Not justifying it, but instead giving the facts that influence people to begin to build these opinions on other races. It is very simple to shout "racism" and dismiss someone as being wrong. But what has been effectively pointed out in this thread is that people who are termed "racist" are in many ways no different than any other rational decision-maker in society. They are presented with facts, they then form an opinion, they then act on that fact-supported opinion. What if we were to remove race from the equation and talk about dogs and cats. If 500 dogs bite people in a neighborhood in a year and in that same year 20 cats bit people in a neighborhood, would you call it discrimination if people were more leary of dogs than cats? Using the same data that GreenVegan provided, are you more likely to suspect a man or a woman to be the perpetrator in rape situation? Turning back to race, do you suspect people of Middle Eastern descent to be more likely to hijack an airplane than people of Asian descent? What would lead you to think this? People form judgments based on their observations. You can not simply dismiss these judgments each time they relate to race.
Yea, you're right. Unfortunately, I could not find a breakdown of the population by race for the cities only. However, on that same page there is a table for overall crimes and blacks are arrested for more murders and robberies than whites. Looking at that table, you will find: Population of 192,580, 262 with 163,693,223 being white and 23,109,631 being black 9,306,587 arrests were made with 6,485,887 being white and 2,617,669 being black. This works out to be 4% of the white population being arrested compared to 11.3% of the black population being arrested. So, it is not 3 times as many but it is still not a good ratio, as you know (actually being about 2.8 times as often).
How about addressing the issue of people hiring whites with criminal records ahead of equally qualified blacks. They don't have to rely on their life experiences, its right there on the application, one candidate has a criminal record the other doesn't.
I continue to be amazed by the admitted cluelessness of the conservative cadre of anti equality propagandists. You are clearly shocked when you actually take the time to look at the data as if you had no earthly idea there were deep and serious problems in the black community that need to be addressed for the benefit of all society. On your way to joining us in reality, take a minute to drop the inane personal responsibility card in the dumpster where it belongs and then try to take a thoughtful approach to finding the root causes of this problem. This is probably a little too much to expect but hey, miracles happen.
The other thing Timing is what does the statistics of Blacks and crime have to do with job discrimination? I could understand if we are discussing why just as a hypothectical topic, "why whites don't won't to move into black neighborhoods". But this is a discussion about people who are willing to work. What does murder have to do with a black person looking for a job? So you are saying it is alright to be cautious of hiring blacks becasue they are arrested for murder more. If you are going to bring up crime, bring up job related statistics. What in the hell does your statistics have to do with jobs Manny? Explain that to me. Its a typical response from the conservative crowd, and again, none of you guys even addressed issue.
I repeat myself: The theory is that blacks are discriminated against by employers because employers view blacks as lower scholastic achievers and more likely to commit crimes. These viewpoints can be supported by facts. Rightly or wrongly, these facts influence rational decision making, as I have pointed out above. People's opinions have been formed, and these opinions override what is listed on their job applications. This should not be hard to understand.
What TJ said. Do you want me to say that it is not fair? Okay, I have no problem admitting that it is unfair but like Jorge said impressions and opinions have been formed in the minds of these employers. If a white guy who had tatoos all up and down his body and a nose ring yet has a college degree and no blemishes on his resume wanted a corporate job do you think he would get hired? I mean he is qualified, right? But the impression is that he would not be able to do a good job, thus he does not get the job.
So what you're saying is that black people just need to get rid of their skin pigmentation the way a white man would rid himself of tattoos to make himself look more qualified. Well that's simple enough. That's a good one Manny. Skin bleaching for everyone! Woooo!
Excellent points PG. We tend to role all racial issues into one, when this study highlighted just one issue. The candidates were equally qualified, and all college students. It's not like they chose the white kid from the country club and the black kid from under a bridge. I found this quote interesting: He seems to be suggesting that problem is more prevalent in 'low wage, entry level' positions. These jobs can often be done by anyone, so 'perceptions' carry much more weight than qualifications. The results may not have been as dramatic for positions that actually required qualifications. I'm hoping.
It's probably because of that old stereotype of black men going on workplace murder sprees. Wait a minute...
I was going to bring that up. Obiviously, if everytime someone brings up obvious discrimination, like police brutality or an article like this, if everyone is going to bring up the blacks and crimes card, its no point to having these discussions. And T.J., you can't have it both ways, you can't say in one thread that there are no need for affirmative action programs because there is no discrimination, because the free market works, and then in another thread admit there is discrimination. Either there is discrimination, and the free market doesn't always work, or there isn't. You see by admitting to discrimination existing, all your free market rhetoric goes down the toilet, and I don't care if you think the discrimination is justified or not.
Manny and TJ -- The rationalization you are using is the very thing that's upsetting affirmative action proponents. While you may be correct in that a randomly chosen black man may have had more exposure to crime, and therefore be a bigger risk than a randomly chosen white man, the study did not pick its sample in this way. It chose black men without a criminal record, and compared them to white men with a criminal record. They've taken the white sample from a 'tainted' pool and the black sample from the 'non-tainted' pool. The bias against those particular black men was not, therefore, a cold hard rational look at risks, but rather a preconceived judgment based on skin colour. Manny's tattoo example is not relevant unless the black applicants came dressed as ghetto gangsters, and the white boys were outfitted at the Gap. The study did uncover an irrational bias.
The solution, peter and bnb, is to fix the root causes for the discrimination, not make things worse by placing unqualified applicants in positions to fail. Raising the levels of academic achievement and reducing the crime rate will be far more beneficial in the long run than will accepting handouts in the forms of affirmative action. Oh and Timing, your hypocrisy knows no boundaries. You rail against people for stereotyping, then you proceed to stereotype white males as being prone to going on shooting sprees in the office.
Thanks for Being objective BnB. I did note your point about the type of jobs these candidates were seeking and I think that does come into play a little. I think its obviously harder to discriminate against candidates for jobs that require more technical skills, experience, or more education. It also speaks to the skills of the people doing the hiring for these types of jobs.
You know...you're absolutely right (but you've always thought that..haven't you). One step in fixing the root causes, is acknowledging that the problem exists.
You still didn't address the study, a candidate with a criminal record vs. one without. You have completely ignored the key variable in the study in three responses. I guess, white criminals are pardoned because of the population as a whole.
I re-requote myself: (By the way, this is from this very thread. I encourage you to read closer next time)
Well, do you remember the SNL where Eddie Murphy dressed up as a white guy? It was a wickedly funny piece that showed exactly the things we are talking about here. Look, I already said that it is not fair. Maybe the example with the tatoos was not the best analogy, bnb, but I was using it as one that causes people to form impressions that may not be correct. Just like it is not correct to say that all black males are going to murder people, it is also not correct to say that tattooed and nose ringed white males cannot perform a job that requires a college degree. BTW - for some reason, I love talking stats about crimes and stuff, I found this link (once again, you have to have Adobe Acrobat to view it) Look at page 2, the Homicides section where it talks about homicides from 1976-1998 and breaks down by race, the victim and the offender. It gets into some interesting stuff (interesting if you are into criminal justice and stuff like that).
Okay, so you are going with the free market doesn't work. I do understand. So next time you spew your free market rhetoric we will always refer back to this thread. I do understand, I'm glad you finally understand about the free-market also.
