Zone1 Black Favoritism is a Hoax. Pt.2

[Lisa558]

View attachment 764923
If IM2 had composed this himself I would have made the effort to read it. Because he did not make the effort to express these arguments in his own words, I will not make the effort to read it. Anyone can find something on the internet he likes.

I look forward to the likely Supreme Court ruling against affirmative action in university admissions. I would also like a ruling against affirmative action in hiring decisions. At the very least, I want the Supreme Court to stop the government from coercing employers to promote diversity, equity, and inclusion, rather than hiring on the basis of merit, qualifications, and excellence.

The ironic thing is that the black activists like IM2 who insist that affirmative action does not benefit blacks will be the ones screaming bloody murder when the SCOTUS rules that one cannot consider race as a factor in admissions.

 

[Hector12]

Unfortunately for you I did compose this and did so using supporting evidence. There has been very little done in this nation based on merit, qualifications or excellence. Whitess were hired only because of of skin color and ending laws that provide ottherss besides whites equal opportunnity because of the whining of unqualified whites who didn't get hired or admitteed will only take us back to whites only.

I apologize for my error.

I just read your entire essay.

I am still strongly against affirmative action.

Don't get me talking about racial reparations.

Blacks are better off economically and health wise in the United States than in any black run country in the world. God bless America.

 

[Lisa558]

I apologize for my error.

I just read your entire essay.

I am still strongly against affirmative action.

Don't get me talking about racial reparations.

Blacks are better off economically and health wise in the United States than in any black run country in the world. God bless America.

I’ve said before that blacks should be appreciative of the fact that they were born in America rather than Africa, just as I am grateful that my parents were born in America rather than Europe (or I probably wouldn’t have been born at all).

 

[miketx]

When Obtaining Tenure, Black Women Have Never Been Underqualified, But Have Always Been Overlooked​

MSN

Good, who wants those smelly hawgs...

 

[Lisa558]

When Obtaining Tenure, Black Women Have Never Been Underqualified, But Have Always Been Overlooked​

MSN

That quote is from the race-baiting MSN.

 

[IM2]

I apologize for my error.

I just read your entire essay.

I am still strongly against affirmative action.

Don't get me talking about racial reparations.

Blacks are better off economically and health wise in the United States than in any black run country in the world. God bless America.

Your opposition to AA is not based on logic and your argument against reparations will ignore reparations already given for the excuses you will make for why blacks shouldn't get them. Your last sentence is totally incorrect, especially since many "black run" countries are controlled by white owned multinational corporations. Do not try telling a black person about black people when you're white and have an anti black bias.

 

[Hector12]

Your opposition to AA is not based on logic and your argument against reparations will ignore reparations already given for the excuses you will make for why blacks shouldn't get them. Your last sentence is totally incorrect, especially since many "black run" countries are controlled by white owned multinational corporations. Do not try telling a black person about black people when you're white and have an anti black bias.

My opposition to affirmative action and race reparations is based on the assumption that I do not owe blacks anything at all. Black criminals owe me the money they have stolen from me.

 

[IM2]

My opposition to affirmative action and race reparations is based on the assumption that I do not owe blacks anything at all. Black criminals owe me the money they have stolen from me.

White criminals have stolen more fromyou. White criminals have stolen money from blacks since the beginning of this country. Your assumption misses the reality that it was the GOVERNMENTS of this country that created the laws and policies that caused the damage, therefore the governments owe black people.

All Rise!

Today's lesson:

Would White People PLEASE do some research before they repeat these same dumb --- lines when they try arguing about reparations

I am quite sure no one living in 1980 was alive when the U.S. government made the Fort Laramie treaty with the Sioux Nation or were participants in Custers violation of that treaty. Nor were they alive when President Grant decided it was OK to let settlers and people prospecting for gold tresspass into land promised to the Sioux thereby violating the treaty. No one in 1980 was alive when the U.S. government decided to take the land from the Sioux by military force. No one in 1980 was alive when the U.S. government decided to cut off supplies they promised the Sioux as condition for their surrender after whipping the U.S. Army at The Battle of Little Bighorn. But in 1980, the government of the United States decided reparations were due to the Sioux Nation for what was done to them in the 1800’s. They awarded the Sioux nation 105 million dollars..

Now to my First Nations brothers here, let me say that there is not enough money printed to pay what this government owes you, but my point here is to render the excuses made in opposition to reparations for blacks to what it is, the racist refusal to take responsibility for what this government has done to black citizens of this nation.

United States v. Sioux Nation of Indians :: 448 U.S. 371 (1980) :: Justia US Supreme Court Center, United States v. Sioux Nation of Indians, 448 U.S. 371 (1980)

 

[Hector12]

White criminals have stolen more fromyou. White criminals have stolen money from blacks since the beginning of this country. Your assumption misses the reality that it was the GOVERNMENTS of this country that created the laws and policies that caused the damage, therefore the governments owe black people.

All Rise!

Today's lesson:

Would White People PLEASE do some research before they repeat these same dumb --- lines when they try arguing about reparations

Why are blacks better off in the United States economically and health wise than in any black run country in the world?

 

[Lisa558]

Why are blacks better off in the United States economically and health wise than in any black run country in the world?

That question would actually make a good topic for a separate thread, but offhand I’d say…

1) better health care systems and better medical treatments, obviously
2) a strong safety net (maybe too strong, lately)
3) greater opportunities for advancement
4) better food quality

 

[IM2]

Why are blacks better off in the United States economically and health wise than in any black run country in the world?

Why did your ancestors run away from white owned countries?

 

[Hector12]

Why did your ancestors run away from white owned countries?

That is not the answer to my question. My ancestors came from Germany,, Norway, and England. Those countries are currently doing quite a bet better than any black run country in the world. There is not the beginning of a comparison.

 

[Meathead]

Simply put, there is no black favoritism.

Under SAT-Only Admissions, Asian American Applicants to Selective Colleges Would Gain Fewer than 3,000 Seats Out of 120,000, Georgetown University Report Finds

21% of Asian American students at the most selective colleges would not have been admitted under a test-only admissions policy​

A new report from the Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce (CEW) finds no strong evidence of discrimination against Asian American applicants in admissions to highly selective colleges. Selective Bias: Asian Americans, Test Scores, and Holistic Admissions evaluates the common arguments made by affirmative action critics and Students for Fair Admissions, which is suing Harvard University and has lawsuits pending against the University of North Carolina and the University of Texas at Austin over their admissions practices.

Asian American applicants face lower acceptance rates at highly selective colleges compared to other racial and ethnic groups, but they are also much more likely to apply regardless of test scores. Even if standardized test scores were the only factor considered in admissions, the Asian American share of enrollment at selective colleges would increase by no more than 2 percentage points. The data do not support the claim that selective colleges adjust the number of Asian American students they admit to maintain a long-term racial balance of students.

“If we used test-based merit as the singular admissions requirement, the gain for Asian American applicants would be marginal,” CEW Director and lead author Anthony P. Carnevale said. “But on the flip side, 21% of Asian American applicants who were previously admitted would no longer qualify.”

Under SAT-Only Admissions, Asian American Applicants to Selective Colleges Would Gain Fewer than 3,000 Seats Out of 120,000, Georgetown University Report Finds

21% of Asian American students at the most selective colleges would not have been admitted under a test-only admissions policy...

www.globenewswire.com

Summary​

Selective Bias: Asian Americans, Test Scores, and Holistic Admissions evaluates the common arguments made by affirmative action critics and Students for Fair Admissions, which is suing Harvard University and has lawsuits pending against the University of North Carolina and the University of Texas at Austin over their admissions practices. The report finds no strong evidence of discrimination against Asian American applicants in admissions to highly selective colleges.

Court Cases Allege That Asian American Applicants are Held to an Unfair Standard​

Critics claim that if colleges considered only academic merit, Asian American applicants would gain a greater number of seats. SFFA and other affirmative action critics often base their allegations on three factors:

• stagnant enrollment shares for Asian American students
• relatively low acceptance rates of Asian American applicants
• differences in SAT scores between Asian American and non–Asian American students at the most selective colleges.

The Asian American Enrollment Share at the Most Selective Colleges Has Remained Stable Over the Past Decade​

The enrollment share of Asian American and Pacific Islander students at Harvard and at the 90 other most selective colleges has kept pace with their growing share of the four-year college-going population. In fact, the Asian American and Pacific Islander share of enrollments at the most selective colleges grew by 4 percentage points even while their enrollment share at all four-year colleges grew by just 2 percentage points between 1999 and 2018.

Asian American Students are More Likely to Apply to Highly Selective Colleges Regardless of Test Scores​

Among students who scored 1300 or above on the SAT, 65% of Asian American students applied to one of the most selective colleges in the country, compared to 50% of non–Asian American students. And among students who scored below 1300, 12% of Asian American students took a chance and applied to one of the most selective colleges, compared to only 5% of non–Asian American students. Since more Asian American students apply to selective colleges, they are more likely to be denied a seat, which is not evidence of bias.

(Let's stop right here. Asians are applying to schoools they would not qualify for based on SAT scores and people are talking about discrimination against Asians and black favoritism.)

Selective Bias: Asian Americans, Test Scores, and Holistic Admissions - CEW Georgetown

There’s no strong evidence of discrimination against Asian American applicants in admissions to highly selective colleges.

cew.georgetown.edu

There is no black favoritism.

​

MYTHS ABOUT AFFIRMATIVE ACTION​

The only way to create a color-blind society is to adopt color-blind policies.

Although this assertion sounds intuitively plausible, the reality is that color-blind policies often put racial minorities at a disadvantage. For instance, all else being equal, color-blind seniority systems tend to protect White workers against job layoffs, because senior employees are usually White (Ezorsky, 1991). Likewise, color-blind college admissions favor White students because of their earlier educational advantages. Unless pre-existing inequities are corrected or otherwise taken into account, color-blind policies do not correct racial injustice—they reinforce it.

Affirmative action may have been necessary 30 years ago, but the playing field is fairly level today.

Despite the progress that has been made, the playing field is far from level. Women continue to earn 70 cents for every male dollar. Black people continue to have twice the unemployment rate of White people, half the median family income, and half the proportion who attend four years or more of college. In fact, without affirmative action the percentage of Black students on many campuses would drop below 2%. This would effectively choke off Black access to higher education and severely restrict progress toward racial equality.

A large percentage of White workers will lose out if affirmative action is continued.

Government statistics do not support this myth. According to the Commerce Department, there are fewer than 2 million unemployed Black civilians and more than 100 million employed White civilians (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1994). Thus, even if every unemployed Black worker were to displace a White worker, less than 2 percent of Whites would be affected. Furthermore, affirmative action pertains only to job-qualified applicants, so the actual percentage of affected Whites would be a fraction of 1 percent. The main sources of job loss among White workers have to do with factory relocations and labor contracting outside the United States, computerization and automation, and corporate downsizing (Ivins, 1995).

If Jewish and Asian Americans can rapidly advance economically, African Americans should be able to do the same.

This comparison ignores the unique history of discrimination against Black people in America. As historian Roger Wilkins has pointed out, Blacks have a 375-year history on this continent: 245 involving slavery, 100 involving legalized discrimination, and only 30 involving anything else (Wilkins, 1995). Jews and Asians, on the other hand, have immigrated to North America—often as doctors, lawyers, professors, entrepreneurs, and so forth. Moreover, European Jews are able to function as part of the White majority. To expect Blacks to show the same upward mobility as Jews and Asians is to deny the historical and social reality that Black people face.

You can't cure discrimination with discrimination.

The problem with this myth is that it uses the same word—discrimination—to describe two very different things. Job discrimination is grounded in prejudice and exclusion, whereas affirmative action is an effort to overcome prejudicial treatment through inclusion. The most effective way to cure society of exclusionary practices is to make special efforts at inclusion, which is exactly what affirmative action does.

Affirmative action is nothing more than an attempt at social engineering by liberal Democrats.

In truth, affirmative action programs have spanned seven different presidential administrations—four Republican and three Democratic. Although the originating document of affirmative action was President Johnson's Executive Order 11246, the policy was significantly expanded in 1969 by President Nixon and then Secretary of Labor George Schultz. President Bush also enthusiastically signed the Civil Rights Act of 1991, which formally endorsed the principle of affirmative action. Thus, despite the current split along party lines, affirmative action has traditionally enjoyed the support of Republicans as well as Democrats.

Myth #10: Support for affirmative action means support for preferential selection procedures that favor unqualified candidates over qualified candidates.

Actually, most supporters of affirmative action oppose this type of preferential selection. Preferential selection procedures can be ordered along the following continuum:

Selection among equally qualified candidates.
Selection among comparable candidates
Selection among unequal candidates.

Selection among qualified and unqualified candidates. The strongest form of preferential selection occurs when unqualified female or minority members are chosen over other candidates who are qualified. Although affirmative action is sometimes mistakenly equated with this form of preferential treatment, federal regulations explicitly prohibit affirmative action programs in which unqualified or unneeded employees are hired.

Ten Myths About Affirmative Action | USF Diversity, Inclusion and Equal Opportunity

There is no black favoritism. The claim is a hoax used to race bait.

LOL

 

[Meathead]

Why did your ancestors run away from white owned countries?

You are free to return to Africa .Most Americans would be more then willing to pay for your return and even kick in a few bucks which would allow you to own your own slaves.

 

[Lisa558]

Why did your ancestors run away from white owned countries?

My ancestors ran away because of Jewish persecution in Europe in the early 20th century. When they got here, they were penniless and slaved all day (you should pardon the expression) in sweatshops to be able to afford day-old bread, a chicken, and two carrots to feed five people.

Not sure what your point was, but as you can imagine, my ancestors didn’t own no slaves.

 

[JoeB131]

My ancestors ran away because of Jewish persecution in Europe in the early 20th century. When they got here, they were penniless and slaved all day (you should pardon the expression) in sweatshops to be able to afford day-old bread, a chicken, and two carrots to feed five people.

Not sure what your point was, but as you can imagine, my ancestors didn’t own no slaves.

No, but they did benefit from slavery.

For instance, those sweatshops would have nothing to make if there wasn't cheap cotton coming up from the South. America's emergence as an industrial power was powered by slaves picking cotton.

Here's the major difference between your ancestors and IM's.

Your Ancestors had a choice. They could come here, or they could take their chances with the Europeans who hated them.

His ancestors didn't. They were brought over in chains, routinely raped to create more babies to sell, had laws specifically meant to keep them in their place, etc.

The other big difference is the ability to assimilate. THere was a point where the Jews, Catholics, Germans, Italians, Irish, Poles were considered "White Enough" to be accepted.

 

[JoeB131]

That is not the answer to my question. My ancestors came from Germany,, Norway, and England. Those countries are currently doing quite a bet better than any black run country in the world. There is not the beginning of a comparison.

You mean the countries that looted the third world are richer than the countries that got looted? Imagine that.

 

[Hector12]

You mean the countries that looted the third world are richer than the countries that got looted? Imagine that.

The function of civilization is to impose civilization on barbarians. The Roman Empire imposed civilization on the Celts. The Holy Roman Empire imposed civilization on the Germans. The European empires in sub Saharan Africa ended centuries too soon.

As long as they existed they built roads, hospitals, schools, electorate power plants and water purification plants in the sub Saharan African countries they ruled. Since African independence these are in decay.

 

[JoeB131]

The function of civilization is to impose civilization on barbarians. The Roman Empire imposed civilization on the Celts. The Holy Roman Empire imposed civilization on the Germans. The European empires in sub Saharan Africa ended centuries too soon.

Wow... what a white person attitude.

The Romans conducted outright genocide on the Celts, it's nothing to be proud of.

As long as they existed they built roads, hospitals, schools, electorate power plants and water purification plants in the sub Saharan African countries they ruled. Since African independence these are in decay.

Have you taken a drive through an American city lately, you want to talk about "Decay". Or a Rural area?

 

[BackAgain]

Simply put, there is no black favoritism.

Under SAT-Only Admissions, Asian American Applicants to Selective Colleges Would Gain Fewer than 3,000 Seats Out of 120,000, Georgetown University Report Finds

21% of Asian American students at the most selective colleges would not have been admitted under a test-only admissions policy​

A new report from the Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce (CEW) finds no strong evidence of discrimination against Asian American applicants in admissions to highly selective colleges. Selective Bias: Asian Americans, Test Scores, and Holistic Admissions evaluates the common arguments made by affirmative action critics and Students for Fair Admissions, which is suing Harvard University and has lawsuits pending against the University of North Carolina and the University of Texas at Austin over their admissions practices.

Asian American applicants face lower acceptance rates at highly selective colleges compared to other racial and ethnic groups, but they are also much more likely to apply regardless of test scores. Even if standardized test scores were the only factor considered in admissions, the Asian American share of enrollment at selective colleges would increase by no more than 2 percentage points. The data do not support the claim that selective colleges adjust the number of Asian American students they admit to maintain a long-term racial balance of students.

“If we used test-based merit as the singular admissions requirement, the gain for Asian American applicants would be marginal,” CEW Director and lead author Anthony P. Carnevale said. “But on the flip side, 21% of Asian American applicants who were previously admitted would no longer qualify.”

Under SAT-Only Admissions, Asian American Applicants to Selective Colleges Would Gain Fewer than 3,000 Seats Out of 120,000, Georgetown University Report Finds

21% of Asian American students at the most selective colleges would not have been admitted under a test-only admissions policy...

www.globenewswire.com

Summary​

Selective Bias: Asian Americans, Test Scores, and Holistic Admissions evaluates the common arguments made by affirmative action critics and Students for Fair Admissions, which is suing Harvard University and has lawsuits pending against the University of North Carolina and the University of Texas at Austin over their admissions practices. The report finds no strong evidence of discrimination against Asian American applicants in admissions to highly selective colleges.

Court Cases Allege That Asian American Applicants are Held to an Unfair Standard​

Critics claim that if colleges considered only academic merit, Asian American applicants would gain a greater number of seats. SFFA and other affirmative action critics often base their allegations on three factors:

• stagnant enrollment shares for Asian American students
• relatively low acceptance rates of Asian American applicants
• differences in SAT scores between Asian American and non–Asian American students at the most selective colleges.

The Asian American Enrollment Share at the Most Selective Colleges Has Remained Stable Over the Past Decade​

The enrollment share of Asian American and Pacific Islander students at Harvard and at the 90 other most selective colleges has kept pace with their growing share of the four-year college-going population. In fact, the Asian American and Pacific Islander share of enrollments at the most selective colleges grew by 4 percentage points even while their enrollment share at all four-year colleges grew by just 2 percentage points between 1999 and 2018.

Asian American Students are More Likely to Apply to Highly Selective Colleges Regardless of Test Scores​

Among students who scored 1300 or above on the SAT, 65% of Asian American students applied to one of the most selective colleges in the country, compared to 50% of non–Asian American students. And among students who scored below 1300, 12% of Asian American students took a chance and applied to one of the most selective colleges, compared to only 5% of non–Asian American students. Since more Asian American students apply to selective colleges, they are more likely to be denied a seat, which is not evidence of bias.

(Let's stop right here. Asians are applying to schoools they would not qualify for based on SAT scores and people are talking about discrimination against Asians and black favoritism.)

Selective Bias: Asian Americans, Test Scores, and Holistic Admissions - CEW Georgetown

There’s no strong evidence of discrimination against Asian American applicants in admissions to highly selective colleges.

cew.georgetown.edu

There is no black favoritism.

​

MYTHS ABOUT AFFIRMATIVE ACTION​

The only way to create a color-blind society is to adopt color-blind policies.

Although this assertion sounds intuitively plausible, the reality is that color-blind policies often put racial minorities at a disadvantage. For instance, all else being equal, color-blind seniority systems tend to protect White workers against job layoffs, because senior employees are usually White (Ezorsky, 1991). Likewise, color-blind college admissions favor White students because of their earlier educational advantages. Unless pre-existing inequities are corrected or otherwise taken into account, color-blind policies do not correct racial injustice—they reinforce it.

Affirmative action may have been necessary 30 years ago, but the playing field is fairly level today.

Despite the progress that has been made, the playing field is far from level. Women continue to earn 70 cents for every male dollar. Black people continue to have twice the unemployment rate of White people, half the median family income, and half the proportion who attend four years or more of college. In fact, without affirmative action the percentage of Black students on many campuses would drop below 2%. This would effectively choke off Black access to higher education and severely restrict progress toward racial equality.

A large percentage of White workers will lose out if affirmative action is continued.

Government statistics do not support this myth. According to the Commerce Department, there are fewer than 2 million unemployed Black civilians and more than 100 million employed White civilians (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1994). Thus, even if every unemployed Black worker were to displace a White worker, less than 2 percent of Whites would be affected. Furthermore, affirmative action pertains only to job-qualified applicants, so the actual percentage of affected Whites would be a fraction of 1 percent. The main sources of job loss among White workers have to do with factory relocations and labor contracting outside the United States, computerization and automation, and corporate downsizing (Ivins, 1995).

If Jewish and Asian Americans can rapidly advance economically, African Americans should be able to do the same.

This comparison ignores the unique history of discrimination against Black people in America. As historian Roger Wilkins has pointed out, Blacks have a 375-year history on this continent: 245 involving slavery, 100 involving legalized discrimination, and only 30 involving anything else (Wilkins, 1995). Jews and Asians, on the other hand, have immigrated to North America—often as doctors, lawyers, professors, entrepreneurs, and so forth. Moreover, European Jews are able to function as part of the White majority. To expect Blacks to show the same upward mobility as Jews and Asians is to deny the historical and social reality that Black people face.

You can't cure discrimination with discrimination.

The problem with this myth is that it uses the same word—discrimination—to describe two very different things. Job discrimination is grounded in prejudice and exclusion, whereas affirmative action is an effort to overcome prejudicial treatment through inclusion. The most effective way to cure society of exclusionary practices is to make special efforts at inclusion, which is exactly what affirmative action does.

Affirmative action is nothing more than an attempt at social engineering by liberal Democrats.

In truth, affirmative action programs have spanned seven different presidential administrations—four Republican and three Democratic. Although the originating document of affirmative action was President Johnson's Executive Order 11246, the policy was significantly expanded in 1969 by President Nixon and then Secretary of Labor George Schultz. President Bush also enthusiastically signed the Civil Rights Act of 1991, which formally endorsed the principle of affirmative action. Thus, despite the current split along party lines, affirmative action has traditionally enjoyed the support of Republicans as well as Democrats.

Myth #10: Support for affirmative action means support for preferential selection procedures that favor unqualified candidates over qualified candidates.

Actually, most supporters of affirmative action oppose this type of preferential selection. Preferential selection procedures can be ordered along the following continuum:

Selection among equally qualified candidates.
Selection among comparable candidates
Selection among unequal candidates.

Selection among qualified and unqualified candidates. The strongest form of preferential selection occurs when unqualified female or minority members are chosen over other candidates who are qualified. Although affirmative action is sometimes mistakenly equated with this form of preferential treatment, federal regulations explicitly prohibit affirmative action programs in which unqualified or unneeded employees are hired.

Ten Myths About Affirmative Action | USF Diversity, Inclusion and Equal Opportunity

There is no black favoritism. The claim is a hoax used to race bait.

How many “o’s” are in the word “schools?”