OPINION: Being black means constantly rendering yourself unthreatening to white people

[protectionist]

Sorry bud but that's how you have decent debates.

NO! That's how YOU have skewed, cheated, BS debates, designed to ty to make you win, by referring to YOUR friends, and then stupidly expecting us to go along.

 

[IM2]

Opinion | Joy Reid: Everyday racism is the small, daily reminders that we're still not equal

Joy-Ann Reid Everyday racism in America: Being black means constantly rendering yourself unthreatening to white people
To be white in America is to assume ownership of public spaces. To be black is to live under constant threat of removal.

May.29.2018 / 8:23 PM ET / Updated May.30.2018 / 1:00 PM ET

[snipped]
Thus, being black or brown in America means living under that constant threat of removal. And yet there is really no way to render yourself unthreatening enough to prevent that 911 call. At the same time, you are expected to act grateful for being “allowed” to be here at all (see: Trump suggesting NFL players who kneel during the national anthem should "maybe" be deported). As if we had a choice.

Reversing everyday racism means somehow getting white Americans to recognize and cede this presumption of sole ownership of public spaces, and to see in each person of color an individual humanity. Thankfully, many of our fellow Americans have already embraced this ecumenical idea, as we can see from individual acts of ally-ship. Inside that now infamous Philadelphia Starbucks, for example, white patrons formed a chorus of outrage as police dragged two black men out in handcuffs for doing nothing more than sitting in a shared space.

Importantly, black and brown Americans cannot do this work for their white peers. The work of anti-racism can only take place inside each individual soul, where we all try to grow into better people. There is no national tonic or instant cure.
​

Does anyone else know if the rise in these incidents has anything to do with the government encouraging people to "see something say something" and then it turned into something else?

There is a basic expectation of behavior in public spaces

“Inside voice” is a common thought

If groups of blacks are roudy, profane and aggressive it creats the image of a threat

Whites do the same thing.

Occasionally

Just as occasionally as everybody else.

To be honest......no
Culturally, blacks tend to be more boisterous in public spaces. Whites may interpret it incorrectly, but they come off as loud, roudy and aggressive

I'm black. I know what black people do. I also know that whites do the same things.

 

[IM2]

Sorry bud but that's how you have decent debates.

NO! That's how YOU have skewed, cheated, BS debates, designed to ty to make you win, by referring to YOUR friends, and then stupidly expecting us to go along.

LOL! You might want to check yourself for early onset dementia.

 

[protectionist]

To be honest......no
Culturally, blacks tend to be more boisterous in public spaces. Whites may interpret it incorrectly, but they come off as loud, roudy and aggressive

Solution to blacks in public places >>

 

[protectionist]

I'm black. I know what black people do. I also know that whites do the same things.

You're full of shit.

 

[protectionist]

LOL! You might want to check yourself for early onset dementia.

So being racist isn't enough. Now you add ageist to it as well, huh ? Maybe you belong to some anti-aged people organization ?

 

[rightwinger]

There is a basic expectation of behavior in public spaces

“Inside voice” is a common thought

If groups of blacks are roudy, profane and aggressive it creats the image of a threat

Whites do the same thing.

Occasionally

Just as occasionally as everybody else.

To be honest......no
Culturally, blacks tend to be more boisterous in public spaces. Whites may interpret it incorrectly, but they come off as loud, roudy and aggressive

I'm black. I know what black people do. I also know that whites do the same things.

Just being honest with you

It is not a case of blacks being picked on unfairly. As a group, blacks are more likely to “let it loose” in public. You need to pick up on social clues. If everyone around you is being quiet and respectful......you need to do the same.

 

[protectionist]

Like I said - WEAK THREAD. Better, more productive places to be than here.

 

[IM2]

Solution to whites in public places.

 

[IM2]

Whites do the same thing.

Occasionally

Just as occasionally as everybody else.

To be honest......no
Culturally, blacks tend to be more boisterous in public spaces. Whites may interpret it incorrectly, but they come off as loud, roudy and aggressive

I'm black. I know what black people do. I also know that whites do the same things.

Just being honest with you

It is not a case of blacks being picked on unfairly. As a group, blacks are more likely to “let it loose” in public. You need to pick up on social clues. If everyone around you is being quiet and respectful......you need to do the same.

You are not being honest. Both races do the same thing.

 

[rightwinger]

Occasionally

Just as occasionally as everybody else.

To be honest......no
Culturally, blacks tend to be more boisterous in public spaces. Whites may interpret it incorrectly, but they come off as loud, roudy and aggressive

I'm black. I know what black people do. I also know that whites do the same things.

Just being honest with you

It is not a case of blacks being picked on unfairly. As a group, blacks are more likely to “let it loose” in public. You need to pick up on social clues. If everyone around you is being quiet and respectful......you need to do the same.

You are not being honest. Both races do the same thing.

Then you have nothing to worry about, do you?

 

[IM2]

Just as occasionally as everybody else.

To be honest......no
Culturally, blacks tend to be more boisterous in public spaces. Whites may interpret it incorrectly, but they come off as loud, roudy and aggressive

I'm black. I know what black people do. I also know that whites do the same things.

Just being honest with you

It is not a case of blacks being picked on unfairly. As a group, blacks are more likely to “let it loose” in public. You need to pick up on social clues. If everyone around you is being quiet and respectful......you need to do the same.

You are not being honest. Both races do the same thing.

Then you have nothing to worry about, do you?

I'm concerned how lies like you speak are allowed to be tread as fact in our society and how these lies make life dangerous for people of color.

 

[rightwinger]

To be honest......no
Culturally, blacks tend to be more boisterous in public spaces. Whites may interpret it incorrectly, but they come off as loud, roudy and aggressive

I'm black. I know what black people do. I also know that whites do the same things.

Just being honest with you

It is not a case of blacks being picked on unfairly. As a group, blacks are more likely to “let it loose” in public. You need to pick up on social clues. If everyone around you is being quiet and respectful......you need to do the same.

You are not being honest. Both races do the same thing.

Then you have nothing to worry about, do you?

I'm concerned how lies like you speak are allowed to be tread as fact in our society and how these lies make life dangerous for people of color.

I defend blacks as much as anyone on this board

I just happen to believe the OP is wrong in its opinions of black behavior in public. My observation is that blacks need to work harder on how they behave in public and how they are perceived. Yes, whites are intimidated by blacks. When groups of blacks are loud, profane, pushing and shoving...it only reinforces that perception

 

[Defiant1]

Blacks and those who enable them want people to ignore their natural survival instincts.

 

[katsteve2012]

Anyone who ever took a class in statistics is far more rational than you are.

You have not EVER provided anything here that supports what you claim, yet there are is a plethora of information that supports the fact white females have benefitted from Affirmative Action......more than any other demographic.

Just because you are an an isolated case ( if you are even telling the truth) does npt equate to "hundreds of millions" of whites being discriminated against.

You're crazy.

If it's true that white females have benefitted from AA, then good for those white females. But that doesn't help the many white females who LOSE jobs, job promotions, college admissions, college financial aid, business loans, etc, due to AA.

Nor does it help the many more white female dependents of discriminated-against white males, who vastly outnumber white female AA beneficiaries.

PS - as a former college teacher, I'm not impressed by anyone's collection of "information that supports" whatever agenda it is they favor. There's "information" out there to support anything. Big deal. Information comes in all flavors.

Translation:
"You can make up your own information and pass it off as truth". How do you know that more white females are harmed by AA as opposed to being the beneficiaries of it?

The fact is, you do not.

If there were "hundreds millions" of white people, living in a predominately white society, governed by predominately white lawmakers, being displaced in the workforce, and in colleges, there would be anarchy in the streets.

Are you actually ignorant enough to believe that the very second that AA was signed into law, that white people in the workforce were actually affected overnight?

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

PS - as a former college teacher, I'm not impressed by anyone's collection of "information that supports" whatever agenda it is they favor. There's "information" out there to support anything. Big deal. Information comes in all flavors.

I think the idea of white woman benefiting from Affirmative Action more than racial minorities, is a crock - designed to promote Affirmative Action, and deflect criticism of it.

And just because some liberal (heavily biased) think tank, university, or media outlet says something, doesn't prove a damn thing. Their studies have been caught FALSE numerously. (ex. the Stephens-Davidowitz racism study)

You just got through talking down to me about how you are older (my elder so I should show you some respect), better educated, more experienced and knowledgeable, etc. yet even though you've been shown this information from the very agency who ensures compliance with the laws, you still are crying about how it isn't true.

Seriously, if you were so completely wrong about this, do you dare even consider how you might be wrong about what you think of Black people? And just in case you're struggling with the math (see the text in red below) 34% of white women exceeds the 18% black women and the 28% of black men therefore ****white woman benefited the most from Affirmative Action***

Features of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Affirmative Action Executive Orders
Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, employers are forbidden from discriminating against their employees on the basis of race, sex, color, religion, or national origin. The law prohibits discrimination in terms, compensation, working conditions, and other aspects of employment; mandates enforcement by courts, rather than juries; and provides civil penalties for violations, including mandatory remedial hiring policies for employers and reinstatement with back pay awards to victims. It also created the EEOC to bring class action litigation against employers for discrimination. The Civil Rights Act initially applied to private sector employers with more than 25 employees; since 1972, it has applied to those with more than 15 employees.

Affirmative action Executive Order 11246, signed by President Lyndon B. Johnson in 1965, reinforced prohibitions in the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and earlier executive orders against discrimination based on race, color, religion, and national origin; subsequent orders and revisions have added sex (1967) and sexual orientation and gender identity (2014) as protected classes. Order 11246 required the federal government and federal contractors with 50 or more employees or $50,000 in contracts to develop written affirmative action plans and ensure equal opportunities for all workers. The order authorized the Secretary of Labor to establish the OFCCP to enforce federal contractors’ compliance. The OFCCP targets for compliance reviews those employers whose EEO-1 reports indicate relatively low employment of women and minorities. The authors noted that the nature of compliance reviews differed over time. Relative to later reviews, reviews in the 1970s were less frequent but more intrusive and more likely to lead to sanctions.

Features of the Study
The authors designed an organizational survey and administered it to a random sample of establishments to gather data on the incidence and dates of compliance reviews and lawsuits. The sample was drawn from the 1999 EEO-1 Employer Information Report, a workforce survey. Before 1982, private employers with at least 50 employees and federal contractors with at least 25 employees were required to file EEO-1 reports; since then, the size requirements have risen to 100 or 50 employees, respectively. The organizational survey response rate was 67 percent. Matching the organizational survey data to EEO-1 data from 1971 to 2002 yielded an analytic sample of 814 establishments.

The authors used regression analyses to examine the effects of compliance reviews and lawsuits on four measures of managerial diversity—the proportion of managers who were white men, white women, African American men, and African American women. In the benchmark model, the authors considered the cumulative number of reviews or lawsuits filed against an establishment to be the predictor of interest; an alternative formulation examined the interaction between the enforcement occurring during the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s and establishments’ minority employment shares. Models included fixed establishment effects and time-varying control variables, including federal contractor status, involvement in other regulatory activities (such as whether the establishment adopted an affirmative action plan), organizational characteristics related to human resource policies and unionization, organizational demography, and organizational environment characteristics (such as state and industry employment rates).

Findings

• The study found that compliance reviews initiated against an establishment in the 1970s significantly increased the share of women and African Americans it employed as managers, not only in the 1970s but also through the 1980s and 1990s. A first compliance review in the 1970s increased the odds of white women in management by an estimated 34 percent, of African American women by 18 percent, and of African American men by 28 percent.
• Compliance reviews initiated in the 1970s led to significantly greater increases in female and African American employment shares than did reviews conducted in the 1980s.
• Larger numbers of lawsuits significantly increased employment shares for women and African Americans.

Considerations for Interpreting the Findings
The authors compared female and African American employment shares among establishments that were party to litigation or a compliance review as a result of allegedly discriminatory practices with shares among establishments that were later or never involved in such activities. However, it is unclear whether establishments facing differing numbers of lawsuits or reviews were similar before the initiation of those lawsuits or reviews. For example, establishments facing more lawsuits or reviews might have tended to have smaller female or African American employment shares relative to other establishments; their lower managerial diversity might have triggered the lawsuits or reviews. Because the comparability of establishments with different numbers of lawsuits or reviews was not established, the relationship between lawsuits and reviews and managerial diversity could reflect not only the effect of reviews and lawsuits on managerial diversity, but also the effects of other factors.

In addition, the authors estimated multiple related impacts on female and African American employment outcomes. Performing multiple statistical tests on related outcomes makes it more likely that some impacts will be found to be statistically significant purely by chance and not because they reflect program effectiveness. The authors did not perform statistical adjustments to account for the multiple tests, so the number of statistically significant findings in these domains is likely to be overstated.

Causal Evidence Rating
The quality of causal evidence presented in this report is low because the study did not adequately control for existing differences between the study groups. This means we are not confident that the estimated effects are attributable to OFCCP compliance reviews or to lawsuits. Other factors are likely to have contributed.
Clearinghouse for Labor Evaluation and Research (CLEAR)
​

 

[katsteve2012]

...

You have not EVER provided anything here that supports what you claim, yet there are is a plethora of information that supports the fact white females have benefitted from Affirmative Action......more than any other demographic.

...

Do you think the fact white women benefiting from Affirmative Action more than other minorities is an accident ...

.​

No

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

Translation:
"You can make up your own information and pass it off as truth". How do you know that more white females are harmed by AA as opposed to being the beneficiaries of it?

The fact is, you do not.

If there were "hundreds millions" of white people, living in a predominately white society, governed by predominately lawmakers, being displaced in the workforce, and in colleges, there would be anarchy in the streets.

And this is the same individual who was admonishing me about not having any care or concern fro the 100s of millions of white people allegedly displaced by Affirmative Action (as if every single one of them was qualified) while unable to show even the tiniest bit of compassion for any black person that I've seen, certainly not for anyone who had to live under the 141 years of legal segregation in the United States.

He does make a good case study though

 

[katsteve2012]

PS - as a former college teacher, I'm not impressed by anyone's collection of "information that supports" whatever agenda it is they favor. There's "information" out there to support anything. Big deal. Information comes in all flavors.

I think the idea of white woman benefiting from Affirmative Action more than racial minorities, is a crock - designed to promote Affirmative Action, and deflect criticism of it.

And just because some liberal (heavily biased) think tank, university, or media outlet says something, doesn't prove a damn thing. Their studies have been caught FALSE numerously. (ex. the Stephens-Davidowitz racism study)

You just got through talking down to me about how you are older (my elder so I should show you some respect), better educated, more experienced and knowledgeable, etc. yet even though you've been shown this information from the very agency who ensures compliance with the laws, you still are crying about how it isn't true.

Seriously, if you were so completely wrong about this, do you dare even consider how you might be wrong about what you think of Black people? And just in case you're struggling with the math (see the text in red below) 34% of white women exceeds the 18% black women and the 28% of black men therefore ****white woman benefited the most from Affirmative Action***

Features of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Affirmative Action Executive Orders
Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, employers are forbidden from discriminating against their employees on the basis of race, sex, color, religion, or national origin. The law prohibits discrimination in terms, compensation, working conditions, and other aspects of employment; mandates enforcement by courts, rather than juries; and provides civil penalties for violations, including mandatory remedial hiring policies for employers and reinstatement with back pay awards to victims. It also created the EEOC to bring class action litigation against employers for discrimination. The Civil Rights Act initially applied to private sector employers with more than 25 employees; since 1972, it has applied to those with more than 15 employees.

Affirmative action Executive Order 11246, signed by President Lyndon B. Johnson in 1965, reinforced prohibitions in the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and earlier executive orders against discrimination based on race, color, religion, and national origin; subsequent orders and revisions have added sex (1967) and sexual orientation and gender identity (2014) as protected classes. Order 11246 required the federal government and federal contractors with 50 or more employees or $50,000 in contracts to develop written affirmative action plans and ensure equal opportunities for all workers. The order authorized the Secretary of Labor to establish the OFCCP to enforce federal contractors’ compliance. The OFCCP targets for compliance reviews those employers whose EEO-1 reports indicate relatively low employment of women and minorities. The authors noted that the nature of compliance reviews differed over time. Relative to later reviews, reviews in the 1970s were less frequent but more intrusive and more likely to lead to sanctions.

Features of the Study
The authors designed an organizational survey and administered it to a random sample of establishments to gather data on the incidence and dates of compliance reviews and lawsuits. The sample was drawn from the 1999 EEO-1 Employer Information Report, a workforce survey. Before 1982, private employers with at least 50 employees and federal contractors with at least 25 employees were required to file EEO-1 reports; since then, the size requirements have risen to 100 or 50 employees, respectively. The organizational survey response rate was 67 percent. Matching the organizational survey data to EEO-1 data from 1971 to 2002 yielded an analytic sample of 814 establishments.

The authors used regression analyses to examine the effects of compliance reviews and lawsuits on four measures of managerial diversity—the proportion of managers who were white men, white women, African American men, and African American women. In the benchmark model, the authors considered the cumulative number of reviews or lawsuits filed against an establishment to be the predictor of interest; an alternative formulation examined the interaction between the enforcement occurring during the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s and establishments’ minority employment shares. Models included fixed establishment effects and time-varying control variables, including federal contractor status, involvement in other regulatory activities (such as whether the establishment adopted an affirmative action plan), organizational characteristics related to human resource policies and unionization, organizational demography, and organizational environment characteristics (such as state and industry employment rates).

Findings

• The study found that compliance reviews initiated against an establishment in the 1970s significantly increased the share of women and African Americans it employed as managers, not only in the 1970s but also through the 1980s and 1990s. A first compliance review in the 1970s increased the odds of white women in management by an estimated 34 percent, of African American women by 18 percent, and of African American men by 28 percent.
• Compliance reviews initiated in the 1970s led to significantly greater increases in female and African American employment shares than did reviews conducted in the 1980s.
• Larger numbers of lawsuits significantly increased employment shares for women and African Americans.

Considerations for Interpreting the Findings
The authors compared female and African American employment shares among establishments that were party to litigation or a compliance review as a result of allegedly discriminatory practices with shares among establishments that were later or never involved in such activities. However, it is unclear whether establishments facing differing numbers of lawsuits or reviews were similar before the initiation of those lawsuits or reviews. For example, establishments facing more lawsuits or reviews might have tended to have smaller female or African American employment shares relative to other establishments; their lower managerial diversity might have triggered the lawsuits or reviews. Because the comparability of establishments with different numbers of lawsuits or reviews was not established, the relationship between lawsuits and reviews and managerial diversity could reflect not only the effect of reviews and lawsuits on managerial diversity, but also the effects of other factors.

In addition, the authors estimated multiple related impacts on female and African American employment outcomes. Performing multiple statistical tests on related outcomes makes it more likely that some impacts will be found to be statistically significant purely by chance and not because they reflect program effectiveness. The authors did not perform statistical adjustments to account for the multiple tests, so the number of statistically significant findings in these domains is likely to be overstated.

Causal Evidence Rating
The quality of causal evidence presented in this report is low because the study did not adequately control for existing differences between the study groups. This means we are not confident that the estimated effects are attributable to OFCCP compliance reviews or to lawsuits. Other factors are likely to have contributed.
Clearinghouse for Labor Evaluation and Research (CLEAR)​

Of course he will deny the validity of this information, but is not able to post anything to refute it. Have you ever seen anyone that is so willfully ignorant?

 

[katsteve2012]

Translation:
"You can make up your own information and pass it off as truth". How do you know that more white females are harmed by AA as opposed to being the beneficiaries of it?

The fact is, you do not.

If there were "hundreds millions" of white people, living in a predominately white society, governed by predominately lawmakers, being displaced in the workforce, and in colleges, there would be anarchy in the streets.

And this is the same individual who was admonishing me about not having any care or concern fro the 100s of millions of white people allegedly displaced by Affirmative Action (as if every single one of them was qualified) while unable to show even the tiniest bit of compassion for any black person that I've seen, certainly not for anyone who had to live under the 141 years of legal segregation in the United States.

He does make a good case study though

Absolutely. Like talking to a a crash dummy