the same as they have been doing for awhile if I understand them correctly, they have just raised the quota up to 50% nonwhite to better match the demographic of their areas.  Individual jobs are not labeled “no whites allowed”, more like HR has a sign “not hiring whites for now”.

I'm not sure I understand the distinction.  Is it one of degree, rather than kind?

Quote

Whites are 43% of the population of NY City where their headquarters is and 49% in Los Angeles where they likely do a lot of their hiring.   So they are still being hired more often then their demographic numbers would suggest.

I don't understand what demographics has to do with categorically excluding applicants from a job slot solely because of his skin color.

If a company were to categorically exclude black people from 50% of the jobs available in the company, based solely on the skin color of those black people, would that be okay?  Can that be justified by pointing to demographic data?

Quote

Whites have apparently been getting advantageous treatment in the past in the sense of matching the demographics, if so it is not discrimination against whites but intentionally removing favoritism.

"Apparently" being the key word there.

I don't think we can say "it is not discrimination" when CBS is expressly and explicitly excluding white people from 50% of writing jobs solely because of the color of their skin.

Quote

If numbers show that whites are being hired in lower numbers than their demographic, then protective mechanisms can be put into place for them just as being put in place for BIPOC, but to complain they are lacking when whites have gotten jobs in greater numbers, not less in the past is a waste of energy.

I can't get on board with this.'  Let's reverse the races and see if it works.

"If numbers show that {blacks} are being hired in lower numbers than their demographic, then protective mechanisms can be put into place for them just as being put in place for {whites}, but to complain they are lacking when {blacks} have gotten jobs in greater numbers, not less in the past is a waste of energy."

Quote

The tendency to hire whites before nonwhites, to not automatically judge them as better suited for the job based on attitudes towards race rather than the individual attributes will take awhile to dissipate, I suspect. 

Meanwhile, it's payback time?  Time to discriminate against white people because of the color of their skin?

And white people are just supposed to shrug and accept such plainly discriminatory hiring practices?

I think race-based discrimination is a horrible thing.  I don't think it can be resolved by doing it more.  

It was in the Parents Involved case that Chief Justice Roberts wrote: “The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.”  I think that's correct.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited by smac97
Link to post
25 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

Where does qualifications come into the picture?  Among Blacks, only 23% have college degrees.  Among Hispanics only 16.4% have college degrees.  These types of quotas may be unrealistic given the limited number of candidates available. 

When you have numbers like 2 million blacks and 2.5 million Hispanics in NYC and the total number of CBS employees in NYC may be around 13,000, I doubt with a little work and patience they won’t be able to find enough capable black and Hispanic writers to qualify. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
6 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Meanwhile, it's payback time?  Time to discriminate against white people because of the color of their skin?

Or looking it at another way, time to get a level playing field by removing advantages for whites, and not because of the color of their skin but because of the advantages that have been given them. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
56 minutes ago, Calm said:

It is the same as they have been doing for awhile if I understand them correctly, they have just raised the quota up to 50% nonwhite to better match the demographic of their areas.  Individual jobs are not labeled “no whites allowed”, more like HR has a sign “not hiring whites for now”.

Whites are 43% of the population of NY City where their headquarters is and 49% in Los Angeles where they likely do a lot of their hiring.   So they are still being hired more often then their demographic numbers would suggest.

Whites have apparently been getting advantageous treatment in the past in the sense of matching the demographics, if so it is not discrimination against whites but intentionally removing favoritism. 

If numbers show that whites are being hired in lower numbers than their demographic, then protective mechanisms can be put into place for them just as being put in place for BIPOC, but to complain they are lacking when whites have gotten jobs in greater numbers, not less in the past is a waste of energy. The tendency to hire whites before nonwhites, to not automatically judge them as better suited for the job based on attitudes towards race rather than the individual attributes will take awhile to dissipate, I suspect. 

Is this affirmative action?  I thought that it was determined that affirmative action (racial quotas) wasn't legal in the U.S.?

Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...