Think of it this way. If I point out to you that the NBA has a higher proportion of black players than the US has white population would you conclude that this means that the NBA is designed to reward black people with positions on basketball teams? You're making a causal link where no link exists. Whites has a lot of power in the US but that doesn't mean that they're exercising that power to benefit whites, just like the NBA isn't purposely creating a situation which results in black players having a massively disproportionate presence. The NBA governs itself with race-neutral principles, as does the white power structure in the US, and the results that develop develop naturally and without design.
So, if the NBA doesn't have any programs designed to sign more white and Asian players, then by default, black athletes have favoritism? No, that's not the process that is in play. Race neutral positions don't have to produce equal outcomes and when equal outcomes are not produced that is not evidence in support of the claim that favoritism is at work.
I'm understanding your position just fine, I'm simply rejecting it totally. Biased lending isn't biased when credit scores are controlled for. Judicial bias is corrected when race-based crime statistics are referenced. Poor educational environments are irrelevant when we see the same differential race-based outcomes in high quality educational environments, for
instance:
Last month, the school was cited for the second year in a row, this time because 37 percent of black students failed to meet standards in English, and 55 percent of blacks and 40 percent of Hispanics failed in math.
One of the standard complaints about No Child Left Behind by its critics in public education is that it punishes urban schools that are chronically underfinanced and already contending with a concentration of poor, nonwhite, bilingual and special-education pupils. Princeton could hardly be more different. It is an Ivy League town with a minority population of slightly more than 10 percent and per-student spending well above the state average. The high school sends 94 percent of its graduates to four-year colleges and offers 29 different Advanced Placement courses. Over all, 98 percent of Princeton High School students exceed the math and English standards required by No Child Left Behind.
When you write that the "system is structured" in a way that discriminates against minorities you demonstrate that your mental model of how society function is at odds with the evidence. The system is structured to be race-neutral. The fact that the outcomes are not proportionate across race is not a design flaw in the system, or society at large. Equality doesn't require that minorities be granted "restitution" for that just infantilizes minorities and sends the message that they must be coddled and can't operate in a race-neutral society.
What are you talking about? I quoted directly from ObamaCare legislation which mandates preferences for minorities in medical schools. The OP referenced the Financial Reform act which created departments designed to foster race-favoritism. Those are concrete references.
Here's
one that just broke last month:
In what could be a repeat of the easy-lending cycle that led to the housing crisis, the Justice Department has asked several banks to relax their mortgage underwriting standards and approve loans for minorities with poor credit as part of a new crackdown on alleged discrimination, according to court documents reviewed by IBD.
Prosecutions have already generated more than $20 million in loan set-asides and other subsidies from banks that have settled out of court rather than battle the federal government and risk being branded racist. An additional 60 banks are under investigation, a DOJ spokeswoman says.
No Job, No Problem
Settlements include setting aside prime-rate mortgages for low-income blacks and Hispanics with blemished credit and even counting "public assistance" as valid income in mortgage applications.
In several cases, the government has ordered bank defendants to post in all their branches and marketing materials a notice informing minority customers that they cannot be turned down for credit because they receive public aid, such as unemployment benefits, welfare payments or food stamps.
What private foundations do with the scholarships they offer is immaterial to the question of what our government, the government of all the citizens of the US, does with respect to discriminating on the basis of race. Obama's administration is neck-deep in pushing race-based policies and you not wanting that to be true doesn't erase it from happening.
Another red herring. Bush is irrelevant. The issue is that you took an Obama statement and presented it as though it was a slam dunk refutation. That would be like someone arguing that the moon is made of cheese and then linking to Biden saying "the moon is made of cheese." The fact that Biden said that wouldn't make it true.
