Jump to content

Bombshell BYU announcement


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, BlueDreams said:

That might be the important part here. Myself and many that I also know definitely do not feel that way. 
 

with luv, 

BD 

So many claims and anecdotes in this thread! Most of these terms have documented histories and intended uses, and the closer one is to them, the more they will use and understand them correctly, in context and in good faith. Not spring them on people.

It think its use in the report is warranted and understood by the intended audience. Hopefully as it gets more broadly disseminated it can be explained and discussed in a way that promotes appreciation and understanding. Like we do when we vote for president LOL

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, CV75 said:

RE: "full meaning" -- If your shortened renditions did not retain the original meaning ( Posted 3 hours ago ), and you “think that the original meaning was purposely obfuscated and disguised,” do you have a sense of the original meaning, or just a feeling of mistrust?

I think that people who strongly support "equity" (in all nuances of how that word is used in the critical race theory movement) are extremely happy with how the 26 points were worded. It was speaking their language! I also think that most people not dialed into that find the wording unsatisfactory. The low-hanging fruit is the bloat that plagues a lot of things in general (i.e., not due to ideology or agenda). Those are the easy edits.

There are other instances, though (I pointed some out) where I think the wording was deliberately not clear and concise for ideological reasons. 

I think that I have a sense of the (collective) intent of the committee and the intent of President Worthen, et. al. (the Venn diagrams of which are not just one circle), and I also have a feeling of mistrust. It's not either/or, it can be both/and (how's that for some buzzwording? :) ). Mileage will vary, and some will sharply disagree with me (and others will think I'm delusional). Such is disagreement about controversial topics. :) 

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

That is why my friendly challenge was how to word it in less triggering ways. You did a little, substituting a few words here and there, but then you explain how the subject matter is still triggering. The concerns don't seem to be over matters of style after all.

I think I did more than just "a little" with my wording changes. :) And, I think I did more than just "substitute a few words here and there." 

I have never used the word "trigger" in that context in my life. That's kind of a "tell" as to where people are coming from, right? "Trigger warnings" are to "safe space," as . . .

I think I've made it very clear that my primary issues are the ideological ones, not simply "matters of style." The stylistic choices do reveal a lot about intent (as I've pointed out), but they're not in the forefront. 

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

RE: "implementation" -- You focused on implementation in a certain way, as not having much of a process (explained later in a resigning tone), when transparent, participative approaches, such as in the original, are crucial when big change is afoot. 

Where was my "resigning tone?" :) 

Of course I don't believe that implementation doesn't have "much of a process." I just don't think you have to have the whole load of hay in the action steps list (nor is it desirable to spell out implementation there, I think). Clear, concise actions steps are the goals, the big picture objectives to guide the process. Isn't that the whole point with "mission statements" and things like that (which organizations love to have and develop)? 

It's no less "participative" if the chain of command and process flow chart aren't dwelled on in the "first principles." And as far as transparency, I think it's even more transparent to have clear, concise action items that avoid buzzwords, euphemisms, and agenda lingo. 

Even @bluebell, who is much more enthusiastic and supportive than I am about this, has said a couple of times that she doesn't like the phrasing and the word choice and the communicative effect. I think that will be the general, broad consensus, among average people who are invested in BYU (outside of activists). 

That's how I see it, anyway. 

Edited by rongo
Link to post
On 3/4/2021 at 12:08 PM, BlueDreams said:

 

with luv,

BD 

I do appreciate you taking the time to respond. As to the first of your response, it does seems that to achieve diversity, race/skin/stereotypes will be almost inevitably be used by humans to choose who gets in.

 I do value diversity, and I see its value in and have been influenced positively by it. Due to difference experience of others at my College my viewpoint on a sensitive issue changed in a matter of moments, as someone spoke up an was the lone countering voice to the group think that was occuring. 

 

As to the second part, perhaps I miss understand, but it seems that you are saying "Every body knows white people *insert stereotype*"

Edited by provoman
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
12 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

That might be the important part here. Myself and many that I also know definitely do not feel that way. 
 

with luv, 

BD 

This obvious difference in the views of the different groups we associate with should underscore the danger of assuming that people can be artificially lumped together into categories of political convenience.  Trying to lump all non white people into one group shows a high degree of cultural insensitivity. 

Link to post
On 3/3/2021 at 6:52 AM, AtlanticMike said:

I'm going to give my opinion one time on this thread then leave because I don't do political threads, and this has turned into a political thread. The only reason I'm even typing this is for the youth reading this thread. To the youth reading this, what you see on display in this thread is a bunch of people trying to put you in categories to make themselves feel better, it has way more to do with their "guilt" then has to do with you. So I come to offer you a different opinion!!! College has become a cesspool. While in high school most kids are brainwashed into believing that the only way they can make something of themselves is to go to college, that's a lie! There are many trades you can make $60 to $130 an hour by becoming self employed, no college bullxxxx needed. For instance, I'm a contractor and I'll regularly pay plumbers $90 an hour to work on my customers houses. Hvac contractors make bank also. Landscapers make great money, along with 100s of other trades. Starting your own business, working extremely hard and being 100% honest with customers can be very rewarding emotionally and monetarily. Now to anyone who isnt white, I want to say this because this thread is ridiculous, 99.5% of white people love you. As a contractor I hire people from all cultures and with different skin tones. I dont care what they look like, as long as they work hard. I promise you, if you choose to become self employed and work hard, no one will care what color your skin is, and they won't care if you don't have a college degree. 

    I'm going to tell you one story to make my point. I'm a roofer and I hire all kinds of people with different skin colors when they come out jail, mostly people with possession charges, but I've also hired people who have rape charges or assault charges.  I took a chance an hired a black guy who just got out of jail on assault charges, I was a little worried because he had beat up a cop and tried to take his gun. Well, he was a terrible roofer so I offered to help him start his own business and he became a landscaper. I bought him a used riding lawnmower, pushmower, weedeater and a trailer for a total of $1900. After getting a business license and insurance he was in debt a total of $2200. He paid me back within 6 months and now, 7 years later he has over 40 yards he maintains, including my yard. He drives a $60,000 truck and owns his own home, no college neccessary. And by the way, all his customers are white. If a felon with an assault charge can find a way to be successful, so can you!!! 

    Read above what the poster, The Nehor wrote. He thinks ridicule and shame are the way you change society, be careful of people who think like this, most of them live miserable lives and listening to them can put you in a very miserable mindset, it's contagious.

    Be glad you live in America, be glad with the way you look and go out there and make something of yourself. There's all kinds of people who are just waiting for you to help them out. If you choose to be self employed and take a chance you'll feel really good about yourself. I love you no matter your skin color and so do most people no matter their skin color. 

 

 

I have been away for a while and I do not want to stir it up but I too would like to speak to the possibly imaginary youth viewing this thread about your statement:

d9e.jpg?width=300&name=d9e.jpg

Except for the part about the trades. If you have any aptitude for it then definitely go for it. If you think you will be happier in college do that. Have fun.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
5 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I have been away for a while and I do not want to stir it up but I too would like to speak to the possibly imaginary youth viewing this thread about your statement:

d9e.jpg?width=300&name=d9e.jpg

Except for the part about the trades. If you have any aptitude for it then definitely go for it. If you think you will be happier in college do that. Have fun.

Dang it man!! I really thought you were going to come up with a better come back than this, you're probably tired or something, oh well. Maybe it's all the "ridicule & shame" tactics tiring you out.

Link to post
Just now, AtlanticMike said:

Dang it man!! I really thought you were going to come up with a better come back than this, you're probably tired or something, oh well. Maybe it's all the "ridicule & shame" tactics tiring you out.

Well, I had a longer one in my head but I didn’t have time to write it up. It was 3 in the morning. Probably should have pushed through since I still didn’t get to sleep until 5. Good morning to all and to all an early nap!

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
17 hours ago, rongo said:

I think that people who strongly support "equity" (in all nuances of how that word is used in the critical race theory movement) are extremely happy with how the 26 points were worded. It was speaking their language! I also think that most people not dialed into that find the wording unsatisfactory. The low-hanging fruit is the bloat that plagues a lot of things in general (i.e., not due to ideology or agenda). Those are the easy edits.

There are other instances, though (I pointed some out) where I think the wording was deliberately not clear and concise for ideological reasons. 

I think that I have a sense of the (collective) intent of the committee and the intent of President Worthen, et. al. (the Venn diagrams of which are not just one circle), and I also have a feeling of mistrust. It's not either/or, it can be both/and (how's that for some buzzwording? :) ). Mileage will vary, and some will sharply disagree with me (and others will think I'm delusional). Such is disagreement about controversial topics. :) 

I think I did more than just "a little" with my wording changes. :) And, I think I did more than just "substitute a few words here and there." 

I have never used the word "trigger" in that context in my life. That's kind of a "tell" as to where people are coming from, right? "Trigger warnings" are to "safe space," as . . .

I think I've made it very clear that my primary issues are the ideological ones, not simply "matters of style." The stylistic choices do reveal a lot about intent (as I've pointed out), but they're not in the forefront. 

Where was my "resigning tone?" :) 

Of course I don't believe that implementation doesn't have "much of a process." I just don't think you have to have the whole load of hay in the action steps list (nor is it desirable to spell out implementation there, I think). Clear, concise actions steps are the goals, the big picture objectives to guide the process. Isn't that the whole point with "mission statements" and things like that (which organizations love to have and develop)? 

It's no less "participative" if the chain of command and process flow chart aren't dwelled on in the "first principles." And as far as transparency, I think it's even more transparent to have clear, concise action items that avoid buzzwords, euphemisms, and agenda lingo. 

Even @bluebell, who is much more enthusiastic and supportive than I am about this, has said a couple of times that she doesn't like the phrasing and the word choice and the communicative effect. I think that will be the general, broad consensus, among average people who are invested in BYU (outside of activists). 

That's how I see it, anyway. 

You really don't need to defend anything. Thank you for examining the phrasing, and showing that the discomfort in this is not in that alone, but in the subject matter.

Link to post
1 hour ago, BlueDreams said:

There’s a balance. Due to the racial and historical hierarchy that still exists in the US, there is still common experience, concerns, and interests with a lot of minority folk. I feel more at home in a ward that speaks a language I’m still not perfect in than I do with our very white LDS (and Utahn influenced) stake presidencies are talking to us. My experiences from them are very different in many ways, but there is also commonality in our experiences with the dominant society. 
 

I’ve seen that balance tip quite often the other problematic direction by those who use voices from minority communities that best fit their own political or sociological perspectives. Even when those voices are non-representative of the larger community. They’ll point to them an inadvertently end up minimizing and giving license to ignore the more supported, but less comfortable for them, opinion of the majority of the communities in question. 

With luv, 

BD

 

Here's a real-life anecdote: a friend of my wife received the COVID-19 vaccine out of priority (younger, no health issues, not essential worker, etc.). My wife asked her how that could be, and she replied she set up an electronic chart and then got a call. As we discussed it, I supposed that the clinic was trying to use up unused vaccine -- there are several (in my opinion valid) practical , strategic and political reasons to do that.

I called someone I knew worked in the clinic to confirm how things worked. We are all members of the same ward, so I presented the situation as a hypothetical. She finally asked who the friend was (she was concerned on a personal level), so I told her, and the clinic worker said she simply called her friend when she saw that there was unused vaccine at the end of the day, for the reasons I had supposed. Why did not my wife's friend tell her the full story? It was not a secret that friends and family of clinic workers could be contacted when priority recipients were not in line and there was unused vaccine available.

Here's where racial experience makes all the difference: to my wife, it dawned on her that her friend, white and from a formally apartheid country and admittedly having a problem with overcoming racist attitudes, was accustomed to being friends with people of color, which my wife is, but still accustomed to subtly noth thinking about them as deeply or  withholding opportunity from them.

That may not be the actual case -- maybe her friend is just self-centered or numb or too busy to get into it -- but living all your life in the USA that does withhold opportunity from people of color sets the stage for suffering the same feelings when something like this happens.

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
9 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

There’s a balance. Due to the racial and historical hierarchy that still exists in the US, there is still common experience, concerns, and interests with a lot of minority folk. I feel more at home in a ward that speaks a language I’m still not perfect in than I do with our very white LDS (and Utahn influenced) stake presidencies are talking to us. My experiences from them are very different in many ways, but there is also commonality in our experiences with the dominant society. 
 

I’ve seen that balance tip quite often the other problematic direction by those who use voices from minority communities that best fit their own political or sociological perspectives. Even when those voices are non-representative of the larger community. They’ll point to them an inadvertently end up minimizing and giving license to ignore the more supported, but less comfortable for them, opinion of the majority of the communities in question. 

With luv, 

BD

 

In our stake, I am involvved to revive a Spanish Branch that was discontinued a few years ago.  Many of the hispanics want this to happen,  However, there are also many Hispanics that do not want to attend a spanish branch even though they don't speak english very well.   was talking to one of the families that mildly resent the pressure to go to the unit that is being set up for them. They feel much more confortable in their current ward.  Other wan't a spanish branch because they don't feel they fit in with their current ward

Both those who want to attend a spanish unit and those that do not have very good and valid reasons.  

It seems grouping, skin color, native language spoken and heritage are not good substitutes for getting to know people on an individual level

Link to post
7 hours ago, CV75 said:

That may not be the actual case -- maybe her friend is just self-centered or numb or too busy to get into it -- but living all your life in the USA that does withhold opportunity from people of color sets the stage for suffering the same feelings when something like this happens.

I've read your statement 4 times and I don't understand what your talking about, would you mind explaining it to me? Especially the part about the USA🇺🇸 withholding opportunity  from people if they're not white.

    I guess what confuses me is all the "people of color" south of our border right now as I type this, why are they willing to walk here from 100s of miles away if there's no opportunity? My wife's mother came from the Philippines which is a great place, but she came here because there was even more opportunity here. A lady in our ward came from Taiwan and left her kids there, took 2 years of saving money  to get her daughter and another year to get her son here. I just roofed a house for a pakistani-american doctor whose parents came her with nothing, opened a laundry service within 5 years and lived in the shop. Now they live with their son in his 10,000 sq. Ft. House. My wife's gynecologist is a black man from Africa, his parents came here when he was 8, I built a mother in law suite on his house so his parents could move in. Since I'm in the roofing business some of my biggest competitors are Latinos that will work from sun up till sun down. They will hire a white guy so the white guy can talk english to the customers. Within a year or two they'll have a f350 diesel truck, a couple trash trailers and 8 of them will be living in a rental house so they can save money and send it back home to help out their family, its amazing what they do. I have a Cuban guy that works for me whenever his back doesn't hurt(he's 68) he's a retired firefighter and his parents moved here so their kids could have a better life. I could go on and on and on. 

     What am I missing? What am I not seeing? 

  • Like 1
Link to post
8 minutes ago, Danzo said:

In our stake, I am involvved to revive a Spanish Branch that was discontinued a few years ago.  Many of the hispanics want this to happen,  However, there are also many Hispanics that do not want to attend a spanish branch even though they don't speak english very well.   was talking to one of the families that mildly resent the pressure to go to the unit that is being set up for them. They feel much more confortable in their current ward.  Other wan't a spanish branch because they don't feel they fit in with their current ward

Both those who want to attend a spanish unit and those that do not have very good and valid reasons.  

It seems grouping by skin color, native language spoken and heritage are not good substitutes for getting to know people on an individual level

 

Link to post

I've given this topic some further thought.

I continue to have concerns about these policies resulting in de facto race-based discrimination, as has happened at other schools.

Also, although these policies are well-intended, I continue to have concerns about other potential unintended consequences.  Take, for example, the "mismatch" theory.  See, e.g., here:

Quote

Accompanying the general subject of affirmative action in the spotlight is the “mismatch” hypothesis, which posits that minority students are harmed by the very policies designed to help them. Justice Clarence Thomas made this argument in his dissent in the Grutter case: “The Law School tantalizes unprepared students with the promise of a University of Michigan degree and all of the opportunities that it offers. These overmatched students take the bait, only to find that they cannot succeed in the cauldron of competition. And this mismatch crisis is not restricted to elite institutions.”
...
The mismatch hypothesis is thus an empirical question: have admissions offices systematically overstepped in their zeal to recruit a diverse student body? In other words, are they admitting students who would be better off if they had gone to college elsewhere, or not at all? There is very little high-quality evidence supporting the mismatch hypothesis, especially as it relates to undergraduate admissions—the subject of the current Supreme Court case.

I'll need to do some further reading on this, as the information about it is conflicting.  See, for example here (from the above link, from 2013) :

Quote

In fact, most of the research on the mismatch question points in the opposite direction. In our 2009 book, William Bowen, Michael McPherson, and I found that students were most likely to graduate by attending the most selective institution that would admit them. This finding held regardless of student characteristics—better or worse prepared, black or white, rich or poor. Most troubling was the fact that many well-prepared students “undermatch” by going to a school that is not demanding enough, and are less likely to graduate as a result. Other prior research has found that disadvantaged students benefit more from attending a higher quality college than their more advantaged peers.

So per this book "students were most likely to graduate by attending the most selective institution that would admit them."

On the other hand, there's this perspective (from 2015) :

Quote

Though the {U.S. Supreme} Court has long accepted the practice of state-run schools factoring race and ethnicity into their decisions about whether to admit students, the justices should consider one of the unintended consequences of these affirmative action policies: Students admitted based on their skin color, rather than their merit, may end up “mismatched” with their school, which leads to low grades and high dropout rates.
...

Affirmative action-induced low grades are a serious problem—as demonstrated by research over the course of the last decade. For example, in one study of top law schools, more than 50 percent of African-American law students (many of whom had been admitted pursuant to affirmative action policies) were in the bottom 10 percent of their class. And the dropout rate among African-American students was more than twice that of their white peers (19.3 percent vs. 8.2 percent).

As University of San Diego law professor and U.S. Civil Rights Commissioner Gail Heriot details in a Special Report for the Heritage Foundation, there’s a similar dropout rate among students admitted due to affirmative action policies and white students admitted as “legacies” with entering credentials that match those of students admitted because of a race preference.

This highlights the problem of academic “mismatch,” regardless of skin color. When a student’s entering credentials put him or her at the bottom of the class, it should come as no surprise when he or she switches to an easier major, drops out, or fails out. It’s become increasingly clear that affirmative action is doing more harm than good to the very people it is intended to help.

The problem doesn’t stop there. Because of affirmative action policies, fewer minorities enter careers in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) fields. This is not due to a lack of talented minority students—of which there are many. As Professor Heriot writes:

Quote

{There} are not enough [academically-gifted African-American or Hispanic students] at the very top tiers to satisfy the demand, and efforts to change that have had a pernicious effect on admissions up and down the academic pecking order, creating a serious credentials gap at every competitive level.

Neither is it due to a lack of interest. Study after study shows that minorities tend to be more interested in STEM fields than their white counterparts. But admitting students with lower high school grades and SAT math scores into schools with elite science and math programs is a recipe for disaster. Heriot describes one study conducted by UCLA law professor Richard Sander and UCLA statistician Roger Bolus, which indicated:

Quote

{S}tudents with credentials more than one standard deviation below their science peers at college are about half as likely to end up with science bachelor degrees, compared with similar students attending schools where their credentials are much closer to, or above, the mean credentials of their peers.

Thus, students should be encouraged to apply to universities where their credentials are matched with those of their fellow students. Merit-based admissions are a “win-win” situation. Students end up at institutions where they are more likely to graduate and in the field of study they actually want to pursue. A case in point is the race-blind admissions in the University of California system.

California’s Race-Blind Admissions Lead to Higher Grades and Fewer Dropouts

In 1996, the people of California passed an initiative amending the state constitution to bar state schools from “discriminat[ing] against, or grant[ing] preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin.” Before this amendment went into effect, California struggled with affirmative action-induced high failure rates and low grades. Heriot notes that UC-San Diego, a selective institution topped only by flagship institutions like Berkeley, had only one African-American student with a 3.5 GPA or higher after freshman year in 1997.

Failure rates at state schools were also disappointing, with 15 percent of African-American and 17 percent of American-Indian students in academic jeopardy, as compared with 4 percent of white students. The problem was not that there were no minority students capable of making the UC-San Diego Honor Roll—it’s just that those students were going to places like Berkeley and Stanford, where they too were not on the Honor Roll.
...
The Harms Are Clear

The harms of affirmative action are clear. Academic mismatch perpetuates low grades and high dropout rates for minority students who need a racial preference to gain admission. Basing admissions on race rather than merit also contributes to the dearth of minorities in STEM fields. No person should be disadvantaged by the color of his or her skin, no matter how sincere the intentions of affirmative action proponents.

Notwithstanding the foregoing concerns, I acknowledge that the policies under discussion here are not within my stewardship.  Also, I repose a fair measure of trust and confidence in the Brethren, and even some confidence in the administration at BYU (Pres. Worthen used to be a lawyer, after all ;) ).  I also assume that those who are part of the decision-making process are cognizant of most or all of the issues I and others have raised, and are likely more well-versed about them than I am.  I also trust that those who are part of the decision-making process will seek out guidance from the Lord through prayer and fasting.

Consequently, I will support whatever decision is reached, and hope that it works out.  I hope our BIPOC brothers and sisters benefit from whatever policies are implemented.  And if there are others who are in some way disadvantaged or injured because of those policies, I hope they will be patient and accommodating.  The Church and BYU are grappling with some very long-term, very difficult issues about race.  They seem to be both sincere in their desires to mend fences and heal wounds, and also ready to enact some substantial changes to achieve those ends.  For that I give them credit, and for that I am grateful.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited by smac97
  • Like 3
Link to post
2 hours ago, Danzo said:

In our stake, I am involvved to revive a Spanish Branch that was discontinued a few years ago.  Many of the hispanics want this to happen,  However, there are also many Hispanics that do not want to attend a spanish branch even though they don't speak english very well.   was talking to one of the families that mildly resent the pressure to go to the unit that is being set up for them. They feel much more confortable in their current ward.  Other wan't a spanish branch because they don't feel they fit in with their current ward

Both those who want to attend a spanish unit and those that do not have very good and valid reasons.  

It seems grouping, skin color, native language spoken and heritage are not good substitutes for getting to know people on an individual level

Danzo, it’s not an either/or thing. It’s a little more of a yes/and. Discussing group or community trends, concerns, and needs doesn’t mean that each individual will experience each of these concerns in the same way. It also doesn’t mean that the individual can completely override their social circumstances. 
 

I’m also not sure if you fully got my point. So I’ll use your example. Let’s say going into the assignment you had a really big bias against specialty wards and assumed people were better off without them (obviously you probably wouldn’t have taken the assignment. But it could be another with a similar stance who had some say in the formation). When you heard the story of the people who would prefer to stay in the English wards they attend you take that as confirmation that there isn’t a legitimate need for the change and that doing so may be causing more burden than it’s worth. So you end up hamstringing the effort because a few/some would prefer something different. 
 

that’s what I meant of taking the individual voice that confirms one bias to invalidate the needs of the whole of the community. I’ve seen it happen before more than once on a variety of issues. 
 

with luv, 

BD 



 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
2 hours ago, AtlanticMike said:

What am I missing? What am I not seeing? 

The comparison countries at hand. I don’t think the US is the worst country ever and there are several countries that are far worse off in several areas. It may be helpful to also ask what it would take for you to move from your country to one that you don’t speak the language at all or minimally and leave your loved ones often for years in order to make money. Personally it would have to be some dire straits and that’s often what you’re getting with people migrating. Whether in terms of safety, dwindling funds, or something similar, they’re often coming from difficult circumstances that necessitate difficult decisions.
My one dad fits into that category. He landed in UT probably 35-40 years ago when they could count all the black people and know them by name in the region. He’s never doubted racism and ignorance is alive and well where he lives. He’s seen it more than once as a black man, from suspicion, differing treatments, unwarranted pull-overs and suspicions from cops, etc. But you know what’s worse than that? Kidnappings, a civil war, and rampant corruption. He chose Utah because it was peaceful. Not because it was perfect. 
My husband wasn’t in dire straits when he came here for school. He simply came first for himself and then for his sister to help her acclimate to BYU. For the record he hated BYU for very legitimate reasons. He stayed to gain some job opportunities but was never planning to live here permanently. He had the capacity and means to immigrate again to another country easily and he had his eyes on several. I was the one who drastically shifted his plans for a while. We may still move out of country one day. We’re wanting to at least do a summer stay in cusco one day. The US isn’t the only place worth living, it’s just a solid option that has some trade offs and concerns that are less than more troubled regions of the world. 
 

with luv, 

BD 
 

Edited by BlueDreams
  • Like 2
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
17 hours ago, AtlanticMike said:

I've read your statement 4 times and I don't understand what your talking about, would you mind explaining it to me? Especially the part about the USA🇺🇸 withholding opportunity  from people if they're not white.

    I guess what confuses me is all the "people of color" south of our border right now as I type this, why are they willing to walk here from 100s of miles away if there's no opportunity? My wife's mother came from the Philippines which is a great place, but she came here because there was even more opportunity here. A lady in our ward came from Taiwan and left her kids there, took 2 years of saving money  to get her daughter and another year to get her son here. I just roofed a house for a pakistani-american doctor whose parents came her with nothing, opened a laundry service within 5 years and lived in the shop. Now they live with their son in his 10,000 sq. Ft. House. My wife's gynecologist is a black man from Africa, his parents came here when he was 8, I built a mother in law suite on his house so his parents could move in. Since I'm in the roofing business some of my biggest competitors are Latinos that will work from sun up till sun down. They will hire a white guy so the white guy can talk english to the customers. Within a year or two they'll have a f350 diesel truck, a couple trash trailers and 8 of them will be living in a rental house so they can save money and send it back home to help out their family, its amazing what they do. I have a Cuban guy that works for me whenever his back doesn't hurt(he's 68) he's a retired firefighter and his parents moved here so their kids could have a better life. I could go on and on and on. 

     What am I missing? What am I not seeing? 

The USA is a great, promised land of opportunity which unfortunately has a vein of racism infiltrating all levels of formal and informal policy. That is to be expected in a fallen world where the majority social group will seek to protect its economic interests. This might be why, on a visceral level, in this thread, so many white people are more comfortable with  "diversity" than with "race equity" and with "need" than with "socioeconomic disadvantage," or at least consider them to be the same thing.

Granted, I am speaking in generalities. The US Constitution has been amended and general laws have changed since slavery, but popular attitudes and finer points of policy have persisted against Blacks, and by extension against other races. As much as things have improved, much remains to be improved. I think the survey results on which the report is based bears this out in the university level.

If the immigrants and other people in your life were to take the survey, or something similar, I think they would more often than not confirm an experience with prejudice and racism that affected their opportunities in worse ways than if they were white. Coping with or sidestepping racism as a milestone for success is a great relief, but not necessarily the same as moving it out of the way, nor as satisfying as not having to settle and call it good.

  • Upvote 3
Link to post
1 hour ago, CV75 said:

This might be why, on a visceral level, in this thread, so many white people are more comfortable with  "diversity" than with "race equity" and with "need" than with "socioeconomic disadvantage," or at least consider them to be the same thing.

Since I'm one of the white people on this thread you might be talking about,  can you tell me what I'm doing wrong in my day to day life to make it harder for my fellow POC neighbors? How do I need to restructure they way I view the world/America? 

  • Like 1
Link to post
59 minutes ago, AtlanticMike said:

Since I'm one of the white people on this thread you might be talking about,  can you tell me what I'm doing wrong in my day to day life to make it harder for my fellow POC neighbors? How do I need to restructure they way I view the world/America? 

I don't know your personal specifics. If you are focusing on the friendly word challenge, examine why you might be more comfortable with  "diversity" than with "race equity" and with "need" than with "socioeconomic disadvantage," or why you might consider each pairing to be the same thing. Perhaps you can review the survey, or a similar one with those close to you, and see what they have to say, and how you might help them navigate or remove their experience with racism in America.

They may be perfectly satisfied about that and with you for all know. Many people say, "That's just the way life is and I'm grateful for what I've got," and that's good enough for them. But even that is a recognition in a way that racism is a barrier to opportunity as measured in a population through instruments like the survey.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
6 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I don't know your personal specifics. If you are focusing on the friendly word challenge, examine why you might be more comfortable with  "diversity" than with "race equity" and with "need" than with "socioeconomic disadvantage," or why you might consider each pairing to be the same thing. Perhaps you can review the survey, or a similar one with those close to you, and see what they have to say, and how you might help them navigate or remove their experience with racism in America.

They may be perfectly satisfied about that and with you for all know. Many people say, "That's just the way life is and I'm grateful for what I've got," and that's good enough for them. But even that is a recognition in a way that racism is a barrier to opportunity as measured in a population through instruments like the survey.

Here's a screenshot  of what Dr. Robin DiAngelo teaches to people with my skin tone all around the USA. She says if I start doing these simple things she's listed, people of color will be more comfortable around me, do you think that's true?  

20210307_154014.jpg

Link to post
16 minutes ago, AtlanticMike said:

Here's a screenshot  of what Dr. Robin DiAngelo teaches to people with my skin tone all around the USA. She says if I start doing these simple things she's listed, people of color will be more comfortable around me, do you think that's true?  

20210307_154014.jpg

At first glance I wouldn't know what any of that means in practical, personal racial terms, especially the last one. I'm sure she wrote a book that is far more helpful, or explains it adequately in her lectures. It's good advice for anyone of any skin tone. As presented here, maybe it is a basic introductory lecture on the topic. I gave my advice above, which I think might be more immediately applicable and insightful for you.

Link to post
14 minutes ago, CV75 said:

It's good advice for anyone of any skin tone.

Besides the last part, it is just good advice for any situation IMO.  The last...could mean lots of things, including stop making excuses for racism

Edited by Calm
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
38 minutes ago, Calm said:

Besides the last part, it is just good advice for any situation IMO.  The last...could mean lots of things, including stop making excuses for racism

So you dont think the screenshot I provided is racist? What if you took the word white and replaced it with black, and had black people read it. Would that be racist?

Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...