Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For the last time. You solve this entire issue by abolishing Affirmative Action. Until you do that you will have people assuming URM (blacks/hispanics) being in certain places due to affirmative action.

Personal experience when I got my MBA top 5 program About half of the AA and Hispanics actually belonged there. The other half clearly didn't. This was also true for the international students. They wern't dumb but they were clearly a cut below the rest of my other classmates which again included many really great AA, Hispanics, and International students but not all

And clearly, there are many whites who do not belong in a top 5 program. Not dumb but a cut below other students. Whites do not have an academic intelligence monopoly, period.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For the last time. You solve this entire issue by abolishing Affirmative Action. Until you do that you will have people assuming URM (blacks/hispanics) being in certain places due to affirmative action.

Personal experience when I got my MBA top 5 program About half of the AA and Hispanics actually belonged there. The other half clearly didn't. This was also true for the international students. They wern't dumb but they were clearly a cut below the rest of my other classmates which again included many really great AA, Hispanics, and International students but not all

And clearly, there are many whites who do not belong in a top 5 program. Not dumb but a cut below other students. Whites do not have an academic intelligence monopoly, period.

Anonymous wrote:For the last time. You solve this entire issue by abolishing Affirmative Action. Until you do that you will have people assuming URM (blacks/hispanics) being in certain places due to affirmative action.

Personal experience when I got my MBA top 5 program About half of the AA and Hispanics actually belonged there. The other half clearly didn't. This was also true for the international students. They wern't dumb but they were clearly a cut below the rest of my other classmates which again included many really great AA, Hispanics, and International students but not all

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Did not say anything about slavery, so I don't know where that's coming from. There's nothing wrong with naming your child whatever you want. I've just noticed that other minorities, Asians and also Hispanics, go with standard western european names. AA's seem to be going in a different direction. And the study above says it affects employment. So why do it?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
It also not fair that someones whiteness can actually have difference in your success in life over minorities of color. Yes, this still happens, in 2016. How do you suppose we address this situation? Or I guess we don't b/c its too complicated??

So I'm close to 50. I can remember reading about the Bakke case in 8th grade Civics class. How long does affirmative action go on? It used to be a correction for institutional discrimination, but that's been gone for 40 years. Then it became a method for creating diversity. And now it's morphing into a correction for 'white privilege'. Where and when does it end? Because children in school today (my white, male kids) can be discriminated against and it's ok. And they are being indoctrinated with this white privilege stuff to convince them that if they are not racist, then they are the beneficiaries of racism. It's crazy.

Lets get away from the "white privilege" labels for a moment, since you seem to miss the point on it entirely. Tell me: In general, do POC have a fair shot in this society? Are they treated equally? Can the color of ones skin have an impact on ones success in this country? This is really where the crux of AA issue lies. If you believe of the answers to these questions are "yes," then your world view is VERY different from what reality, studies and data show--but at least it helps explain your position. If your answer is "No" or "Sometimes," then AA is still necessary. Pretty cut and dry.

What about students who have the same educational opportunities but if AA can gain admission [an aid even if not needed] with dramatically lower scores and gpa's? ie a 3.2 gpa in an easy major nets an ivy law school. yes it is true.

You also mean whites with a "dramatically lower score and GPA, correct? And a 3.2 GPA in an easy major too? Right?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Did not say anything about slavery, so I don't know where that's coming from. There's nothing wrong with naming your child whatever you want. I've just noticed that other minorities, Asians and also Hispanics, go with standard western european names. AA's seem to be going in a different direction. And the study above says it affects employment. So why do it?

Anonymous wrote:

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 wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a hiring manager, I know I scrutinize URM hires very closely. It is just very hard to ever get rid of a low performing URM - you basically have to wait for them to quit, moving them around to find something they can do. Contrast that with someone 'unprotected' and if they do not perform you do the little HR dance for a few weeks and away they go. Everyone is afraid of a lawsuit and the reputational risk of being dragged through the courts or media. Or you know that a termination will come with a likely accusation of racial bias, which usually goes away with a little settlement money.

The sad thing is we have some wonderful URM hires - but it only has to happen to you once for you to become very careful.

At least you're admitting your racist bias, I guess.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
It also not fair that someones whiteness can actually have difference in your success in life over minorities of color. Yes, this still happens, in 2016. How do you suppose we address this situation? Or I guess we don't b/c its too complicated??

So I'm close to 50. I can remember reading about the Bakke case in 8th grade Civics class. How long does affirmative action go on? It used to be a correction for institutional discrimination, but that's been gone for 40 years. Then it became a method for creating diversity. And now it's morphing into a correction for 'white privilege'. Where and when does it end? Because children in school today (my white, male kids) can be discriminated against and it's ok. And they are being indoctrinated with this white privilege stuff to convince them that if they are not racist, then they are the beneficiaries of racism. It's crazy.

Lets get away from the "white privilege" labels for a moment, since you seem to miss the point on it entirely. Tell me: In general, do POC have a fair shot in this society? Are they treated equally? Can the color of ones skin have an impact on ones success in this country? This is really where the crux of AA issue lies. If you believe of the answers to these questions are "yes," then your world view is VERY different from what reality, studies and data show--but at least it helps explain your position. If your answer is "No" or "Sometimes," then AA is still necessary. Pretty cut and dry.

What about students who have the same educational opportunities but if AA can gain admission [an aid even if not needed] with dramatically lower scores and gpa's? ie a 3.2 gpa in an easy major nets an ivy law school. yes it is true.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Do you mean every minority in top tier colleges is there because of affirmative action and not because of hard work?

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
It also not fair that someones whiteness can actually have difference in your success in life over minorities of color. Yes, this still happens, in 2016. How do you suppose we address this situation? Or I guess we don't b/c its too complicated??

So I'm close to 50. I can remember reading about the Bakke case in 8th grade Civics class. How long does affirmative action go on? It used to be a correction for institutional discrimination, but that's been gone for 40 years. Then it became a method for creating diversity. And now it's morphing into a correction for 'white privilege'. Where and when does it end? Because children in school today (my white, male kids) can be discriminated against and it's ok. And they are being indoctrinated with this white privilege stuff to convince them that if they are not racist, then they are the beneficiaries of racism. It's crazy.

Lets get away from the "white privilege" labels for a moment, since you seem to miss the point on it entirely. Tell me: In general, do POC have a fair shot in this society? Are they treated equally? Can the color of ones skin have an impact on ones success in this country? This is really where the crux of AA issue lies. If you believe of the answers to these questions are "yes," then your world view is VERY different from what reality, studies and data show--but at least it helps explain your position. If your answer is "No" or "Sometimes," then AA is still necessary. Pretty cut and dry.