Black Lives Matter is an honorable movement and is in no way racist

Racism wasn't over in the 60's. Racist LAWS were largely over with the elimination of Jim Crow laws. Currently, I don't think there is a single law that discriminates against black people because they are black. There are laws that discriminate against white people because they are white. Whether or not you think that is a good idea as a way to redress past wrongs is up to you. I think it is doubling down on racism. There is no such thing as reverse racism, it is just racism.

 

Getting rid of racist laws doesn't get rid of racism.

 

Your correct, just ask the BLM crowd.

Also, StupidMoniker didn't say we got rid of racist laws we just reversed who was receiving the raw end of the deal and like he said it's still racism.

 

But the laws are not racist if they help black people.

 

The reason 'racist' laws exist is because of racism existing.

The idea that we could just toss out Affirmative Action and that black people would still get the same opportunities as whites is pretty comical.

Especially since we know that if you have a black sounding name you are less likely to get hired...among other stats...

But of course if we just throw out AA things will change...lol...

Besides, AA does not hinder whites in any way shape or form. Only paranoid white people that are worried about themselves or their family finding success think that.

Besides, it seems people forget that AA isn't only for black people. It's for women and people of all races...and one thing it doesn't do contrary to popular belief is take some dumb gangbanger and take them to MIT while forcing some extremely intelligent white person to go to ITT Tech.

 

You can justify inequality all you want but the fact is there will never be equality until we have equal laws. (FWIW I disagree that no white person has been or will hurt by AA but the odds that you give a crap are zero)

 

First off, on your disagreement. I'm not exactly sure what you mean with the . If you mean that there are white people that are hurt by AA...errr...I guess? If you have the idea that qualified white people are being hurt by it then you are just flat out wrong. In fact AA helps WHITE WOMEN more than any one else. So it is in fact, helping white people.

You have no idea what I give a crap about, but i'm not the delusional one thinking that if we just got rid of AA that it would somehow wash away racism and stereotypes.

 

Of course it doesn't hinder whites because white women are the prime beneficiaries of affirmative action. _ http://www.racismreview.com/blog/2014/03/11/white-women-affirmative-action/

But of course white folks who don't bother to look to see who affirmative action actually benefits the most will think it's a racist policy... Which it is, but not for the reasons they think.

 

My bad Jay... Didn't see this post.

 

I never said it did. I said we got rid of racist laws, then we later implemented new racist laws, only the new laws were racist against different people. I was not even specifically speaking of Affirmative Action (though of course that is also a racist law, that it is also sexist doesn't make it better). I don't think the government should have racist or sexist laws, I think the government should treat everyone the same under the law, like it says to do in the Constitution. To me it doesn't make it okay if the racist laws are well-intentioned.

 

Except how are these policies, in most cases AA programs are not laws per se but policies, any different though that preferential set asides such as legacies? Further AA programs don't prevent white or Asian high achievers from going to College. They might not be able to go to any college they choose but wouldn't you agree that universities should have the right to decide their own admissions.

 

They are policies with the authority of the state behind them, thus the government treating people differently based on race or sex. The legitimacy of the policies has been ruled on by the courts, therefor there is law in place enshrining the legality of the policies. I would agree that private universities should be able to decide their own admissions. I would say that public universities (ie the state) should not be allowed to treat people differently based on sex or race.

As for how they are any different than legacies, they are not. Legacies should also not be allowed at public universities.

 

The study didn't use "goofy-ass names", it used clearly African American sounding names vs. White names.

People didn't get passed over for the name, it was because of the implied race. Do you understand that?

 

And this is another common trope of white racists - since Rosa Parks now *technically* doesn't have to ride at the back of the bus (though this is actually untrue in many cases) any institutional reposnibilty to deal with such harms is NOW OVER, and even marginal attempts to erase the damage of hundreds of years of pervasive institutional discrimination that still exists today are by themselves racist, against racist whites who are, after all, the real victims here.

 

I think Bobby's point is that the "clearly African American sounding names" are a subset of goofy-ass names, and that had the study also included goofy-ass white people names like Peekaboo, Moxie Crimefighter, Moon Unit, Bubba, and Billy Bob, they would (or might) have faced the same discrimination. I don't think there is evidence either way.

Please point out the Federal or State statute or local ordinance that indicates that black people currently have to ride in the back of the bus. There should be several to choose from since you say it is untrue in many cases that black people do not have to ride at the back of the bus. I am guessing this is another baseless assertion, just like your last post.

It isn't NOW OVER (emphasis yours), it never existed in the first place. The law deals with now, not then. The laws then should have treated everyone the same. They didn't. We addressed that. The laws now should treat everyone the same. They don't. We should also address that.

Laws that treat people differently based on skin color are racist by definition. I am sorry you don't like the definition of racism.

Nope they are racist against everyone who is mandated worse or subpar treatment, regardless of the thoughts or feelings of the people affected.

Nope. The real victims are all Americans who live in a country that has not yet grasped that having racist laws is not only unconstitutional, but just a bad idea generally.

 

Another common trope of white racists: take any argument about the crushing and pervasive, centuries long history of white racism that is as strong as ever today and render it the equivalent of giving a poor black or brown kid a spot in college because "merit" - because that's the real racism.

 

The funny thing about that little white speck on the top of chicken **** is that little white speck is chicken **** too.

You're either for chicken **** or you are against it. You can't be against all but that little white speck.

 

I think it's a gigantic problem. If your parents can't teach you basic things about life because they're in prison or drug addicted or they're constantly working because they're a single parent then who teaches you these things? I'd love to see a basic course in elementary school and junior high teaching kids basic things about life and the things that are available to them.

 

That said legacy programs existed and continue to exist. In this sense your view of race / bias neutral country doesn't exist and wasn't done away with in the 1960's.

You have to consider what is the mission of a public university. The truth is it isn't meant to admit anyone who wants to go there part of the mission of state universities is to address issues in the wider cultural of the state. While you might dismiss issues of social justice the mission of a public university actually says they must take those into account.

 

All of it is real racism. I don't want my government involved in any of it. That would be the government engaging in racism on my behalf. I am sorry you find yourself in favor of racism. It must suck. Calling me a racist for opposing racism doesn't change that though.

Affirmative Action programs have existed and continue to exist.

Legacy programs are not race based, so they are not racist. They have a disproportionate effect on some races, which is not good, and they should be done away with in public universities because they treat people differently for reasons having nothing to do with merit, but they are not racist laws, any more than allowing consideration of SAT scores are racist laws.

A public universities mission should be to educate the students who attend (and in the case of research universities, conduct research, though I think those two things should be separated as universities focusing heavily on research can neglect educating the students). Selection of the students who attend should be based on merit. Admitting a less qualified applicant because they have the right genitals, skin color, sexual orientation, etc. should be well beyond the purview of an institution that represents the public, because it is public. It is an issue of Constitutional and moral dimensions. That some public universities choose to include diversity in their mission statement is insufficient to overcome that, in my opinion.