How can liberals denie STRUCTURAL racism STILL exist and be against Affirmative Action?

[uponit7771]

After this election cycle how can anyone deny the pervasiveness of racism amongst conservatives or the tolerance for it?

If racism is pervasive AND a good number of conservatives make decisions on who gets hired, who goes to jail, who gets benefits of some kind, who gets a promotion ...

...how in the world can one be against affirmative action?

Thx in advance for your input

P.S. I'm purposefully leaving out the issue of past pervasive discrimination that set up a structure that needs to be changed and wont be changed for another 2 - 3 generations...

[barbtries]

1. i don't know nt

[ananda]

2. What liberals?

I don't know one who is against Affirmative Action!

[uponit7771]

5. Here, looks like 1/4 of the posters in the DU thread are against AA

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=1508113

[Viking12]

11. Actually, just handful posting frequently

Nevertheless, troubling.

[uponit7771]

12. True, ...just wonder how this could be

[snooper2]

3. I see a bunch of assumptions and poor grammar...

Last edited Thu Oct 11, 2012, 11:53 AM - Edit history (1)

All I have is Nickelback

&feature=relmfu

[uponit7771]

4. ...I see someone avoiding the question, your input on the subject is appreciated...regards

[ChisolmTrailDem]

8. If you're going to

criticize others on the English language then you might want to begin by spelling grammar correctly.

[snooper2]

10. LOL

I do that every time too



That's what I get for living in a World of acronyms.

[1StrongBlackMan]

6. Actually ...

I believe most liberals will readily admit that structural racism exists. But, as with most issues, when the issue becomes personal, i.e., we might be called upon to be negatively affected by any remedy, we are reticent to support the remedy. Instead, we attempt to move the goal-post, just outside of our range. Example: AA programming should not consider race (that would potentially negatively affect me); but rather should focus on socio-economic status (that might include me).

[lumberjack_jeff]

7. And the reverse is not true?

I'm of two minds about affirmative action in college admissions. I think that there is a lot to be gained by a student population that looks like the general society.

Your username suggests that you get a double-whammy of disadvantage in college admissions. Your sister is 50% more likely to go to college than you are, but no one is willing to seriously propose affirmative action to rectify that imbalance.

[1StrongBlackMan]

9. I agree ...

there is a lot to be gained by a student population that looks like the general society.

On your second point, any affirmative action that benefits my sister (based on her race) will benefit me and my son. But the majority of factors affecting the disparity in likelihood of going to college (e.g., learned helplesssness/lack of ambition) is largely outside the realm of any AA programming

[woolldog]

16. jeff, a lot of colleges these days

in fact, most, are bending over backwards to take more men. Women are coming to college with better qualifications, better grades, test scores etc. In order to keep genders balanced, well qualified women are being rejected in favor of less qualified men.

[1StrongBlackMan]

18. Especially ...

In non-traditional fields, such as Nursing and Education.

[lumberjack_jeff]

20. False.

With the exception of small liberal arts schools (e.g. Smith) Doing this is a violation of title IX of the Civil rights act.

Discrimination?
Heriot, who is leading the Civil Rights Commission's investigation, said Title IX bars sexual discrimination on colleges campuses with one exception: in admissions by private liberal arts schools.

"That's why you can have a Smith or a Mount Holyoke," she said.

The commission selected a mix of schools as a starting point.

"Right now," Heriot said, "we're just trying to establish: Is it happening? And how widespread is it?"

She said the reasons were not well understood.

"I believe that schools are very sincere in being concerned about gender balance and they're worried that if they don't have enough men, eventually they won't have enough women, but they are competing with each other for a limited pool of male applicants."

State-supported undergraduate schools, graduate programs, and professional schools are not allowed to discriminate in admissions.

http://articles.philly.com/2010-10-10/news/24980891_1_college-admissions-york-college-colleges-struggle/3

It's intriguing that colleges are only worried about gender balance in enrollment because women won't choose colleges in which there are no guys.

[woolldog]

21. here you go Jeff :

A survey of admissions directors released last week found that male applicants of all races are far more likely to benefit from affirmative action-like policies than female applicants.

"Men are being admitted with lower grades and test scores," said Scott Jaschik, editor of Inside Higher Ed, which conducted the survey. "While a lot of people don't like to talk about it, a lot of colleges are basically doing affirmative action for men."

What's behind the aggressive push for male students is the decades-long trend of more women on campus.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20111646-503544.html

[lumberjack_jeff]

22. He's speculating that admission directors are guilty of federal crimes.

Individual colleges only care about the issue to the extent that female freshmen are selecting colleges with a better gender balance.

Unlike actual affirmative action, any woman who was discriminated against in this way has strong grounds for a federal lawsuit.

[woolldog]

23. He's not speculating about anything

He's reporting the results of a survey which clearly contradicts your opinion

[lumberjack_jeff]

24. It's not an opinion, it's the law.

It is against the law to do what the writer (and you) suggest is widespread practice. A "widespread practice" that lacks a single tangible example.

But here's the lead paragraphs from the survey you posted;

For many colleges, a top goal of admissions directors is recruiting more students who can pay more. Among all four-year institutions, the admissions strategy judged most important over the next two or three years -- driven by high figures in the public sector -- was the recruitment of more out-of-state students (who at public institutions pay significantly more). The runner-up was the strategy of providing more aid for low- and middle-income students.
Among all sectors of higher education, there is a push to recruit more out-of-state students and international students.
Recruiting more "full-pay" students -- those who don't need financial aid -- is seen as a key goal in public higher education, a sector traditionally known for its commitment to access. At public doctoral and master's institutions, more admissions directors cited the recruitment of full-pay students as a key strategy than cited providing aid for low-income students. (At doctoral institutions, the gap was 47 percent to 40 percent, and at master's institutions, the gap was 45 percent to 38 percent).
The interest in full-pay students is so strong that 10 percent of four-year colleges report that the full-pay students they are admitting have lower grades and test scores than do other admitted applicants.
At community colleges, a focus on serving students who don't have money remains central, with 66 percent of admissions directors citing that as a key strategy -- more than cited any other strategy. But even in that sector, a notable minority (34 percent) said that an important strategy for the institution was attracting more full-pay students.

Colleges recruit by examining checkbooks, not SATs.

One other thing; "academic credentials" isn't one thing. On average, women graduate from high school with better grades, yet they have worse standardized test (e.g. SAT) scores.

[woolldog]

25. first of all, it's not illegal for private institutions.

for public institutions it might be, but some have admitted to doing it.

http://www.fed-soc.org/doclib/20111205_HeriotSominEngage12.3.pdf

[uponit7771]

13. Who's the "we" in your statement? thx much, tryin to learn here...I'm reall dismayed by kkkon racism

[1StrongBlackMan]

19. We ...

as in human beings have a tendency to recognize a wrong; but are reticent to support the remedy when we are potentially negatively affected by that remedy.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

14. The 2007 Democratic primaries exposed the racism that exists on the Left. My eyes were opened.

I've never seen anything like it before.

Racism DOES exist on the political Left. There are racist liberals, some of them rail against affimative action, but say nothing about gender-based affirmative action.

[Nye Bevan]

15. Because we don't think the son of two wealthy black attorneys living on Manhattan's Upper East Side

should benefit from any preferential treatment over a desperately poor white kid living in a trailer park in Mississippi.

Socio-economic preferences are fine. Scrutinizing the melanin content of someone's skin is not.

[MellowDem]

17. Because affirmative action doesn't work....

It has been in place for decades and the gaps are still there, if not even wider.

Worse still, it's a messy "solution" that uses discrimination to get to its goal, which means it gives conservatives a whole lot of ammunition to oppose not only affirmative action, but the idea of structeral racism itself (if affirmative action isn't working, they say, then there must not be structural racism). And it gets conservatives very angry and very motivated. It has only hurt racial equality, which isn't surprising, considering it relies on a very messy sort of discrimination. Anytime you use discrimination, it's going to backfire, no matter your good intentions. We've simply built up resentment and even suspicion of minority success.

And the worst part is, as a progressive who opposes discrimination, I can't deny conservative's points that it isn't fair. It really isn't fair. It's discrimination. Structeral racism and history won't change that fact. And this discrimination doesn't address structeral racism or the present conditions that lead to large gaps. Society is still very segregated.

Many beneficiaries of affirmative action never even graduate, because they aren't prepared for college and have many other challenges and obstacles others do not. Affirmative action begins to address the issue when kids are going to college, way way way too late to do any good, the damage has already been done, a childhood of more obstacles and challenges and disadvantages have put them at a near-permanent disadvantage compared to others more privileged in society, and affirmative action is a band-aid that won't solve anything in that regard. It does not address the source of the problem.

The source of the problem is concentrated, segregated poverty and all of the ills that creates, and that is of course a product of history and structeral racism, but until that's addressed, the gaps will continue to exist. Better schools/teachers can't fix that, affirmative action can't fix that.

[hrmjustin]

26. Do you really think the supreme court will change the law?

All the more reason to vote for Obama so that Romney can't appoint more Fascist to the court.