Affirmative Action and Race Discussions Should Be Moved to Its Own Forum

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I actually think POC have it easier to be honest. If you're a reasonably talented minority you're golden.

This attitude is a part of the problem. Yes, POC that are in the top 1-5% are very desired and golden. But so are the top 1-5% of whites, Asians and Hispanics. It isn't the uber-talented that have a problem.

The problem is that when you look at the remaining 95%, that blacks have significantly lower hiring rate than their peers, e.g. the lower 95% of white applicants. When you take candidates that are otherwise equal, the black candidates get fewer calls, callbacks and get hired less than their white counterparts. I think it's unfair that many people look at the unqualified black students that get into college due to AA, but don't question the unqualified candidates that get into college on an athletic scholarship.

Often it's not even based on the criteria or qualifications of the candidates, just being black is a deterrent in getting a job. Just one example,
http://www.nber.org/papers/w9873

Are Emily and Greg More Employable than Lakisha and Jamal? A Field Experiment on Labor Market Discrimination wrote:
We perform a field experiment to measure racial discrimination in the labor market. We respond with fictitious resumes to help-wanted ads in Boston and Chicago newspapers. To manipulate perception of race, each resume is assigned either a very African American sounding name or a very White sounding name. The results show significant discrimination against African-American names: White names receive 50 percent more callbacks for interviews. We also find that race affects the benefits of a better resume. For White names, a higher quality resume elicits 30 percent more callbacks whereas for African Americans, it elicits a far smaller increase.
...

So that's fascinating.

I'm going to ask a question with the danger of being called racist - when did naming AA kids with names like "Lakisha and Jamal" start? Seems like it's only been prevalent for the last 20 years or so. Do all AA's do this, or is it more of an inner city thing? And if it's shown to affect employability, is the trend reversing itself?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I don't call everyone racist. Nor do most of the other successful AAs and other minorities that I know. Most of my friends and colleagues are white and I don't believe they are racist. That is immaterial to and does not change the fact that treating applicants differently BECAUSE THEY ARE MINORITIES is racist, and biased, and ILLEGAL.

Therefore, treating Asian applicants differently in college admissions is racist, (and) biased and ILLEGAL BECAUSE THEY ARE members of a MINORITY group.

Absolutely. There are legal cases currently being filed against schools that have a max quota of Asians that are admitted in any given admissions cycle. In particular, there is a lawsuit against Harvard for exactly that.

Ok. The sad and tragic part is that Asian American's complaint of racial discrimination goes NOWHERE whereas racial discrimination complaints by Blacks are taken VERY SERIOUSLY mostly due to political influence. It is sad we do not yet have "Equal Protection Under Law" in this country.

It is but most Asians will just keep plugging away.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I don't call everyone racist. Nor do most of the other successful AAs and other minorities that I know. Most of my friends and colleagues are white and I don't believe they are racist. That is immaterial to and does not change the fact that treating applicants differently BECAUSE THEY ARE MINORITIES is racist, and biased, and ILLEGAL.

Therefore, treating Asian applicants differently in college admissions is racist, (and) biased and ILLEGAL BECAUSE THEY ARE members of a MINORITY group.

Absolutely. There are legal cases currently being filed against schools that have a max quota of Asians that are admitted in any given admissions cycle. In particular, there is a lawsuit against Harvard for exactly that.

Ok. The sad and tragic part is that Asian American's complaint of racial discrimination goes NOWHERE whereas racial discrimination complaints by Blacks are taken VERY SERIOUSLY mostly due to political influence. It is sad we do not yet have "Equal Protection Under Law" in this country.

Chris Rock's Asian joke on the Oscars just got yawns. Sad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I don't call everyone racist. Nor do most of the other successful AAs and other minorities that I know. Most of my friends and colleagues are white and I don't believe they are racist. That is immaterial to and does not change the fact that treating applicants differently BECAUSE THEY ARE MINORITIES is racist, and biased, and ILLEGAL.

Therefore, treating Asian applicants differently in college admissions is racist, (and) biased and ILLEGAL BECAUSE THEY ARE members of a MINORITY group.

Absolutely. There are legal cases currently being filed against schools that have a max quota of Asians that are admitted in any given admissions cycle. In particular, there is a lawsuit against Harvard for exactly that.

Ok. The sad and tragic part is that Asian American's complaint of racial discrimination goes NOWHERE whereas racial discrimination complaints by Blacks are taken VERY SERIOUSLY mostly due to political influence. It is sad we do not yet have "Equal Protection Under Law" in this country.

Chris Rock's Asian joke on the Oscars just got yawns. Sad.

I am the person quoted above stating (the obvious) fact that treating job applicants differently because they are minorities is illegal. I don't practice education law, so I only know about employment law. But yes, under the federal anti discrimination laws, it would be illegal to treat Asians, whites, men, or any other subgroup differently because of their race. Anyone subject to those laws who doesn't hire asians because they are asian (and for the record asians are underrepresented in many fields -- law is a one example) is violating the law. Affirmative action is not legal for any employer subject to Title VII.

[Anonymous]

When I (Asian guy) was in college, I applied for a scholarship that was set aside for minority students so, thinking I am one, I tried to apply. I was quickly (and quietly) told I don't "qualify." I learned that I am one but I am not one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I don't call everyone racist. Nor do most of the other successful AAs and other minorities that I know. Most of my friends and colleagues are white and I don't believe they are racist. That is immaterial to and does not change the fact that treating applicants differently BECAUSE THEY ARE MINORITIES is racist, and biased, and ILLEGAL.

Therefore, treating Asian applicants differently in college admissions is racist, (and) biased and ILLEGAL BECAUSE THEY ARE members of a MINORITY group.

Absolutely. There are legal cases currently being filed against schools that have a max quota of Asians that are admitted in any given admissions cycle. In particular, there is a lawsuit against Harvard for exactly that.

Ok. The sad and tragic part is that Asian American's complaint of racial discrimination goes NOWHERE whereas racial discrimination complaints by Blacks are taken VERY SERIOUSLY mostly due to political influence. It is sad we do not yet have "Equal Protection Under Law" in this country.

Chris Rock's Asian joke on the Oscars just got yawns. Sad.

I am the person quoted above stating (the obvious) fact that treating job applicants differently because they are minorities is illegal. I don't practice education law, so I only know about employment law. But yes, under the federal anti discrimination laws, it would be illegal to treat Asians, whites, men, or any other subgroup differently because of their race. Anyone subject to those laws who doesn't hire asians because they are asian (and for the record asians are underrepresented in many fields -- law is a one example) is violating the law. Affirmative action is not legal for any employer subject to Title VII.

You are saying Affirmative Action is illegal?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Talking about Big 3 Consulting. Guessing McKenzie based on so many tests.

the consulting firm specializing in strip clubs, liquor stores, truck stops, gas stations, and gun shops.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:URMs that go to elite schools many times get exposed when they apply to companies like mine. We ask for SAT and if the candidate has already taken them, GMAT/gre scores for entry level direct from college hires. We also ask for transcripts. URMs that go to elite schools don't push themselves academically (in general) from the hundreds of transcripts and scores that I've seen while being on the recruiting committee. They take easier classes and easier majors. There are always URMs that have the total package and they are fiercely fought over with tons of job offers from us and our competitors.

You can't deny that undergrad degrees in sociology and AA studies don't have the resume value of what are considered the "hard" disciplines.

[Anonymous]

Man, did I mistakenly click on red state?

[Anonymous]

Once again, another "let's sh*t on Black people" thread.

[Anonymous]

keep that chip on your shoulder. You can't have it both ways. I am assuming you are also against affirmative action correct

[Anonymous]

I get it.

In many of your eyes, there is nothing that Blacks or Latinos can ever do that will warrant praise.

In many of these threads, Blacks and Latinos are criticized for "not making education a priority" despite records numbers of both attending undergrad and grad schools.

And the ones that do go to college are criticized for not "pushing themselves academically" or not picking the "right" majors - in an attempt to marginalize the degree that they did earn - the same degrees from the same schools that many of you have. It is like many of you go out of your way to paint yourselves and your children as better than others.

And those sociology majors that you folks look down on, the majority of them go into social services as a career. Maybe not prestigious careers for many of you, but very necessary given our low income and elderly population.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I get it.

In many of your eyes, there is nothing that Blacks or Latinos can ever do that will warrant praise.

In many of these threads, Blacks and Latinos are criticized for "not making education a priority" despite records numbers of both attending undergrad and grad schools.

And the ones that do go to college are criticized for not "pushing themselves academically" or not picking the "right" majors - in an attempt to marginalize the degree that they did earn - the same degrees from the same schools that many of you have. It is like many of you go out of your way to paint yourselves and your children as better than others.

And those sociology majors that you folks look down on, the majority of them go into social services as a career. Maybe not prestigious careers for many of you, but very necessary given our low income and elderly population.

+1 It's really sad. AA take up such a small population of top ranked schools yet folks here don't even want that. It's just sad. AA girl gets admitted to all the ivy's and instead of having something nice to day many folks complained and found issue with that. I think it's envy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I actually think POC have it easier to be honest. If you're a reasonably talented minority you're golden.

This attitude is a part of the problem. Yes, POC that are in the top 1-5% are very desired and golden. But so are the top 1-5% of whites, Asians and Hispanics. It isn't the uber-talented that have a problem.

The problem is that when you look at the remaining 95%, that blacks have significantly lower hiring rate than their peers, e.g. the lower 95% of white applicants. When you take candidates that are otherwise equal, the black candidates get fewer calls, callbacks and get hired less than their white counterparts. I think it's unfair that many people look at the unqualified black students that get into college due to AA, but don't question the unqualified candidates that get into college on an athletic scholarship.

Often it's not even based on the criteria or qualifications of the candidates, just being black is a deterrent in getting a job. Just one example,
http://www.nber.org/papers/w9873

Are Emily and Greg More Employable than Lakisha and Jamal? A Field Experiment on Labor Market Discrimination wrote:
We perform a field experiment to measure racial discrimination in the labor market. We respond with fictitious resumes to help-wanted ads in Boston and Chicago newspapers. To manipulate perception of race, each resume is assigned either a very African American sounding name or a very White sounding name. The results show significant discrimination against African-American names: White names receive 50 percent more callbacks for interviews. We also find that race affects the benefits of a better resume. For White names, a higher quality resume elicits 30 percent more callbacks whereas for African Americans, it elicits a far smaller increase.
...

So that's fascinating.

I'm going to ask a question with the danger of being called racist - when did naming AA kids with names like "Lakisha and Jamal" start? Seems like it's only been prevalent for the last 20 years or so. Do all AA's do this, or is it more of an inner city thing? And if it's shown to affect employability, is the trend reversing itself?

Do you understand that Lakisha and Jamal are not names associated with slavery? AA last names are names given by slave owners and passed down for generations. Unfortunately, the ancestral last name cannot be traced by 99% of African Americans. Just a fact. Names other than Anglo give some semblance of 'choice.' There is nothing wrong with that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I get it.

In many of your eyes, there is nothing that Blacks or Latinos can ever do that will warrant praise.

In many of these threads, Blacks and Latinos are criticized for "not making education a priority" despite records numbers of both attending undergrad and grad schools.

And the ones that do go to college are criticized for not "pushing themselves academically" or not picking the "right" majors - in an attempt to marginalize the degree that they did earn - the same degrees from the same schools that many of you have. It is like many of you go out of your way to paint yourselves and your children as better than others.

And those sociology majors that you folks look down on, the majority of them go into social services as a career. Maybe not prestigious careers for many of you, but very necessary given our low income and elderly population.

+1 It's really sad. AA take up such a small population of top ranked schools yet folks here don't even want that. It's just sad. AA girl gets admitted to all the ivy's and instead of having something nice to day many folks complained and found issue with that. I think it's envy.

I don't think that's true. I don't this people have issues with minorities attending top tier colleges. It's the perceived lack of fairness (i.e., using different standards for admission or hiring) that bothers people.