• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Institutional Racism [W:344]

Does institutional racism currently exist in America?


  • Total voters
    56
No, it can spell out in the law that a quota system is wrong, while still creating a necessity for a defacto quota system. it's a pretty recognizable point we all know you will ignore

no that would be a personal choice to a factual one
you point is meaningless

there are cops out there that feel it a necessity to break the law to enforce it, that doesnt mean its right or thats how the law works nor does it change the definition.

I dont ignore it, i focus on it and expose it for what it actually is, reality and facts dont care about peoples feelings/opinions
 
There comes a point when you just have to let the parrot have the last word.

If you noticed, I stopped posting a few pages ago, after implying that his head is in the sand.

Let him quote wikipedia and jump around, saying he's right. Bobos get boring after a while.
 
If I have any integrity? First you come out in support of Affirmative Action in college applications, then you completely deny that Affirmative Action is taking place and refuse to take a stand on whether or not it has a place in Med School applications. You my friend are the one who is being dishonest and trying to change the topic. I have consistently made the exact same point the entire thread.
I haven't denied AA takes place. I've pointed out that lowering standards for black applicants is not AA as you've claimed. I've also pointed out that that you've made assumptions that you are treating as facts. The fact that you are now putting words in my mouth as a last resort demonstrates your lack of integrity and dishonesty. I guess it's easier to argue against points that have never been made than what people actually say, huh?

You're the one who suggested that blacks have significantly more clinical experience. I've only stated facts, you're the one coming up with alternative theories without offering any support for them.
I didn't suggest that "blacks have significantly more clinical experience." I said that it's possible that they have such experiences among other advantages that you aren't privy to since you didn't see their applications. That's you putting words in my mouth again - more dishonesty, less integrity.

The fact of the matter here is that MCAT scores and GPA scores are the two biggest factors in determining acceptance. No such data exists on the "amount of clinical experience or research" gets one into med school by race. Not to mention, the differences in the acceptance rates between different ethnic groups is so staggering, even a minor difference in clinical experience isn't enough to explain it. The only explaination when grinding the statistics is that race is playing some factor into determining acceptance.
Like I said, admissions offices have a cutoff for MCAT and GPA. Everyone who makes the cutoff is evaluated individually. You're assuming that race, not any of the multiple other factors, is what admissions officers are considering at the expense of everything else. You're assuming that blacks aren't outperforming whites (in the eyes of admissions officers) in other areas. That is your assumption. Nothing more.

Acceptance rates at US medical schools between 2010-2012 reveal racial preferences for blacks and Hispanics | AEIdeas

Also, it is abundantly clear whenever states adopt a ban on race conscious admissions (which you refuse to state if you are for or against), the enrollment of minorities drop.
Those stats don't prove anything. The conclusion the guy reaches is, again, an assumption. Both you and him are seeing what you want to see.

I couldn't find a study that only looked at the Med schools in these states, so this will have to do.

Fact is, you won't come out and support race-neutral policies on graduate acceptance programs because you know affirmative action is playing a role here.
Fact is, you're treating assumptions as facts and then whining because I'm calling you out for it. Another fact: you're getting pissy with me because I don't play red herring games. Cry harder.
 
If you noticed, I stopped posting a few pages ago, after implying that his head is in the sand.

Let him quote wikipedia and jump around, saying he's right. Bobos get boring after a while.

Translation: facts proved you wrong and you have nothing else, let me know when you do
 
stay on topic and post some facts

Too late, I already have. If you want to want to giggle and run around citing wikipedia as proof that you're right, go ahead. It makes you look the fool, not me.

Clearly you've never gone to college. If you cite wikipedia as a source, you deserve to have your research ripped up in front of your face.

Maybe you should try and live in the real world, instead of attempting to use the internet to prove crackpot beliefs and theories.
 
well, this has escalated rather quickly
 
Moderator's Warning:
The baiting stops NOW. People need to talk about the subject. Who does or doesn't have hteir hand in the sand isn't the topic. Whether or not someone is being civil or staying on topic is not the topic. If you feel like someone is causing an issue either report it, ignore it, or at the worst tie it into a post actually primarily talking about the TOPIC. Any further baiting will result in further action
 
1.)Too late, I already have.
2.) If you want to want to giggle and run around citing wikipedia as proof that you're right, go ahead. It makes you look the fool, not me.

3.)Clearly you've never gone to college.
4.) If you cite wikipedia as a source, you deserve to have your research ripped up in front of your face.

5.)Maybe you should try and live in the real world, instead of attempting to use the internet to prove crackpot beliefs and theories.

1.) this is a lie proven by this thread, links and facts
2.) what is foolish is not understanding how references (usually you learn this in highschool) works and wiki has them at the bottom and they link to LAW and GOVERNMENT sites :laughat:

i also listed separate LAW and GOVERNMENT sites and when i have time i can link court cases that also prove you wrong lol

3.) says the guy that doesnt understand facts and how links/reference work LOL
i have two degrees thanks

4.) wiki is a fine source as long as the there are factual reference to go with it, you lose again lol

5.) its funny you are so upset about being proven factually wrong with facts

let me know when you need further educated, ill gladly use facts to prove you wrong again.
 
I haven't denied AA takes place. I've pointed out that lowering standards for black applicants is not AA as you've claimed.

If lower standards aren't AA, then what exactly is? Either affirmative action is taking place or it isn't. And if it is taking place, then that does explain at least some of the gap in the admissions.

So I'll ask you again, is it taking place or is it not?

The fact that you are now putting words in my mouth as a last resort demonstrates your lack of integrity and dishonesty. I guess it's easier to argue against points that have never been made than what people actually say, huh?


As a last resort? I'm not the one who has failed to make a coherent argument on the matter. You are. You have yet to actually state your position on whether or not affirmative action has a place in graduate school acceptance. Your position has been that discrepancies in MCAT and GPA are not due to racial preferance. So naturally my counterargument is that you shouldn't have a problem with eliminating race as a factor in college acceptance if you don't think that minorities are being held a different standard. Thats not putting words in your mouth. That is your argument, that they aren't being held to different standards.

To which I say fine, then there shouldn't be any problem with banning different standards, now should there?



I didn't suggest that "blacks have significantly more clinical experience." I said that it's possible that they have such experiences among other advantages that you aren't privy to since you didn't see their applications. That's you putting words in my mouth again - more dishonesty, less integrity.

More or less, you are saying they must have more of something else to make up for their lower of MCAT or GPA. I would like to know what that is.

Like I said, admissions offices have a cutoff for MCAT and GPA. Everyone who makes the cutoff is evaluated individually. You're assuming that race, not any of the multiple other factors, is what admissions officers are considering at the expense of everything else. You're assuming that blacks aren't outperforming whites (in the eyes of admissions officers) in other areas. That is your assumption. Nothing more.

Just because they have a cut off, doesn't mean they don't still continue to take MCAT and GPA into consideration. And regardless, you have yet to prove that blacks have more of something that make up for a lower GPA/MCAT. Until you actually prove that, this is a case of affirmative action.

And I'm saying, what the admissions officers want to see is diversity rather then actual academic performance. Diversity for diversity's sake is affirmative action. I'm not making an assumption. I'm showing you facts. When race is banned from being a factor and standards are forced to be colorblind, minority enrollment falls. THEREFORE it is not an assumption to say that race is a factor in enrollment. It is a fact.

Fact is, you're treating assumptions as facts and then whining because I'm calling you out for it. Another fact: you're getting pissy with me because I don't play red herring games. Cry harder.

Fact is, you still don't have a shred of evidence in your favor. I've produced sources, I've produced statistics. What have you produced? Ad hominem attacks and rhetorical arguments. If you're going to rely on wordplay and hedging rhetoric to undermine what I hoped would be a serious debate, then I'm going to call it for what it is.

Red herring games? Either you are childish or purposely trying to move the goal posts. This entire discussion has been about minorities being held to a different standard. It is an important question to know whether or not you support separate standards for graduate admissions. If you do not support such separate standards, then I want to know why you continue to argue against a race neutral admissions policy for graduate students. Now stop acting like a child and state your position.
 
Do you account for them according to race, gender, or ethnicity?

yep along with how much we pay them, where they live, education, experience, skills/background, single, kids, other jobs etc

all that have nothing to do with AA/EO or any qoutas :shrug:
 
Have any statistics to back up that claim?

Black America vs. Obama?

Though 10 percent of the U.S. civilian labor force, African-Americans are 18 percent of U.S. government workers. They are 25 percent of the employees at Treasury and Veterans Affairs, 31 percent of the State Department, 37 percent of Department of Education employees and 38 percent of Housing and Urban Development. They are 42 percent of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp., 55 percent of the employees at the Government Printing Office and 82 percent at the Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency.
 
yep along with how much we pay them, where they live, education, experience, skills/background, single, kids, other jobs etc

all that have nothing to do with AA/EO or any qoutas :shrug:

Hmmm... So why account for them according to race, gender, etc..?

Indeed, wouldn't such accounting lend itself to accusations of discrimination in any potential lawsuit?
 
Black America vs. Obama?

Though 10 percent of the U.S. civilian labor force, African-Americans are 18 percent of U.S. government workers. They are 25 percent of the employees at Treasury and Veterans Affairs, 31 percent of the State Department, 37 percent of Department of Education employees and 38 percent of Housing and Urban Development. They are 42 percent of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp., 55 percent of the employees at the Government Printing Office and 82 percent at the Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency.

I have always found it funny that, at least in the Army, almost every single EO rep is a black female.
 
1.)Hmmm... So why account for them according to race, gender, etc..?

2.)Indeed, wouldn't such accounting lend itself to accusations of discrimination in any potential lawsuit?

1.) common sense LMAO
the same reason we account for the other things, so we know are demographics and how we appeal to the the work force and how to be a better company.
Maybe its not common sense for you because you are obviously uneducated about this particular topic, i dont know but its common sense, anybody educated in this area understands the why you need to account your work force.


2.) No unless it was a piss poor lawsuit and the judge and jury were morons.
accounting alone isnt PROOF of any right or wrong doing, nobody smart would think that.

for a made up example

If my company was being accused of racism and i presented in court the fact that we have 3 black people working for us, one who is a supervisor and thats ALL i presented, that would make me a complete moron and i would deserve fired for being so stupid. Not only that if the was REAL evidence against us and that was my only counter we would lose LOL

thats the equivalent of the racists saying "what i had a black friend high school"

again you have nothing
 
1.) common sense LMAO

Common sense?.... Sorry, but "common sense" does not suffice as an answer. Any employer who was genuinely unbiased would have no "common sense" reason to account for race, gender, etc..

Are you absolutely certain that there is not a more specific reason for the collection of such data, given the fact that you are a "key member of recruiting and hiring" at your place of business? More to the point, have you ever even heard of the EEOC?
 
1.)Common sense?.... Sorry, but "common sense" does not suffice as an answer. Any employer who was genuinely unbiased would have no "common sense" reason to account for race, gender, etc..

2.)Are you absolutely certain that there is not a more specific reason for the collection of such data, given the fact that you are a "key member of recruiting and hiring" at your place of business?

3.) More to the point, have you ever even heard of the EEOC?

1.) WOW?

well you just proved how little you know when it comes to this and how severely uneducated you are about this topic.

did you just suggest it wouldnt benefit a company to know if their work force was young, old, black, white, highly educated, HS educated, single parents, married, women, men etc etc etc

That would be VERY stupid for a company not to know, there is no t one logical reason you could give not to know that answer. Obviously you are very young or just seriously ignorant to how knowing that info is important.

2.) yep, positive because im educated on how that info works and how its beneficial, see answer 1 lol

3.) yep i referred to that earlier and posted links LMAO

you still got nothing

fact remains my company has ZERO qoutas and Quotas are illegal and have nothing to do with AA/EO.

Please continue though since these fact will not change
 
1.) WOW?

well you just proved how little you know when it comes to this and how severely uneducated you are about this topic.

did you just suggest it wouldnt benefit a company to know if their work force was young, old, black, white, highly educated, HS educated, single parents, married, women, men etc etc etc

That would be VERY stupid for a company not to know, there is no t one logical reason you could give not to know that answer. Obviously you are very young or just seriously ignorant to how knowing that info is important.

2.) yep, positive because im educated on how that info works and how its beneficial, see answer 1 lol

3.) yep i referred to that earlier and posted links LMAO

you still got nothing

fact remains my company has ZERO qoutas and Quotas are illegal and have nothing to do with AA/EO.

Please continue though since these fact will not change


Sorry, pal, but clothes do not make the man. Your talk gives you away.
 
.....People can "not know and care about" other individuals for any numbers of reasons beyond race.

That is why I used the word bigotry instead of racism. An example: the difference in the response to 9/11 versus Katrina. In general, people were more concerned and generous in their response to the 9/11 victims than the Katrina victims because of the perceived difference in race and class. The 9/11 victims were considered "like us," but not the Katrina victims.
 
What part of "sanctioned by the government" do you not understand? Just because no actual number is named for the quota, that doesn't mean an implicit number is not required to avoid all manners of penalties and public defamation of whatever company is in question. The government can send someone into a business and tell them they lack diversity - guess what? You now have an implicit quota. AA / EO are the movements that whine to the government in the first place and the get the ball rolling.

Most of the time prosecuted illegal discrimination is verified by testing the suspect company by having several candidates of different races (or other types of groups) with histories that are equal, or the minority person is more qualified, apply for the same jobs, loans etc. That provides proof that the company discriminates by race rather than any other objective criteria.
 
Black America vs. Obama?

Though 10 percent of the U.S. civilian labor force, African-Americans are 18 percent of U.S. government workers. They are 25 percent of the employees at Treasury and Veterans Affairs, 31 percent of the State Department, 37 percent of Department of Education employees and 38 percent of Housing and Urban Development. They are 42 percent of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp., 55 percent of the employees at the Government Printing Office and 82 percent at the Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency.

That does not support your assertion.


African Americans are also over represented in the military (24% in 2000) which does not practice affirmative action in recruitment since they take virtually all applicants.

The statistsics you provided are only meaningful if it takes into consideration the race of the job applicants. It could be that the demographics of the applicants match that of the employees. The disparity may also be a result of discrimination in the private sector. One of the reasons that many African Americans are federal government employees is because it was one of the first large employers to end racial discrimination. Some families have a tradition of federal employment, just as there are still a disproportionate number of Irish police officers and firefighters in many places. Also, many of the jobs working with subsidized housing or prisoners may be avoided by whites. The required education level or experience for many of these government jobs may be well suited to the African American applicants. There is also the large percentage of African Americans in Washington D.C.
 
Last edited:
That does not support your assertion.


African Americans are also over represented in the military (24% in 2000) which does not practice affirmative action in recruitment since they take virtually all applicants.

The statistsics you provided are only meaningful if it takes into consideration the race of the job applicants. It could be that the demographics of the applicants match that of the employees. The disparity may also be a result of discrimination in the private sector. One of the reasons that many African Americans are federal government employees is because it was one of the first large employers to end racial discrimination. Some families have a tradition of federal employment, just as there are still a disproportionate number of Irish police officers and firefighters in many places. Also, many of the jobs working with subsidized housing or prisoners may be avoided by whites. The required education level or experience for many of these government jobs may be well suited to the African American applicants. There is also the large percentage of African Americans in Washington D.C.

The government isn't a small business. Their applicant pool is large enough that it will be representative of the general population. The military will be a different issue because of the inherent hazards and restrictions that will prevent many from participating. But the government is an employer with all the same benefits and compensation (which is usually highly inflated) of the average private employer, so their overall pool of applicants will closely reflect pool of american workers. Since the numbers are skewed so heavily towards minorities, it is reasonable conclusion to state there is a bias with in the government.
 
For that specific example, how much of it is racism and how much of it is the rap/hip-hop culture that shuns learning and real work and berates blacks who are trying as being "too white" for trying to succeed? See Bill Cosby's various speeches on the culture issue. While I will not dismiss racism from the equation, such culture cannot be dismissed either. I'd like to see a good non-biased study done to see which is the higher influence and also if that could shift from area to area (i.e. the culture is the higher influence in large metro areas, while racism is the higher in more rural areas, as a potential result)

Hi, this is no longer the 1990s, hip-hop culture is now broken off into multiple subgroups of their own. Bill Cosby is an old man who hasn't seen a black person since the 80s. He got rich by playing the stereotypical black father figure who was 5 paces from black face. Please, join the rest of us in 2013. There is no such thing as a singular 'hip-hop' culture anymore.
 
Back
Top Bottom