• 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!

CPAC Panel On Race: 'Young, White Southern Males' Hurt By Racial Outreach

WWGWD said:
I love when things are snipped and taken out of context. It's just amusing. The next sentence of the quote was "Affirmative actions include training programs, outreach efforts, and other positive steps." The point of affirmative action was never to disallow qualified white applicants, but instead to ensure minorities the same opportunities as white applicants.

There will always be a portion of the white electorate who are upset by this, because it obviously limits some opportunity for white applicants. However, it's disingenuous to portray affirmitive actions inititives as reverse racism, in which white applicants are treated worse then minorities. That's not at all the picture that gets painted when you look at labor statistics.

The employment population statistic for whites is at 59.4% for 2011. Blacks is at 51.7%. Additionally, 34% of employed Black women and 25%of employed Hispanic women worked in management positions. The most striking information I found, was when you look at unemployment, divided by race.

http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsrace2011.pdf

If these affirmative actions laws are so sexist and racist, why are twice as many black men and women unemployed, compared to white men and women?
Click to expand...

White 6.8%
Black or African American 13.8%
Hispanic or Latino 9.6%
Asian 6.1%
Click to expand...
Unemployment Demographics | Department of Numbers

now let's look at one of the protected minority groups, asians, when compared to the majority group, whites, regarding unemployment data
notice how the minority group is doing better than the majority group, but the minority group is still a protected class under affirmative action regulations; why?
i have already emphasized portions of your post so allow me to now revise your concluding question and ask you to answer the revised version of your question:
"If these affirmative actions laws are so sexist and racist, why are twice as many black men and women un more asians employed, compared to white men and women?" why should a minority group retain its preference in affirmative action regulations if it is outperforming the majority population. would that not indicate that the need for affirmative action provisions - relative to employment - has ended, recognizing that the asian population surpasses that of the white population in terms of steady employment
 
justabubba said:
Unemployment Demographics | Department of Numbers

now let's look at one of the protected minority groups, asians, when compared to the majority group, whites, regarding unemployment data
notice how the minority group is doing better than the majority group, but the minority group is still a protected class under affirmative action regulations; why?
i have already emphasized portions of your post so allow me to now revise your concluding question and ask you to answer the revised version of your question:
"If these affirmative actions laws are so sexist and racist, why are twice as many black men and women un more asians employed, compared to white men and women?" why should a minority group retain its preference in affirmative action regulations if it is outperforming the majority population. would that not indicate that the need for affirmative action provisions - relative to employment - has ended, recognizing that the asian population surpasses that of the white population in terms of steady employment
Click to expand...

I'm honestly having a lot of trouble following your trail here, but I don't want you to think I am avoiding your question. The numbers you provided are a one month picture of statistics. That's fine enough when you are looking at the small picture, but if you are looking at the big picture, to address affirmitive action as a whole, I would think you wouldn't want to look at least a years worth of information. Which was why I liked to the BLS' 2011, comprehensive report.

During 2011, the unemployment rate among Asians was 25.2%, versus Whites who are at 21.7%. When you factor in the margin of error, I can totally see these numbers being nearly the same, so I think I understand your point. If a minority is doing that well, why the protection of affirmitive action? My answer would be, what happens if that affirmative action goes away? How do you know those numbers wouldn't drop without it?

Additionally, since we discussing the 'sucess' of a minority, I would point to another set of statistics. This may have something to with the success of the Asian community specifically. Culturally, I think Asian families value education significantly more then white, black or hispanic families. This is totally an assertion based upon my own person experience and the following statistics.
Asians were the most likely of the groups to have graduated from college; 57 percent of Asians in the labor force had a bachelor’s degree or higher, compared with 36 percent of Whites, 25 percent of Blacks, and 16 percent of Hispanics.
Having a degree will always make you more, and more easily employable.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
WWGWD said:
I'm honestly having a lot of trouble following your trail here, but I don't want you to think I am avoiding your question. The numbers you provided are a one month picture of statistics. That's fine enough when you are looking at the small picture, but if you are looking at the big picture, to address affirmitive action as a whole, I would think you wouldn't want to look at least a years worth of information. Which was why I liked to the BLS' 2011, comprehensive report.

During 2011, the unemployment rate among Asians was 25.2%, versus Whites who are at 21.7%. When you factor in the margin of error, I can totally see these numbers being nearly the same, so I think I understand your point. If a minority is doing that well, why the protection of affirmitive action? My answer would be, what happens if that affirmative action goes away? How do you know those numbers wouldn't drop without it?

Additionally, since we discussing the 'sucess' of a minority, I would point to another set of statistics. This may have something to with the success of the Asian community specifically. Culturally, I think Asian families value education significantly more then white, black or hispanic families. This is totally an assertion based upon my own person experience and the following statistics.
Asians were the most likely of the groups to have graduated from college; 57 percent of Asians in the labor force had a bachelor’s degree or higher, compared with 36 percent of Whites, 25 percent of Blacks, and 16 percent of Hispanics.
Click to expand...

Having a degree will always make you more, and more easily employable.
Click to expand...
despite my clumsy effort to reframe your question such that it addressed the apparent asian advantage relative to employment, you saw exactly what i was wanting to address: when does a protected class lose its protection. and i would submit that the asian minority no longer deserves to be protected under the affirmative action provisions. and if we should see the current asian economic advantage disintegrate into a disadvantage, it would then be appropriate to return that asian minority category to those of the protected groups until it can be seen that asians are again playing on a level economic playing field

in short, retaining asians as a protected group undermines the public's belief in the legitimacy of purpose of the affirmative action programs - and that is unfortunate
 
66gardeners said:
I still can not figure out why black conservatives such as yourself think it is OK to look down on a person because of their color.
Click to expand...

Look in the mirror and ask yourself why Libbos look down on black Conservatives, first.
 
Zyphlin said:
Random audience member says something stupid and gets laughed at. Clearly, all republicans are racist.
Click to expand...

Actually from the video the people (to their credit) had looks of horror on their faces.

It is pretty rich though that a segregationist and a slave owner apologizer takes the spotlight at a break out session about unfairly being a called a racist!
 
Zyphlin said:
Random audience member says something stupid and gets laughed at. Clearly, all republicans are racist.
Click to expand...

Comments by audience members are typically the worst part of panel discussions.
 
tererun said:
I do believe CPAC is private so it is not covered under freedom of speech. They probably should have put the guy in a broom closet somewhere.
Click to expand...

Actually, they are...LOL!!!!!!
 
When someone in the Republican Party makes a racist comment, generally speaking, the party leadership and most members repudiate the comment and marginalize the person. When someone in the Democrat Party makes a racist comment, generally speaking, the party leadership and most members cheer them on and give them their own show on MSNBC or support them as a Presidential candidate and given them careers as race baiters for the party.
 
Muhammed said:
Your apologetics notwithstanding,"affirmative action" is institutionalized racism & sexism by every sense of the term.

Are you pro-racism and pro-sexism?
Click to expand...

It's institutionalized dependency. It sends the message that blacks and women don't have to put forth any effort, because the government will tilt the playing field in their favor.
 
justabubba said:
despite my clumsy effort to reframe your question such that it addressed the apparent asian advantage relative to employment, you saw exactly what i was wanting to address: when does a protected class lose its protection. and i would submit that the asian minority no longer deserves to be protected under the affirmative action provisions. and if we should see the current asian economic advantage disintegrate into a disadvantage, it would then be appropriate to return that asian minority category to those of the protected groups until it can be seen that asians are again playing on a level economic playing field

in short, retaining asians as a protected group undermines the public's belief in the legitimacy of purpose of the affirmative action programs - and that is unfortunate
Click to expand...

I can totally see your point here, I really can. However, affirmitave action, is not a short term thing, that fixes a problem, and then that problem goes away. Racial inequality is a persistent sociotal problem (totally my opinion there). If you take away affirmative action, you reinvigorate a belief that racial segragation if OK. Additionally, I wonder, what do you think about affirmative action for races that have not been as successful as the Asian community? Clearly those number are still quite low, so is that evidence that affirmative action as been ineffective or should be strengthened? Furthmore, if you believe that the Asisan community has directly benefited from affirmative action, then does that define it as a successful program?

A lot of questions, I know, lol. Hopefully you are following my train of thought :lol:
 
66gardeners said:
As a black man why are you so worred about how the white man is kept down?
Click to expand...

Because it would be racist not to.

If we live in a country where any race can be oppressed, then every race can be oppressed.
 
WWGWD said:
I can totally see your point here, I really can. However, affirmitave action, is not a short term thing, that fixes a problem, and then that problem goes away. Racial inequality is a persistent sociotal problem (totally my opinion there). If you take away affirmative action, you reinvigorate a belief that racial segragation if OK.
Click to expand...
i don't see it this way. if there remains data to show discrimination continues, then the protected class should remain protected under the AA program. however, if that class, as in asian employment, evidences that it is at parity - or in this instance better than parity - with the majority, with which it is always compared, then it no longer has basis to remain a protected class in need of further opportunity [to achieve equal standing]. in order to achieve the objectives of AA, there are instances where AA programs can provide a super-priority to the protected group. a sense of fairness should not allow us to then retain a group to be protected which is achieving at a rate surpassing the benchmarks established by the majority

Additionally, I wonder, what do you think about affirmative action for races that have not been as successful as the Asian community? Clearly those number are still quite low, so is that evidence that affirmative action as been ineffective or should be strengthened?
Click to expand...
and you have again hit upon my paramount concern. if a protected class is allowed to remain in the AA program, despite its achieving success better than the majority counterpart, then the very purpose for the AA program is lost. why have an AA program once parity has been accomplished; there is no further need of it. but for the other minority groups that still struggle without achieving parity, they continue to need AA to level the economic playing field to move toward parity. some more slowly than others. by allowing one group to remain, which group is found no longer to require AA assistance to achieve parity, undermines the support for an AA program otherwise having legitimate purpose. that purpose cannot be found for asians being in AA programs dedicated to elevating economic prosperity. the success of the asian minority group should be cause for celebration that AA works. but if the successful asian minority continues to receive AA assistance, despite its observable economic success, that will cause the majority to question the continued legitimacy of the entire AA program. AA needs to remain to assist the hispanics, blacks, Native Americans, aleuts, women, and the disabled, just as it has already helped the asians

Furthmore, if you believe that the Asisan community has directly benefited from affirmative action, then does that define it as a successful program?
Click to expand...
i do believe AA can be identified as one element of that minority population's economic success. you already mentioned high educational attainment, which is another of an array of factors that got the asian population to its current standing

A lot of questions, I know, lol. Hopefully you are following my train of thought :lol:
Click to expand...
i embrace the AA program but see it poorly managed at the federal level. SC chief justice pointed out
The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.
Click to expand...
and he is quite right. AA should not have a racial aspect to its criteria for participation in that program; it should be purely based on one's economic condition
it would be expected that a greater percentage of the black and hispanic populations would be eligible to participate in AA programs than those percentages of the asian and white populations, but the race-neutral aspect of eligibility should allow members of all races to support a program intended to elevate the economic standing of the underclass, no matter the individual's race, gender, etc
 
justabubba said:
i don't see it this way. if there remains data to show discrimination continues, then the protected class should remain protected under the AA program. however, if that class, as in asian employment, evidences that it is at parity - or in this instance better than parity - with the majority, with which it is always compared, then it no longer has basis to remain a protected class in need of further opportunity [to achieve equal standing]. in order to achieve the objectives of AA, there are instances where AA programs can provide a super-priority to the protected group. a sense of fairness should not allow us to then retain a group to be protected which is achieving at a rate surpassing the benchmarks established by the majority
Click to expand...

I think I get what your saying, I guess I just don't interpret the results as you do. Just because the stats show an improvement in one aspect, doesn't mean that across the board, racial discrimination has vanished for that minority group. Fairness, I completely understand, but I think it's going to take quite a bit longer for AA to really effect the hiring processes of businesses. I just don't think we have gotten to a equal place, based on one unemployment stat, for one minority group.

and you have again hit upon my paramount concern. if a protected class is allowed to remain in the AA program, despite its achieving success better than the majority counterpart, then the very purpose for the AA program is lost. why have an AA program once parity has been accomplished; there is no further need of it. but for the other minority groups that still struggle without achieving parity, they continue to need AA to level the economic playing field to move toward parity. some more slowly than others. by allowing one group to remain, which group is found no longer to require AA assistance to achieve parity, undermines the support for an AA program otherwise having legitimate purpose. that purpose cannot be found for asians being in AA programs dedicated to elevating economic prosperity. the success of the asian minority group should be cause for celebration that AA works. but if the successful asian minority continues to receive AA assistance, despite its observable economic success, that will cause the majority to question the continued legitimacy of the entire AA program. AA needs to remain to assist the hispanics, blacks, Native Americans, aleuts, women, and the disabled, just as it has already helped the asians
Click to expand...

This is where you loose me once again. Mostly because you are operating under this one idea, that a minority group is achieving success better then the majority. That is a VERY narrow view, considering that you are only considering 1 months unemployment stat. There are tons of other statistics out there, that demonstrate there is still a deep inequality in socio economic success between races in this country. Point to a .4% increase over Whites, for a single month, in a single category, doesn't make the case for what you are describing. I'm not saying you are wrong in your assertions. I'm just saying, I don't think we are there yes.

i embrace the AA program but see it poorly managed at the federal level. SC chief justice pointed out and he is quite right. AA should not have a racial aspect to its criteria for participation in that program; it should be purely based on one's economic condition
it would be expected that a greater percentage of the black and hispanic populations would be eligible to participate in AA programs than those percentages of the asian and white populations, but the race-neutral aspect of eligibility should allow members of all races to support a program intended to elevate the economic standing of the underclass, no matter the individual's race, gender, etc
Click to expand...

While I agree with that AA programs are poorly miss managed, I STRONGLY disagree with you on Chief Justice Roberts comments on the subject. When looking at two applicants for a job, you don't disclose your socio economic standing when interviewing, so it's can't be used as a way to disqualify you for a position. On the flip side, you can't hide that your black when you sit down at an interview. Without the protections of AA, as it stands, what stops a racist, white employer from ignoring the qualifications of a black applicant, just because he's black? AA doesn't exist because minorities are disporportionatly poor. They are disporportionatly poor, because of the discrimination they suffered through generations. Discrimination that still exists very prevalently in American society.

To me, redirecting AA style programs to focus on economic standing, rather then race, is like slapping gauze on a knife wound. Just because the it stops the bleeding, doesn't mean the wound is treated. Maybe not the perfect analogy, but hopefully you get my point, lol.
 
Ray410 said:
It's good to see a rational post on the sort of thread where the shrieking loons seem to go insane with emotion and ignorant self-righteousness.

I agree that the various classifications seek out their own. When the dust settles in the United States, we will again have neighborhoods divided along ethnic lines. The dirty little secret is that white Liberals seek out their own just as quickly as good old Southern boys.

At the present time, it's very profitable for white Liberals to pretend that they are champions of the less populous races, but they do their pretending from white enclaves.

There is nothing wrong with wanting to be around your own, that has been the preference since the beginning of time and always will be, particularly now with the huge 1st world and 3rd world cultural differences.
Click to expand...

Thank you.

White liberals, of the limousine variety, are the only ones I can think of "as a group" who want intergration (for others) on a wholesale level. As you've pointed out but I'll add, they too have outliers but limit them to their own economic levels of prosperity. This is why you'll see them welcome with open arms Michael Jordan to their neighborhoods but not his cousin Reggie.

But of course, you know they preach that mixed income/race gentrification is all fine and well,....................................for those people...
 
I don't understand. Why don't more minorities and more women vote for the GOP? Oh that's right...

apdst said:
It's institutionalized dependency. It sends the message that blacks and women don't have to put forth any effort, because the government will tilt the playing field in their favor.
Click to expand...

Combine this comment with the GOP again saying that it's not their policies, views and stances that hurt them, its just their "messaging". So don't actually change anything, just say it differently. I'll let Albert Einstein comment on this:

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.​
 
66gardeners said:
I still can not figure out why black conservatives such as yourself think it is OK to look down on a person because of their color.
Click to expand...

Another spit and a miss.
 
tererun said:
I do believe CPAC is private so it is not covered under freedom of speech. They probably should have put the guy in a broom closet somewhere.
Click to expand...

Private organizations aren't covered under freedom of speech?
 
MadLib said:
Private organizations aren't covered under freedom of speech?
Click to expand...

Yup, private organizations are not required to allow you to speak on their property. Congress shall make no law, not private organizations shall make no rule.
 
tererun said:
Yup, private organizations are not required to allow you to speak on their property. Congress shall make no law, not private organizations shall make no rule.
Click to expand...

Oh, I thought you were saying that private organizations could not state their own opinion. Misread, sorry.
 
poweRob said:
I don't understand. Why don't more minorities and more women vote for the GOP? Oh that's right...



Combine this comment with the GOP again saying that it's not their policies, views and stances that hurt them, its just their "messaging". So don't actually change anything, just say it differently. I'll let Albert Einstein comment on this:

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.​
Click to expand...

So, instead, vote for the party that thinks you're too weak, or too incompetent to succeed on your own.

Obama USDA met 30 times with Mexican gov't to promote food-stamp use among Mexican immigrants | The Daily Caller
 
tererun said:
Yup, private organizations are not required to allow you to speak on their property. Congress shall make no law, not private organizations shall make no rule.
Click to expand...

Actually you're wrong, because it's illegal to violate a person's civil rights and the 1st Amendment is a civil right.
 
apdst said:
Actually you're wrong, because it's illegal to violate a person's civil rights and the 1st Amendment is a civil right.
Click to expand...

let's try an example we might both understand
on this privately owned forum the owner is legally able to restrict our speech
look at rule #1:
... At Debate Politics we see freedom of speech as the right to communicate ideas. With this right comes the responsibility to choose your words carefully and respect the rights of others. Common sense dictates the difference between one expressing themselves and one who is disruptive. If you are focused on contributing to the community, you will not have to be concerned with being a disruption. Disruptive behavior, such as personal attacks, can lead to temporary or permanent revocation of posting privileges.
Click to expand...
as you can see, the ability to make public attacks you have in a public setting, is not found here
for another instance, in the middle east forum, one cannot say the holocaust did not happen. while i cannot understand someone denying the obvious, outside this private setting, in a public place, you could make that assertion to your heart's desire (or until someone arrived to convince you to shut up about it)

if this does not convince you, let me know as i have one other example to offer
 
66gardeners said:
At a panel disussion on race at CPAC, Scott Terry, 30, rose from his seat to question the discussion leader, K. Carl Smith, from the Frederick Douglass Republicans, over the role of race in the GOP. Terry said the growth of diversity in the party and outreach to black conservatives has been "at the expense of young, white, Southern males like myself." "I think my demographic is being systematically disenfranchised," Terry said. Smith responded by telling a story about a letter that abolitionist leader Frederick Douglass wrote to his former slaveowner forgiving him for holding him in servitude. "For giving him shelter and food?" asked Terry, as some members of the audience gasped and others laughed.

Think Progress reported that Terry later said he supports segregation. Terry told Think Progress following the panel discussion that he believed that whites have been “systematically disenfranchised” by the federal government. He also told Think Progress he'd "be fine" with a society with blacks subservient to whites. African Americans, he said, should vote in Africa. He claimed the tea party agrees with him. Terry is not the first Southern Republican in recent months to make comments supporting slavery. Last year, several Republican state legislators in Arkansas endorsed slavery in new books, including one who suggested that the practice "may have been a blessing" for slaves by bringing them to the United States. State GOP leaders pulled support for the candidates.

CPAC Panel On Race: 'Young, White Southern Males' Hurt By Racial Outreach

The real victims in America? White men? Who knew.
Click to expand...

God, conservatives are stupid. Thank heavens they are demographically doomed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom