Avatar image for modernww2fare
Posted by modernww2fare (7008 posts) 2 years, 10 months ago

Poll: Is white privilege real? (529 votes)

Yes 56%
No 43%

Is white privilege real in certain countries?

Avatar image for wavemotioncannon
#201 Posted by WaveMotionCannon (7649 posts) - - Show Bio

@lunacyde said:

@spitfirepanda:

The theory itself isn't the problem, your video itself acknowledges this. The theory is factually and logically sound. The problem is people misusing it. Intersectionality is a tool with which to better understand the complex world we live in. Like any tool; a hammer, a computer, a gun, etc, it can be misused. That does not mean that the theory itself is wrong, or the problem. Adopting the logic of gun rights supporters (of which I am a member), you don't blame a pencil for incorrect spelling, or a knife for a stabbing. These are merely tools, without sentience or the ability to effect outcomes unless wielded by an individual.

The problem therefore is the idiots who don't fully understand the term, or seek to use it in a misguided and deceptive manner. I hate Tumblr feminism as much as the next guy, but the problem is that those are corruptions of actual concepts and understandings that are important to recognize. Instead of seeking the truth it devolves into an us vs. them dichotomy. I don't believe in safe spaces, or trigger warnings, or microaggressions, they are misguided attempts to address the very real fact that you are born with certain advantages as a white, male, American. You can acknowledge your privilege/advantages without feeling guilty or having to "atone" for the fact you have them. I am fully against telling people to "check their privilege" because that is just another way to silence ideas without having to debate them, and in the end it makes us all weaker. Our ideas grow stronger through being challenged. If we shut off all challenges to our point of view because we don't agree with them we don't allow our own ideas to evolve and become stronger. That said, I can denounce "checking privilege" while still recognizing that privilege exists and effects people's lives.

Privilege is undeniable on a macro-level. This is the level upon which the theory is meant to be understood. Privilege was never meant to be understood or applied at an individual level. Black Americans as a social group DO face challenges that white Americans as a social group do not face. The attribute of whiteness DOES effect outcomes, and there is a myriad of evidence that spells this out clearly. Over 200 years of American history has created a very complex and multi-faceted environment where racial minorities do not begin on an even playing field. Various studies have documented that minority groups by and large are exposed to greater environmental hazards, more difficulty obtaining healthful foods, greater difficulty voting, receive poorer educations on average, face greater difficulty starting businesses, and have greater difficulty experiencing upward mobility. Black Americans still have a more difficult time obtaining work, even when they are equally qualified, and they are paid less for the work they do.

You cannot just discount the past as not mattering anymore. Slavery, Jim Crow, Segregation, discriminatory hiring and financial policies, mass incarceration; these factors create problems for generations to come. You can't just take a slave who was never educated, who was essentially conditioned and brainwashed from birth into being a subservient laborer, who was whipped and beaten for learning to read or write, and expect to say "you're not a slave anymore, now go make something of yourself." This creates problems that are passed down for generations. They had no money, no marketable skills, no education, so they were at a disadvantage. They dealt with discrimination and violence; in the workplace, in public, in buying land, getting loans, and running businesses. This all made it more difficult for them to provide for their children, give them the food they needed to develop, give them the education they needed to succeed, put them in an environment where they could be successful. And so this inheritance goes on for generations. Lack of wealth,education, opportunity, standing, privilege, etc is passed down from generation to generation. It is a self-perpetuating process. Today minority Americans (namely Native American, Black, and Hispanic) still face problems of poorer education, more poverty, poorer health, etc because these things are intertwined.

Today, even in minority households where they have the same income as whites, minorities have far less accumulated wealth because of past discrimination. For example the FHA made home ownership affordable for millions of white Americans in the 1940s-50s through loan programs that have been proven to have been discriminatory against blacks. Since home ownership (one of the most valuable investments one could make at the time) was denied systematically to blacks as compared to whites, this created a massive inequality in the ability to produce and conserve wealth. These FHA loans have been shown to have directly led to the rise of the middle class in the 1950s, denying Black Americans by and large from moving into the middle class at that time. Instead blacks, unable to obtain such loans, were forced to rent living quarters in urban areas they could afford, often barring them from moving out of urban areas and into the suburbs like middle class whites. This has resulted in a myriad of factors that are hurdles for black Americans such as living in poor neighborhoods with poor education systems, high levels of crime, higher exposure to dangerous environmental hazards, and more difficulty obtaining proper nutrition.

Factually speaking white privilege exists. If you don't like that terminology fine, call it white advantage, or an uneven playing field. Call it whatever you want, but if you want to pretend it doesn't exist you're only deluding yourself. I have enjoyed this conversation, I hope you at least consider what i have said.

This So FUC**** much!!!

Avatar image for nishi99
#202 Posted by nishi99 (1374 posts) - - Show Bio

@poeticwarrior: They graduate High School & College at higher rates then whites & have a higher income on average. As for dating, most are too busy working on careers to develop the social skills needed to be confident, so you're right there.

Avatar image for nishi99
#203 Posted by nishi99 (1374 posts) - - Show Bio

@thewhiteronin: That's far more an example of Rich Privilege then White Privilege. How many white guys do you think can get away with murder by telling the judge they have Affluenza?

Avatar image for lunacyde
#204 Posted by Lunacyde (28018 posts) - - Show Bio

@nishi99: You can't separate the two when race is a major indicator of wealth in the U.S.

Moderator
Avatar image for nishi99
#205 Posted by nishi99 (1374 posts) - - Show Bio

@lunacyde: Yes you can by averages one group makes. Really i don't even like to use the term Asian privilege or White privilege. Rich Privilege is far more important & the only one i think is worth mentioning.

Avatar image for lunacyde
#206 Posted by Lunacyde (28018 posts) - - Show Bio

@nishi99: Why do you think they have more money?

Moderator
Avatar image for nishi99
#207 Posted by nishi99 (1374 posts) - - Show Bio

@lunacyde: Research of course, but the gap is not very big yet.

Avatar image for lunacyde
#208 Posted by Lunacyde (28018 posts) - - Show Bio
Moderator
Avatar image for nishi99
#209 Posted by nishi99 (1374 posts) - - Show Bio
Avatar image for lunacyde
#210 Posted by Lunacyde (28018 posts) - - Show Bio

@nishi99: Asians are also a much smaller proportion of the population and having been given status as "model minorities" they do not face many of the same challenges as other minorities.

Moderator
Avatar image for poeticwarrior
#211 Edited by poeticwarrior (3526 posts) - - Show Bio

@nishi99 said:

@poeticwarrior: They graduate High School & College at higher rates then whites & have a higher income on average. As for dating, most are too busy working on careers to develop the social skills needed to be confident, so you're right there.

So they graduate at High School and College is somehow a privilege? Do the teachers somehow give better grades to students? If you look up study, despite them having higher performance, they also are at a lower position than their White peers, look up the Bamboo Ceiling. I still don't see what's the supposed white privilege here. Tell me what Asian privileges are, not that they study hard and get good grades. Also, due to affirmative action, Asians actually have a harder time getting into a good school because the quota is already full.

Avatar image for nishi99
#212 Posted by nishi99 (1374 posts) - - Show Bio
Avatar image for poeticwarrior
#213 Posted by poeticwarrior (3526 posts) - - Show Bio

@nishi99 said:

@poeticwarrior: Well yes just like with whites, they have a better upbringing that helps them achieve. I don't see how they are at a lower position when they have far more degrees on average. People lower on the privilege pool don't have as nice upbringing on average, so they get bad grades like blacks on average. The Bamboo Ceiling is outdated if you read the Research over the last few years.

http://www.pewresearch.org/daily-number/asian-americans-lead-all-others-in-household-income/

That is through their hard work which they then pass down to their offspring. Many of them who immigrate here originally faced many discrimination, and many work low wage jobs that allow their kids attend schools and study. None of that has anything to do with privilege. They didn't have any privilege given to them by society, at most by their family's hard work.

Avatar image for nishi99
#214 Posted by nishi99 (1374 posts) - - Show Bio

@poeticwarrior: Groups like Blacks don't have that, so it's privilege. .

Avatar image for poeticwarrior
#215 Posted by poeticwarrior (3526 posts) - - Show Bio

@nishi99 said:

@poeticwarrior: Groups like Blacks don't have that, so it's privilege. .

They don't have parents to work low wage jobs for their children to go to school?

Avatar image for jagernutt
#216 Posted by jagernutt (16052 posts) - - Show Bio

no

Avatar image for nishi99
#217 Edited by nishi99 (1374 posts) - - Show Bio

@lunacyde: I know, but my point is nobody talks about Asian privilege. I think we need to stop making broad generalizations altogether that put the image in people's minds that most white people make 6 figures with a white picket fence. It's basically a way to stereotype each group of people, which i think is regressive. Instead we should focus on how to fix overall poverty, outdated drug laws & get cops with body cameras.

Avatar image for poeticwarrior
#218 Posted by poeticwarrior (3526 posts) - - Show Bio

@nishi99 said:

@lunacyde: I know, but my point is nobody talks about Asian privilege. I think we need to stop making broad generalizations altogether that put the image in people's minds that most white people make 6 figures with a white picket fence. It's basically a way to stereotype each group of people, which i think is regressive. Instead we should focus on how to fix overall poverty, outdated drug laws & get cops with body cameras.

They don't talk about it because Asian privilege doesn't exist. None of what you said have anything to do with how society gives Asian preferential treatments.

Avatar image for nishi99
#219 Posted by nishi99 (1374 posts) - - Show Bio
Avatar image for jagernutt
#220 Posted by jagernutt (16052 posts) - - Show Bio

SJW's BLaRge!!!!!! :(

Avatar image for poeticwarrior
#221 Edited by poeticwarrior (3526 posts) - - Show Bio

@nishi99 said:

@poeticwarrior: Agree to disagree PC Principal.

In order to disagree, you need to have a point, and you haven't presented a point about Asian privilege yet. Your point basically is just about Asian parents work hard for their kids, so their kids study their ass off to get good jobs, colleges actually discriminate against Asians because too many of them with good grades applying. Society doesn't give them any advantage at all. Privilege indeed.

Avatar image for dshipp17
#222 Edited by dshipp17 (5383 posts) - - Show Bio

@poeticwarrior said:
@nishi99 said:

@poeticwarrior: They graduate High School & College at higher rates then whites & have a higher income on average. As for dating, most are too busy working on careers to develop the social skills needed to be confident, so you're right there.

So they graduate at High School and College is somehow a privilege? Do the teachers somehow give better grades to students? If you look up study, despite them having higher performance, they also are at a lower position than their White peers, look up the Bamboo Ceiling. I still don't see what's the supposed white privilege here. Tell me what Asian privileges are, not that they study hard and get good grades. Also, due to affirmative action, Asians actually have a harder time getting into a good school because the quota is already full.

The answer to that question is actually, yes; for example, African Americans are graded more harshly than whites and Asians; remember the saying "the bigotry of low expectations"? School and institutions of higher learning is where that applies. During k-12, African American students are groomed to expect lower grades; teachers also have an instinctive bias against African Americans; so, even though an African American student makes a mistake that is just as minor, they may lose 20 points, where as Asian or white would lose 2 points for the same minor mistake; so, with two mistakes, the African American has a low D or F (e.g. 60), while the Asian or white has a 94, still an A; this has the effect of diminishing confidence over time, in one case and building confidence over time, in the other case. And, yes, I say it first hand, institutions of higher learning are packed, mostly with foreign Asian students and whites (e.g. actually importing students to take seats from African Americans, Latinos, and Native Americans). No, Asians, usually as foreign students, seem to be benefiting from the quotas that whites fought so hard to deprive (keep) from African Americans in court.

Online
Avatar image for poeticwarrior
#223 Edited by poeticwarrior (3526 posts) - - Show Bio

@dshipp17 said:
@poeticwarrior said:
@nishi99 said:

@poeticwarrior: They graduate High School & College at higher rates then whites & have a higher income on average. As for dating, most are too busy working on careers to develop the social skills needed to be confident, so you're right there.

So they graduate at High School and College is somehow a privilege? Do the teachers somehow give better grades to students? If you look up study, despite them having higher performance, they also are at a lower position than their White peers, look up the Bamboo Ceiling. I still don't see what's the supposed white privilege here. Tell me what Asian privileges are, not that they study hard and get good grades. Also, due to affirmative action, Asians actually have a harder time getting into a good school because the quota is already full.

The answer to that question is actually, yes; for example, African Americans are graded more harshly than whites and Asians; remember the saying "the bigotry of low expectations"? School and institutions of higher learning is where that applies. During k-12, African American students are groomed to expect lower grades; teachers also have an instinctive bias against African Americans; so, even though an African American student makes a mistake that is just as minor, they may lose 20 points, where as Asian or white would lose 2 points for the same minor mistake; so, with two mistakes, the African American has a low D or F (e.g. 60), while the Asian or white has a 94, still an A; this has the effect of diminishing confidence over time, in one case and building confidence over time, in the other case. And, yes, I say it first hand, institutions of higher learning are packed, mostly with foreign Asian students and whites (e.g. actually importing students to take seats from African Americans, Latinos, and Native Americans). No, Asians, usually as foreign students, seem to be benefiting from the quotas that whites fought so hard to deprive (keep) from African Americans in court.

Show me study that they lost more points on the same test.

And where is the Asian privilege there? They take tests just like other students. Why would they want Asians in if they keep out other minorities on purpose?

Show me study where they intentionally get Asian students in to keep Blacks from attending the schools. Make no sense if they get good grades, and they intentionally keep them out. I can't answer too much unless I know what you said are assumption or actual study.

Avatar image for lunacyde
#224 Edited by Lunacyde (28018 posts) - - Show Bio

"Asian privilege" doesn't exist. It is merely an extension of white privilege. Asians are considered "model minorities" or "honorary whites" and are attributed whiteness. There are gradients of whiteness, and Asians are higher on the whiteness hierarchy than blacks, hispanics, and Native Americans. The reason Asians are on average higher than whites has to do with their relative small population not encompassing the same extremes found in the massively larger white population.

Moderator
Avatar image for dshipp17
#225 Edited by dshipp17 (5383 posts) - - Show Bio

@poeticwarrior said:
@dshipp17 said:
@poeticwarrior said:
@nishi99 said:

@poeticwarrior: They graduate High School & College at higher rates then whites & have a higher income on average. As for dating, most are too busy working on careers to develop the social skills needed to be confident, so you're right there.

So they graduate at High School and College is somehow a privilege? Do the teachers somehow give better grades to students? If you look up study, despite them having higher performance, they also are at a lower position than their White peers, look up the Bamboo Ceiling. I still don't see what's the supposed white privilege here. Tell me what Asian privileges are, not that they study hard and get good grades. Also, due to affirmative action, Asians actually have a harder time getting into a good school because the quota is already full.

The answer to that question is actually, yes; for example, African Americans are graded more harshly than whites and Asians; remember the saying "the bigotry of low expectations"? School and institutions of higher learning is where that applies. During k-12, African American students are groomed to expect lower grades; teachers also have an instinctive bias against African Americans; so, even though an African American student makes a mistake that is just as minor, they may lose 20 points, where as Asian or white would lose 2 points for the same minor mistake; so, with two mistakes, the African American has a low D or F (e.g. 60), while the Asian or white has a 94, still an A; this has the effect of diminishing confidence over time, in one case and building confidence over time, in the other case. And, yes, I say it first hand, institutions of higher learning are packed, mostly with foreign Asian students and whites (e.g. actually importing students to take seats from African Americans, Latinos, and Native Americans). No, Asians, usually as foreign students, seem to be benefiting from the quotas that whites fought so hard to deprive (keep) from African Americans in court.

Show me study that they lost more points on the same test.

And where is the Asian privilege there? They take tests just like other students. Why would they want Asians in if they keep out other minorities on purpose?

Show me study where they intentionally get Asian students in to keep Blacks from attending the schools. Make no sense if they get good grades, and they intentionally keep them out. I can't answer too much unless I know what you said are assumption or actual study.

No study just means the researchers have not considered this as a factor, either by design or oversight; there's no study on lots of things; and, who's conducting these studies and who's making the decisions about which topics are worth studying? But, it's quite real; I know from experience.

Asian privilege or, benefiting from positive stereotyping, and white privilege is explicitly clear (e.g. Asian privilege is relatively new); everyone has to go through k-12, at least; or, up to high school, when students traditionally decide to drop out of school the most. Because African Americans, Latinos, and Native Americans face a common negative stereotype, while Asians benefit from a positive stereotype.

No study needed; but, you can see that the court decisions involving Affirmative Action and quotas likely involved African Americans; you can go on a college campus and tell that a class has mostly foreign Asian students and whites to the exclusion of these three minority groups, so, why would a study be necessary? Again, a lack of study does not equate to non-existence. What I say is not based on either a study or assumption, it's based on experience that lead to observation.

Online
Avatar image for poeticwarrior
#226 Posted by poeticwarrior (3526 posts) - - Show Bio

@dshipp17 said:
@poeticwarrior said:
@dshipp17 said:
@poeticwarrior said:
@nishi99 said:

@poeticwarrior: They graduate High School & College at higher rates then whites & have a higher income on average. As for dating, most are too busy working on careers to develop the social skills needed to be confident, so you're right there.

So they graduate at High School and College is somehow a privilege? Do the teachers somehow give better grades to students? If you look up study, despite them having higher performance, they also are at a lower position than their White peers, look up the Bamboo Ceiling. I still don't see what's the supposed white privilege here. Tell me what Asian privileges are, not that they study hard and get good grades. Also, due to affirmative action, Asians actually have a harder time getting into a good school because the quota is already full.

The answer to that question is actually, yes; for example, African Americans are graded more harshly than whites and Asians; remember the saying "the bigotry of low expectations"? School and institutions of higher learning is where that applies. During k-12, African American students are groomed to expect lower grades; teachers also have an instinctive bias against African Americans; so, even though an African American student makes a mistake that is just as minor, they may lose 20 points, where as Asian or white would lose 2 points for the same minor mistake; so, with two mistakes, the African American has a low D or F (e.g. 60), while the Asian or white has a 94, still an A; this has the effect of diminishing confidence over time, in one case and building confidence over time, in the other case. And, yes, I say it first hand, institutions of higher learning are packed, mostly with foreign Asian students and whites (e.g. actually importing students to take seats from African Americans, Latinos, and Native Americans). No, Asians, usually as foreign students, seem to be benefiting from the quotas that whites fought so hard to deprive (keep) from African Americans in court.

Show me study that they lost more points on the same test.

And where is the Asian privilege there? They take tests just like other students. Why would they want Asians in if they keep out other minorities on purpose?

Show me study where they intentionally get Asian students in to keep Blacks from attending the schools. Make no sense if they get good grades, and they intentionally keep them out. I can't answer too much unless I know what you said are assumption or actual study.

No study just means the researchers have not considered this as a factor, either by design or oversight; there's no study on lots of things; and, who's conducting these studies and who's making the decisions about which topics are worth studying? But, it's quite real; I know from experience.

Asian privilege or, benefiting from positive stereotyping, is explicitly clear; everyone has to go through k-12, at least; or, up to high school, when students traditionally decide to drop out of school the most. Because African Americans, Latinos, and Native Americans race a common negative stereotype, while Asians benefit from a positive stereotype.

No study needed; but, you can see that the court decisions involving Affirmative Action and quotas likely involved African Americans; you can go on a college campus and tell that a class has mostly foreign Asian students and whites to the exclusion of these three minority groups, so, why would a study be necessary? Again, a lack of study does not equate to non-existence. What I say is not based on either a study or assumption, it's based on experience that lead to observation.

Basically your assumption? Asian culture just focuses more on studying. Study show foreign Asians achieve high grades than Asian Americans, so there's a culture factor. This is based on your belief, it doesn't have any basis behind it. In college classes, higher level classes in math and science have mostly Asians and Whites, not nothing prevent other races from taking those classes or applying to those schools. Not just race-wise, gender-wise, it's mostly males as well. Asian parents just have expectations for them to go into med schools or become lawyer. Nothing about it prevents anyone from studying get good grades and go to school. Are you expecting colleges to let the other minorities with lower grades to get in? It's already happening with Affirmative Action. Asians are actually being affected by it, not benefited from it because too many Asians applying with the same good grades.

Avatar image for spitfirepanda
#227 Posted by SpitfirePanda (2573 posts) - - Show Bio

@lunacyde: Your post was very good and I respect it. I wasn't going to respond at first for those reasons, but someone brought my attention back to this topic and I reread your post and now I'm like "why not'?

Like I said, you make good points. And majority privilege is a real thing. That's what white privilege is in the modern world where racism and hatred of blacks isn't just non-mainstream, but actively despised by the majority. That's all it is. The past is important. I'm a history major, so it matters to me. Former slaves had marketable skills, and in some cases they were given aid by the government during Reconstruction. Their marketable skills were, primarily, farming. Many of them ended up share cropping for the people they used to be enslaved to, and they made very little money doing it. It was a terrible life, but it was no worse than the factory workers in the north. The factory workers were paid very little, forced into housing owned and operated by the factory owners, and forced to shop at local stores by the factory owners. Prices at these stores were so high that the factory owners were able to recoup most, if not all of the money they paid their workers. And if you tried to shop somewhere else, you were fired, meaning you and your family would starve. The point is, humans have a history of treating each other terribly no matter their skin color.

Black people have been treated terribly because of their skin color, there's no denying that. Skin color was just an excuse the racists made to justify this treatment, though. Nowadays, we've got programs and institutions specifically designed to help them succeed. I'll admit, I don't know its track record. I do know that the key to success is hard work and accepting responsibility. There are a lot of black people who are willing to do this, but it feels like they're drowned out in all the noise of protests.

Avatar image for jezer
#228 Edited by Jezer (3409 posts) - - Show Bio

Haha my initial reaction just from reading the thread title was "well that's a troll thread if I've ever seen one".

Then I read the first page, and my reaction was "Not enough time in the world..."

@lunacyde: Nowadays, we've got programs and institutions specifically designed to help them succeed. I'll admit, I don't know its track record.

Hahahahaaaaa

Avatar image for dshipp17
#229 Edited by dshipp17 (5383 posts) - - Show Bio

@poeticwarrior said:
@dshipp17 said:
@poeticwarrior said:
@dshipp17 said:
@poeticwarrior said:
@nishi99 said:

@poeticwarrior: They graduate High School & College at higher rates then whites & have a higher income on average. As for dating, most are too busy working on careers to develop the social skills needed to be confident, so you're right there.

So they graduate at High School and College is somehow a privilege? Do the teachers somehow give better grades to students? If you look up study, despite them having higher performance, they also are at a lower position than their White peers, look up the Bamboo Ceiling. I still don't see what's the supposed white privilege here. Tell me what Asian privileges are, not that they study hard and get good grades. Also, due to affirmative action, Asians actually have a harder time getting into a good school because the quota is already full.

The answer to that question is actually, yes; for example, African Americans are graded more harshly than whites and Asians; remember the saying "the bigotry of low expectations"? School and institutions of higher learning is where that applies. During k-12, African American students are groomed to expect lower grades; teachers also have an instinctive bias against African Americans; so, even though an African American student makes a mistake that is just as minor, they may lose 20 points, where as Asian or white would lose 2 points for the same minor mistake; so, with two mistakes, the African American has a low D or F (e.g. 60), while the Asian or white has a 94, still an A; this has the effect of diminishing confidence over time, in one case and building confidence over time, in the other case. And, yes, I say it first hand, institutions of higher learning are packed, mostly with foreign Asian students and whites (e.g. actually importing students to take seats from African Americans, Latinos, and Native Americans). No, Asians, usually as foreign students, seem to be benefiting from the quotas that whites fought so hard to deprive (keep) from African Americans in court.

Show me study that they lost more points on the same test.

And where is the Asian privilege there? They take tests just like other students. Why would they want Asians in if they keep out other minorities on purpose?

Show me study where they intentionally get Asian students in to keep Blacks from attending the schools. Make no sense if they get good grades, and they intentionally keep them out. I can't answer too much unless I know what you said are assumption or actual study.

No study just means the researchers have not considered this as a factor, either by design or oversight; there's no study on lots of things; and, who's conducting these studies and who's making the decisions about which topics are worth studying? But, it's quite real; I know from experience.

Asian privilege or, benefiting from positive stereotyping, is explicitly clear; everyone has to go through k-12, at least; or, up to high school, when students traditionally decide to drop out of school the most. Because African Americans, Latinos, and Native Americans race a common negative stereotype, while Asians benefit from a positive stereotype.

No study needed; but, you can see that the court decisions involving Affirmative Action and quotas likely involved African Americans; you can go on a college campus and tell that a class has mostly foreign Asian students and whites to the exclusion of these three minority groups, so, why would a study be necessary? Again, a lack of study does not equate to non-existence. What I say is not based on either a study or assumption, it's based on experience that lead to observation.

Basically your assumption? Asian culture just focuses more on studying. Study show foreign Asians achieve high grades than Asian Americans, so there's a culture factor. This is based on your belief, it doesn't have any basis behind it. In college classes, higher level classes in math and science have mostly Asians and Whites, not nothing prevent other races from taking those classes or applying to those schools. Not just race-wise, gender-wise, it's mostly males as well. Asian parents just have expectations for them to go into med schools or become lawyer. Nothing about it prevents anyone from studying get good grades and go to school. Are you expecting colleges to let the other minorities with lower grades to get in? It's already happening with Affirmative Action. Asians are actually being affected by it, not benefited from it because too many Asians applying with the same good grades.

No, not my assumptions, observations. Why do you think there were battles in federal court over the use of Affirmative Action and quotas, if what you're saying were true? Remember a case involving Proposition 209? African Americans lost out in court, for the most part, over Affirmative Action and quotas. Affirmative Action cannot benefit African Americans, Latinos, and Native Americans. Foreign students have no rights into our schools to the exclusion of American citizens (e.g. so, at a minimum, at least we should be debating Asian Americans versus these three minority groups for seats into our schools). You missed something; I'm talking about actual entry into schools of higher learning not specific majors/departments; entry into those schools is to the exclusion of African Americans, Latinos, and Native Americans, to instead bring in foreign students, which will usually be foreign Asian students; so, what you're missing, there's obviously a quota being used to bring in students who don't even have a right to our schools of higher education, foreign students, even though quotas were outlawed by the courts in the case of African Americans.

Who's actually using assumptions? Where is your evidence that African Americans, Latinos, and African Americans are being denied entry into schools of higher education because they all have low grades (or lower grades)? What's your support for the idea that these groups and women do not choose math and science majors? Even if, you'd need to demonstrate that only a fraction of the applicant pool from these groups who apply for entry into schools of higher education seek science and math related degrees (e.g. say, if just 10% of these groups sought a STEM degree, your argument or assumption would be invalidated). Actually, in order to properly use the Hb-1 VISA program, you'd need to prove that no American citizen was qualified for a seat into these schools of higher education and no American citizen was qualified for a job. Usually, in these cases, a student may not get into a school because their GPA may have been something like 0.3 GPA points lower or they lacked one skill out of several or because they didn't say something correctly during a job interview; this hardly justifies the use of the Hb-1 VISA program to the level it's being used; that's hardly a crisis of qualified citizens; what needs closer scrutiny is the selection process itself, by both schools of higher education and employers to make sure its being used in the spirit of the programs being abused; that a student had a GPA that was 0.3 GPA points lower hardly justifies importing students. And, this gets back to my proposal for Amending Title VII and worker's rights laws; for example, also, making discrimination based on looks a new protected class.

Online
Avatar image for cameron83
#230 Posted by cameron83 (8548 posts) - - Show Bio

@cgoodness:

So, I guess that in other words, you can say that different races are treated differently (and have different advantages/disadvantages), but none is really treated any more "superior" than the other? You also mention how upbringing is pretty much the main factor in a child's success. Okay, I can understand that point.

(By the way, congratulations to your cousins. I don't think I could ever be smart enough to join that industry.)

Avatar image for jezer
#231 Edited by Jezer (3409 posts) - - Show Bio

@dshipp17 said:
@poeticwarrior said:
@dshipp17 said:
@poeticwarrior said:
@dshipp17 said:
@poeticwarrior said:
@nishi99 said:

@poeticwarrior: They graduate High School & College at higher rates then whites & have a higher income on average. As for dating, most are too busy working on careers to develop the social skills needed to be confident, so you're right there.

So they graduate at High School and College is somehow a privilege? Do the teachers somehow give better grades to students? If you look up study, despite them having higher performance, they also are at a lower position than their White peers, look up the Bamboo Ceiling. I still don't see what's the supposed white privilege here. Tell me what Asian privileges are, not that they study hard and get good grades. Also, due to affirmative action, Asians actually have a harder time getting into a good school because the quota is already full.

The answer to that question is actually, yes; for example, African Americans are graded more harshly than whites and Asians; remember the saying "the bigotry of low expectations"? School and institutions of higher learning is where that applies. During k-12, African American students are groomed to expect lower grades; teachers also have an instinctive bias against African Americans; so, even though an African American student makes a mistake that is just as minor, they may lose 20 points, where as Asian or white would lose 2 points for the same minor mistake; so, with two mistakes, the African American has a low D or F (e.g. 60), while the Asian or white has a 94, still an A; this has the effect of diminishing confidence over time, in one case and building confidence over time, in the other case. And, yes, I say it first hand, institutions of higher learning are packed, mostly with foreign Asian students and whites (e.g. actually importing students to take seats from African Americans, Latinos, and Native Americans). No, Asians, usually as foreign students, seem to be benefiting from the quotas that whites fought so hard to deprive (keep) from African Americans in court.

Show me study that they lost more points on the same test.

And where is the Asian privilege there? They take tests just like other students. Why would they want Asians in if they keep out other minorities on purpose?

Show me study where they intentionally get Asian students in to keep Blacks from attending the schools. Make no sense if they get good grades, and they intentionally keep them out. I can't answer too much unless I know what you said are assumption or actual study.

No study just means the researchers have not considered this as a factor, either by design or oversight; there's no study on lots of things; and, who's conducting these studies and who's making the decisions about which topics are worth studying? But, it's quite real; I know from experience.

Asian privilege or, benefiting from positive stereotyping, is explicitly clear; everyone has to go through k-12, at least; or, up to high school, when students traditionally decide to drop out of school the most. Because African Americans, Latinos, and Native Americans race a common negative stereotype, while Asians benefit from a positive stereotype.

No study needed; but, you can see that the court decisions involving Affirmative Action and quotas likely involved African Americans; you can go on a college campus and tell that a class has mostly foreign Asian students and whites to the exclusion of these three minority groups, so, why would a study be necessary? Again, a lack of study does not equate to non-existence. What I say is not based on either a study or assumption, it's based on experience that lead to observation.

Basically your assumption? Asian culture just focuses more on studying. Study show foreign Asians achieve high grades than Asian Americans, so there's a culture factor. This is based on your belief, it doesn't have any basis behind it. In college classes, higher level classes in math and science have mostly Asians and Whites, not nothing prevent other races from taking those classes or applying to those schools. Not just race-wise, gender-wise, it's mostly males as well. Asian parents just have expectations for them to go into med schools or become lawyer. Nothing about it prevents anyone from studying get good grades and go to school. Are you expecting colleges to let the other minorities with lower grades to get in? It's already happening with Affirmative Action. Asians are actually being affected by it, not benefited from it because too many Asians applying with the same good grades.

for example, also, making discrimination based on looks a new protected class.

Hmm that's an interesting idea(and its relevant to what I'm studying). I don't think it ever stands a chance at happening. Though, that depends on what you mean when you say "protected class". For example, Race is a protected/suspect class, but that simply means that laws concerning race trigger a higher scrutiny and are defaultly presumed wrong. I doubt there are many laws that would actually go so far as to mention "looks" in their wording, so I'm not sure how this protection would work from a legal standpoint. Additionally, it would be hard to prove "invidious discrimination" based on looks even in a law/policy that is facially neutral, but can be applied arbitrarily enough that it can be used in a discriminative way (Yick wo).

Additionally, under Carolene Products/Korematsu, a suspect class must be discrete and insular. Discrete means that they can recognize each other and insular means that its insulated from the majority--insulated from taking advantage of the political process to advance laws/society on their behalf. Looks are too subjective, with different ideas of what's good looking varying based on race and culture, for it to ever be recognized as "discrete". And, ugly people aren't "insulated" from the majority--since people's looks also differ based on what they're wearing/makeup/etc. A person's looks is definitely not an Immutable characteristic.

Thanks for the practice problem.

Avatar image for poeticwarrior
#232 Edited by poeticwarrior (3526 posts) - - Show Bio

@dshipp17 said:
@poeticwarrior said:
@dshipp17 said:
@poeticwarrior said:
@dshipp17 said:
@poeticwarrior said:
@nishi99 said:

@poeticwarrior: They graduate High School & College at higher rates then whites & have a higher income on average. As for dating, most are too busy working on careers to develop the social skills needed to be confident, so you're right there.

So they graduate at High School and College is somehow a privilege? Do the teachers somehow give better grades to students? If you look up study, despite them having higher performance, they also are at a lower position than their White peers, look up the Bamboo Ceiling. I still don't see what's the supposed white privilege here. Tell me what Asian privileges are, not that they study hard and get good grades. Also, due to affirmative action, Asians actually have a harder time getting into a good school because the quota is already full.

The answer to that question is actually, yes; for example, African Americans are graded more harshly than whites and Asians; remember the saying "the bigotry of low expectations"? School and institutions of higher learning is where that applies. During k-12, African American students are groomed to expect lower grades; teachers also have an instinctive bias against African Americans; so, even though an African American student makes a mistake that is just as minor, they may lose 20 points, where as Asian or white would lose 2 points for the same minor mistake; so, with two mistakes, the African American has a low D or F (e.g. 60), while the Asian or white has a 94, still an A; this has the effect of diminishing confidence over time, in one case and building confidence over time, in the other case. And, yes, I say it first hand, institutions of higher learning are packed, mostly with foreign Asian students and whites (e.g. actually importing students to take seats from African Americans, Latinos, and Native Americans). No, Asians, usually as foreign students, seem to be benefiting from the quotas that whites fought so hard to deprive (keep) from African Americans in court.

Show me study that they lost more points on the same test.

And where is the Asian privilege there? They take tests just like other students. Why would they want Asians in if they keep out other minorities on purpose?

Show me study where they intentionally get Asian students in to keep Blacks from attending the schools. Make no sense if they get good grades, and they intentionally keep them out. I can't answer too much unless I know what you said are assumption or actual study.

No study just means the researchers have not considered this as a factor, either by design or oversight; there's no study on lots of things; and, who's conducting these studies and who's making the decisions about which topics are worth studying? But, it's quite real; I know from experience.

Asian privilege or, benefiting from positive stereotyping, is explicitly clear; everyone has to go through k-12, at least; or, up to high school, when students traditionally decide to drop out of school the most. Because African Americans, Latinos, and Native Americans race a common negative stereotype, while Asians benefit from a positive stereotype.

No study needed; but, you can see that the court decisions involving Affirmative Action and quotas likely involved African Americans; you can go on a college campus and tell that a class has mostly foreign Asian students and whites to the exclusion of these three minority groups, so, why would a study be necessary? Again, a lack of study does not equate to non-existence. What I say is not based on either a study or assumption, it's based on experience that lead to observation.

Basically your assumption? Asian culture just focuses more on studying. Study show foreign Asians achieve high grades than Asian Americans, so there's a culture factor. This is based on your belief, it doesn't have any basis behind it. In college classes, higher level classes in math and science have mostly Asians and Whites, not nothing prevent other races from taking those classes or applying to those schools. Not just race-wise, gender-wise, it's mostly males as well. Asian parents just have expectations for them to go into med schools or become lawyer. Nothing about it prevents anyone from studying get good grades and go to school. Are you expecting colleges to let the other minorities with lower grades to get in? It's already happening with Affirmative Action. Asians are actually being affected by it, not benefited from it because too many Asians applying with the same good grades.

No, not my assumptions, observations. Why do you think there were battles in federal court over the use of Affirmative Action and quotas, if what you're saying were true? Remember a case involving Proposition 209? African Americans lost out in court, for the most part, over Affirmative Action and quotas. Affirmative Action cannot benefit African Americans, Latinos, and Native Americans. Foreign students have no rights into our schools to the exclusion of American citizens (e.g. so, at a minimum, at least we should be debating Asian Americans versus these three minority groups for seats into our schools). You missed something; I'm talking about actual entry into schools of higher learning not specific majors/departments; entry into those schools is to the exclusion of African Americans, Latinos, and Native Americans, to instead bring in foreign students, which will usually be foreign Asian students; so, what you're missing, there's obviously a quota being used to bring in students who don't even have a right to our schools of higher education, foreign students, even though quotas were outlawed by the courts in the case of African Americans.

Who's actually using assumptions? Where is your evidence that African Americans, Latinos, and African Americans are being denied entry into schools of higher education because they all have low grades (or lower grades)? What's your support for the idea that these groups and women do not choose math and science majors? Even if, you'd need to demonstrate that only a fraction of the applicant pool from these groups who apply for entry into schools of higher education seek science and math related degrees (e.g. say, if just 10% of these groups sought a STEM degree, your argument or assumption would be invalidated). Actually, in order to properly use the A-1 VISA program, you'd need to prove that no American citizen was qualified for a seat into these schools of higher education and no American citizen was qualified for a job. Usually, in these cases, a student may not get into a school because their GPA may have been something like 0.3 GPA points lower or they lacked one skill out of several or because they didn't say something correctly during a job interview; this hardly justifies the use of the A-1 VISA program to the level it's being used; that's hardly a crisis of qualified citizens; what needs closer scrutiny is the selection process itself, by both schools of higher education and employers to make sure its being used in the spirit of the programs being abused; that a student had a GPA that was 0.3 GPA points lower hardly justifies importing students. And, this gets back to my proposal for Amending Title VII and worker's rights laws; for example, also, making discrimination based on looks a new protected class.

My assumption is basically based on how schools would based their entrance on GPA and extracurriculum, not some insidious plan to stop minorities from attending colleges, but somehow make an exception for Asians. Are these somehow some other sinister plan that prevent them from applying for a STEM major or something? I don't need to demonstrate anything because I'm not trying to prove anything, you're the one who come up with a bunch of theory how they prevent minorities and import Asians to stop other minorities from attending schools. Certain schools have exchange programs with other countries that allow them to exchange students with each other. Other students going into other countries to study doesn't mean that those other students taking seats from the natives. It's cultural exchange. It wasn't to Asian countries either, it was to all the students from all the countries that apply. I saw White British, White French, Indians going to my school. Not sure how students Visa is about Asians except maybe they got higher grades. You still haven't shown what their supposed privilege is except study hard and getting good grades so they could go to a good school.

Avatar image for deactivated-59dfd33ed3601
#233 Posted by deactivated-59dfd33ed3601 (5575 posts) - - Show Bio

Asians are privileged? Lol, their history is just as bad as the history of African Americans in this country.

Avatar image for dshipp17
#234 Posted by dshipp17 (5383 posts) - - Show Bio

@jezer said:
@dshipp17 said:
@poeticwarrior said:
@dshipp17 said:
@poeticwarrior said:
@dshipp17 said:
@poeticwarrior said:
@nishi99 said:

@poeticwarrior: They graduate High School & College at higher rates then whites & have a higher income on average. As for dating, most are too busy working on careers to develop the social skills needed to be confident, so you're right there.

So they graduate at High School and College is somehow a privilege? Do the teachers somehow give better grades to students? If you look up study, despite them having higher performance, they also are at a lower position than their White peers, look up the Bamboo Ceiling. I still don't see what's the supposed white privilege here. Tell me what Asian privileges are, not that they study hard and get good grades. Also, due to affirmative action, Asians actually have a harder time getting into a good school because the quota is already full.

The answer to that question is actually, yes; for example, African Americans are graded more harshly than whites and Asians; remember the saying "the bigotry of low expectations"? School and institutions of higher learning is where that applies. During k-12, African American students are groomed to expect lower grades; teachers also have an instinctive bias against African Americans; so, even though an African American student makes a mistake that is just as minor, they may lose 20 points, where as Asian or white would lose 2 points for the same minor mistake; so, with two mistakes, the African American has a low D or F (e.g. 60), while the Asian or white has a 94, still an A; this has the effect of diminishing confidence over time, in one case and building confidence over time, in the other case. And, yes, I say it first hand, institutions of higher learning are packed, mostly with foreign Asian students and whites (e.g. actually importing students to take seats from African Americans, Latinos, and Native Americans). No, Asians, usually as foreign students, seem to be benefiting from the quotas that whites fought so hard to deprive (keep) from African Americans in court.

Show me study that they lost more points on the same test.

And where is the Asian privilege there? They take tests just like other students. Why would they want Asians in if they keep out other minorities on purpose?

Show me study where they intentionally get Asian students in to keep Blacks from attending the schools. Make no sense if they get good grades, and they intentionally keep them out. I can't answer too much unless I know what you said are assumption or actual study.

No study just means the researchers have not considered this as a factor, either by design or oversight; there's no study on lots of things; and, who's conducting these studies and who's making the decisions about which topics are worth studying? But, it's quite real; I know from experience.

Asian privilege or, benefiting from positive stereotyping, is explicitly clear; everyone has to go through k-12, at least; or, up to high school, when students traditionally decide to drop out of school the most. Because African Americans, Latinos, and Native Americans race a common negative stereotype, while Asians benefit from a positive stereotype.

No study needed; but, you can see that the court decisions involving Affirmative Action and quotas likely involved African Americans; you can go on a college campus and tell that a class has mostly foreign Asian students and whites to the exclusion of these three minority groups, so, why would a study be necessary? Again, a lack of study does not equate to non-existence. What I say is not based on either a study or assumption, it's based on experience that lead to observation.

Basically your assumption? Asian culture just focuses more on studying. Study show foreign Asians achieve high grades than Asian Americans, so there's a culture factor. This is based on your belief, it doesn't have any basis behind it. In college classes, higher level classes in math and science have mostly Asians and Whites, not nothing prevent other races from taking those classes or applying to those schools. Not just race-wise, gender-wise, it's mostly males as well. Asian parents just have expectations for them to go into med schools or become lawyer. Nothing about it prevents anyone from studying get good grades and go to school. Are you expecting colleges to let the other minorities with lower grades to get in? It's already happening with Affirmative Action. Asians are actually being affected by it, not benefited from it because too many Asians applying with the same good grades.

for example, also, making discrimination based on looks a new protected class.

Hmm that's an interesting idea(and its relevant to what I'm studying). I don't think it ever stands a chance at happening. Though, that depends on what you mean when you say "protected class". For example, Race is a protected/suspect class, but that simply means that laws concerning race trigger a higher scrutiny and are defaultly presumed wrong. I doubt there are many laws that would actually go so far as to mention "looks" in their wording, so I'm not sure how this protection would work from a legal standpoint. Additionally, it would be hard to prove "invidious discrimination" based on looks even in a law/policy that is facially neutral, but can be applied arbitrarily enough that it can be used in a discriminative way (Yick wo).

Additionally, under Carolene Products/Korematsu, a suspect class must be discrete and insular. Discrete means that they can recognize each other and insular means that its insulated from the majority--insulated from taking advantage of the political process to advance laws/society on their behalf. Looks are too subjective, with different ideas of what's good looking varying based on race and culture, for it to ever be recognized as "discrete". And, ugly people aren't "insulated" from the majority--since people's looks also differ based on what they're wearing/makeup/etc. A person's looks is definitely not an Immutable characteristic.

Thanks for the practice problem.

I think making discrimination based on looks has a strong chance of passing and it's been an overt and obvious problem for a long time. Currently, the default for getting a job by most people is that you do an in-person interview, when, in the past, in some cases, an over-the-phone interview worked just fine. Essentially, this new protected class (e.g. in the same vein as race, sex, religion, disability, national origin, and retaliation) would put on notice a company that insists on doing an in-person interview to doing an over-the-phone interview again; and, than, the law would be amended to account for speech as a possible form of perceived disability and subsequent discrimination; and, than, the weed out discrimination of African Americans based on inflection and vocabulary, or, an accent, in the case of Latinos; it's designed to increase the hurdles for companies who wish to continue engaging in employment discrimination; sure, a company has every right to say that they passed on someone for how they were dressing, but, within limits (e.g. someone dressing inappropriately versus someone who's just poor); and, yes, if a person can be argued by most to be considered ugly, such would qualify as evidence of direct discrimination and equate to someone saying "we don't hire the n word", in the case of African Americans; this new class would than present the same burden shifting standards, where an employer can overcome the assumption of discrimination based on looks by demonstrating that the person dressed inappropriately and was not, instead, economically disadvantaged; the burden of proof for both parties would be somewhat more narrow than say race discrimination; if the person speaks with a slur that is obvious, this would be direct evidence of perceived disability discrimination.

@dshipp17 said:
@poeticwarrior said:
@dshipp17 said:
@poeticwarrior said:
@dshipp17 said:
@poeticwarrior said:
@nishi99 said:

@poeticwarrior: They graduate High School & College at higher rates then whites & have a higher income on average. As for dating, most are too busy working on careers to develop the social skills needed to be confident, so you're right there.

So they graduate at High School and College is somehow a privilege? Do the teachers somehow give better grades to students? If you look up study, despite them having higher performance, they also are at a lower position than their White peers, look up the Bamboo Ceiling. I still don't see what's the supposed white privilege here. Tell me what Asian privileges are, not that they study hard and get good grades. Also, due to affirmative action, Asians actually have a harder time getting into a good school because the quota is already full.

The answer to that question is actually, yes; for example, African Americans are graded more harshly than whites and Asians; remember the saying "the bigotry of low expectations"? School and institutions of higher learning is where that applies. During k-12, African American students are groomed to expect lower grades; teachers also have an instinctive bias against African Americans; so, even though an African American student makes a mistake that is just as minor, they may lose 20 points, where as Asian or white would lose 2 points for the same minor mistake; so, with two mistakes, the African American has a low D or F (e.g. 60), while the Asian or white has a 94, still an A; this has the effect of diminishing confidence over time, in one case and building confidence over time, in the other case. And, yes, I say it first hand, institutions of higher learning are packed, mostly with foreign Asian students and whites (e.g. actually importing students to take seats from African Americans, Latinos, and Native Americans). No, Asians, usually as foreign students, seem to be benefiting from the quotas that whites fought so hard to deprive (keep) from African Americans in court.

Show me study that they lost more points on the same test.

And where is the Asian privilege there? They take tests just like other students. Why would they want Asians in if they keep out other minorities on purpose?

Show me study where they intentionally get Asian students in to keep Blacks from attending the schools. Make no sense if they get good grades, and they intentionally keep them out. I can't answer too much unless I know what you said are assumption or actual study.

No study just means the researchers have not considered this as a factor, either by design or oversight; there's no study on lots of things; and, who's conducting these studies and who's making the decisions about which topics are worth studying? But, it's quite real; I know from experience.

Asian privilege or, benefiting from positive stereotyping, is explicitly clear; everyone has to go through k-12, at least; or, up to high school, when students traditionally decide to drop out of school the most. Because African Americans, Latinos, and Native Americans race a common negative stereotype, while Asians benefit from a positive stereotype.

No study needed; but, you can see that the court decisions involving Affirmative Action and quotas likely involved African Americans; you can go on a college campus and tell that a class has mostly foreign Asian students and whites to the exclusion of these three minority groups, so, why would a study be necessary? Again, a lack of study does not equate to non-existence. What I say is not based on either a study or assumption, it's based on experience that lead to observation.

Basically your assumption? Asian culture just focuses more on studying. Study show foreign Asians achieve high grades than Asian Americans, so there's a culture factor. This is based on your belief, it doesn't have any basis behind it. In college classes, higher level classes in math and science have mostly Asians and Whites, not nothing prevent other races from taking those classes or applying to those schools. Not just race-wise, gender-wise, it's mostly males as well. Asian parents just have expectations for them to go into med schools or become lawyer. Nothing about it prevents anyone from studying get good grades and go to school. Are you expecting colleges to let the other minorities with lower grades to get in? It's already happening with Affirmative Action. Asians are actually being affected by it, not benefited from it because too many Asians applying with the same good grades.

No, not my assumptions, observations. Why do you think there were battles in federal court over the use of Affirmative Action and quotas, if what you're saying were true? Remember a case involving Proposition 209? African Americans lost out in court, for the most part, over Affirmative Action and quotas. Affirmative Action cannot benefit African Americans, Latinos, and Native Americans. Foreign students have no rights into our schools to the exclusion of American citizens (e.g. so, at a minimum, at least we should be debating Asian Americans versus these three minority groups for seats into our schools). You missed something; I'm talking about actual entry into schools of higher learning not specific majors/departments; entry into those schools is to the exclusion of African Americans, Latinos, and Native Americans, to instead bring in foreign students, which will usually be foreign Asian students; so, what you're missing, there's obviously a quota being used to bring in students who don't even have a right to our schools of higher education, foreign students, even though quotas were outlawed by the courts in the case of African Americans.

Who's actually using assumptions? Where is your evidence that African Americans, Latinos, and African Americans are being denied entry into schools of higher education because they all have low grades (or lower grades)? What's your support for the idea that these groups and women do not choose math and science majors? Even if, you'd need to demonstrate that only a fraction of the applicant pool from these groups who apply for entry into schools of higher education seek science and math related degrees (e.g. say, if just 10% of these groups sought a STEM degree, your argument or assumption would be invalidated). Actually, in order to properly use the A-1 VISA program, you'd need to prove that no American citizen was qualified for a seat into these schools of higher education and no American citizen was qualified for a job. Usually, in these cases, a student may not get into a school because their GPA may have been something like 0.3 GPA points lower or they lacked one skill out of several or because they didn't say something correctly during a job interview; this hardly justifies the use of the A-1 VISA program to the level it's being used; that's hardly a crisis of qualified citizens; what needs closer scrutiny is the selection process itself, by both schools of higher education and employers to make sure its being used in the spirit of the programs being abused; that a student had a GPA that was 0.3 GPA points lower hardly justifies importing students. And, this gets back to my proposal for Amending Title VII and worker's rights laws; for example, also, making discrimination based on looks a new protected class.

My assumption is basically based on how schools would based their entrance on GPA and extracurriculum, not some insidious plan to stop minorities from attending colleges, but somehow make an exception for Asians. Are these somehow some other sinister plan that prevent them from applying for a STEM major or something? I don't need to demonstrate anything because I'm not trying to prove anything, you're the one who come up with a bunch of theory how they prevent minorities and import Asians to stop other minorities from attending schools. Certain schools have exchange programs with other countries that allow them to exchange students with each other. Other students going into other countries to study doesn't mean that those other students taking seats from the natives. It's cultural exchange. It wasn't to Asian countries either, it was to all the students from all the countries that apply. I saw White British, White French, Indians going to my school. Not sure how students Visa is about Asians except maybe they got higher grades. You still haven't shown what their supposed privilege is except study hard and getting good grades so they could go to a good school.

Sure, but, how does that amount to saying that there were no qualified American citizen for the seat, so, we had to import a student? The selection process needs some scrutiny, but, the effects are clearly show, when you can walk into a school of higher learning and notice only foreign Asian students and whites in the seats. I think that's very clear evidence of a real problem with the selection process that correlates with white privilege and Asians benefiting from positive stereotypes constructed by the whites.

Online
Avatar image for poeticwarrior
#235 Edited by poeticwarrior (3526 posts) - - Show Bio

@dshipp17: That has nothing to do with qualifying students, but they're doing a cultural exchange, no one is entitled to get into the schools, not just Asians, but also to other countries. Asians benefited from White privilege, how exactly? If you're gonna go that route then there are many athletes who are non-Asians getting into schools with terrible grades. By getting good grades and getting into a good schools? When you get into a school of higher learning, you see mostly Asians and Whites because they get good grades, especially foreign Asians. If you know what Asians have to go through to get into a good university, you would know that it's a lot more rigorous than the process over here. Asian culture is really high on suicide, especially among the students, there's a reason for that. School is very competitive oversea where they post your grades for everyone to see and ranking everyone on a bulletin board. You haven't shown how Asians benefit from any privilege yet, except they study hard?

Avatar image for jezer
#237 Edited by Jezer (3409 posts) - - Show Bio

@dshipp17 said:
@jezer said:

for example, also, making discrimination based on looks a new protected class.

Hmm that's an interesting idea(and its relevant to what I'm studying). I don't think it ever stands a chance at happening. Though, that depends on what you mean when you say "protected class". For example, Race is a protected/suspect class, but that simply means that laws concerning race trigger a higher scrutiny and are defaultly presumed wrong. I doubt there are many laws that would actually go so far as to mention "looks" in their wording, so I'm not sure how this protection would work from a legal standpoint. Additionally, it would be hard to prove "invidious discrimination" based on looks even in a law/policy that is facially neutral, but can be applied arbitrarily enough that it can be used in a discriminative way (Yick wo).

Additionally, under Carolene Products/Korematsu, a suspect class must be discrete and insular. Discrete means that they can recognize each other and insular means that its insulated from the majority--insulated from taking advantage of the political process to advance laws/society on their behalf. Looks are too subjective, with different ideas of what's good looking varying based on race and culture, for it to ever be recognized as "discrete". And, ugly people aren't "insulated" from the majority--since people's looks also differ based on what they're wearing/makeup/etc. A person's looks is definitely not an Immutable characteristic.

Thanks for the practice problem.

I think making discrimination based on looks has a strong chance of passing and it's been an overt and obvious problem for a long time. Currently, the default for getting a job by most people is that you do an in-person interview, when, in the past, in some cases, an over-the-phone interview worked just fine. Essentially, this new protected class (e.g. in the same vein as race, sex, religion, disability, national origin, and retaliation) would put on notice a company that insists on doing an in-person interview to doing an over-the-phone interview again; and, than, the law would be amended to account for speech as a possible form of perceived disability and subsequent discrimination; and, than, the weed out discrimination of African Americans based on inflection and vocabulary, or, an accent, in the case of Latinos; it's designed to increase the hurdles for companies who wish to continue engaging in employment discrimination; sure, a company has every right to say that they passed on someone for how they were dressing, but, within limits (e.g. someone dressing inappropriately versus someone who's just poor); and, yes, if a person can be argued by most to be considered ugly, such would qualify as evidence of direct discrimination and equate to someone saying "we don't hire the n word", in the case of African Americans; this new class would than present the same burden shifting standards, where an employer can overcome the assumption of discrimination based on looks by demonstrating that the person dressed inappropriately and was not, instead, economically disadvantaged; the burden of proof for both parties would be somewhat more narrow than say race discrimination; if the person speaks with a slur that is obvious, this would be direct evidence of perceived disability discrimination.

And what would be your response to a company's attorney arguing that being able to judge how a potential employer reacts and answers questions in person, since most jobs involve being in front of other people(making eye contact, body language, etc.), is a Bona Fide Occupational Qualification?

Or, what would you say when such a law is challenged and the opposing attorney literally says: "Stopping discrimination against ugly people is (1) not a legitimate government purpose AND (2) forcing everyone to do phone interviews is only barely rationally related to achieving such a purpose, since attraction encompasses more than looks--but voice, personality, etc. as well. Here are some studies that show that. And, ugly people are not a class because looks are not an immutable quality. And, ugly people if they were a class, do not need protecting since they are neither discrete nor insular--see Carolene Products footnote 4. They could never be a protected class on the level of race for that reason--even gender is not a suspect class your honor.

Additionally, your honor, there is already precedent in certain cases where courts have held that sex appeal could be used as a valid reasoning for a company choosing to hire only women for certain positions, such as Hooters. This case involves looks/sex appeal, but does not trigger the same concerns as it would if it involved discrimination based on gender. There has been a long history of past discrimination against women, but people of varying levels of attractiveness encompass all manner of positions in society. Your honor, if you acknowledge ugly people as a protected class, there's no logical stopping point for situations where applicants sue on that grounds--since attraction is so subjective--and the court is going to be flooded with frivolous litigation that wastes judicial resources. As much as I think it would be funny to have petitioners filing amicus briefs composed entirely of other people describing how ugly the petitioner is, I think that might make our court system a laughing stock"

Honestly, I feel like I could win this case on behalf of a company....

Avatar image for cameron83
#238 Edited by cameron83 (8548 posts) - - Show Bio

@pajeet:

I love posts like these that are just filled with rhetoric and not much else.

I wonder if the person that created the third picture even bothered to take into account the fact that whites greatly outnumber blacks in this country....probably not.

It reminds me of posts with pictures that are filled with nothing but rhetoric that state that diversity=white genocide. You'd usually find it on some nutjob's facebook profile.

Avatar image for dshipp17
#239 Edited by dshipp17 (5383 posts) - - Show Bio

@poeticwarrior said:

@dshipp17: That has nothing to do with qualifying students, but they're doing a cultural exchange, no one is entitled to get into the schools, not just Asians, but also to other countries. Asians benefited from White privilege, how exactly? If you're gonna go that route then there are many athletes who are non-Asians getting into schools with terrible grades. By getting good grades and getting into a good schools? When you get into a school of higher learning, you see mostly Asians and Whites because they get good grades, especially foreign Asians. If you know what Asians have to go through to get into a good university, you would know that it's a lot more rigorous than the process over here. Asian culture is really high on suicide, especially among the students, there's a reason for that. School is very competitive oversea where they post your grades for everyone to see and ranking everyone on a bulletin board. You haven't shown how Asians benefit from any privilege yet, except they study hard?

Not quite; I said foreign students are not entitled to a seat in the United States; or, foreign students are less entitled to a seat in a United States university, unless that school can demonstrate that there were no qualified applicants for a seat in that school from within the United States; and, if a seat in the university goes unfilled, simply because that school was not allowed to import a student, that school should face severe legal consequences. It's not our schools' burden to consider what Asians have to go through in their own lands. They just need to fill the schools in their own country, or, some other country, unless the circumstances are such that they can get called to a United States university; obviously, I'm not singling out only Asian foreigners, but all foreigners; it's whites that's causing them to be singled out. They get good grades because of their culture, so, play cards in their own culture. Plenty African Americans, Latino, and Native Americans work hard and get good grades too. Abuse of the Hb-1 VISA at the expense of these three groups needs to be stopped, is my point. Even quotas for African Americans should be considered more justifiable than importing students at the current rate. I say, maybe narrow it down to no more than 10 foreign students per University in the United States; that would still be lots of imported students without further disenfranchising African Americans, Latinos, and Native Americans. I already demonstrated it by simply saying that Asian Americans or Asians in America benefit from positive stereotypes at the expense of African Americans suffering from negative stereotypes.

Online
Avatar image for chimeroid
#240 Posted by Chimeroid (9184 posts) - - Show Bio

@w0nd said:

Depends on the state, and its hard to deny it when it's been outed before....

it's "rich" white privilege though, if they are trailer trash it won't make a difference

Does this statement imply that rich black people don't have those privileges?

Avatar image for poeticwarrior
#241 Edited by poeticwarrior (3526 posts) - - Show Bio

@dshipp17 said:
@poeticwarrior said:

@dshipp17: That has nothing to do with qualifying students, but they're doing a cultural exchange, no one is entitled to get into the schools, not just Asians, but also to other countries. Asians benefited from White privilege, how exactly? If you're gonna go that route then there are many athletes who are non-Asians getting into schools with terrible grades. By getting good grades and getting into a good schools? When you get into a school of higher learning, you see mostly Asians and Whites because they get good grades, especially foreign Asians. If you know what Asians have to go through to get into a good university, you would know that it's a lot more rigorous than the process over here. Asian culture is really high on suicide, especially among the students, there's a reason for that. School is very competitive oversea where they post your grades for everyone to see and ranking everyone on a bulletin board. You haven't shown how Asians benefit from any privilege yet, except they study hard?

Not quite; I said foreign students are not entitled to a seat in the United States; or, foreign students are less entitled to a seat in a United States university, unless that school can demonstrate that there were no qualified applicants for a seat in that school from within the United States; and, if a seat in the university goes unfilled, simply because that school was not allowed to import a student, that school should face severe legal consequences. It's not our schools' burden to consider what Asians have to go through in their own lands. They just need to fill the schools in their own country, or, some other country, unless the circumstances are such that they can get called to a United States university; obviously, I'm not singling out only Asian foreigners, but all foreigners; it's whites that's causing them to be singled out. They get good grades because of their culture, so, play cards in their own culture. Plenty African Americans, Latino, and Native Americans work hard and get good grades too. Abuse of the Hb-1 VISA at the expense of these three groups needs to be stopped, is my point. Even quotas for African Americans should be considered more justifiable than importing students at the current rate. I say, maybe narrow it down to no more than 10 foreign students per University in the United States; that would still be lots of imported students without further disenfranchising African Americans, Latinos, and Native Americans. I already demonstrated it by simply saying that Asian Americans or Asians in America benefit from positive stereotypes at the expense of African Americans suffering from negative stereotypes.

It's a program for cultural exchange, not to fill in seats, and even then, there would still be a bunch of Asians in there, there are many Asians with good grades that get rejected because the quota is already filled, look it up. How would it affect other races again? You're not entitled to get into a school just because you're born there, the school has different programs to accommodate different settings. Cultural exchange has nothing to do with filling in more students. What does it have to do with keeping minorities out? That would mean that it would also keep other Asian Americans from attending the school as well. You HAVEN'T demonstrated Asians getting benefit from any privilege except getting good grades. You basically said teachers give other minorities lower grades, but there is no proof of that. They are benefits from privileges for study hard, well, duh. Nothing about it about schools intentionally keeping other minorities down but somehow allow Asians to get in. Tell me what Asians get benefited from or why only Asians happen to get benefited from it, and if so, prove it to me instead of making an assumption.

Avatar image for dshipp17
#242 Edited by dshipp17 (5383 posts) - - Show Bio

@jezer said:
@dshipp17 said:
@jezer said:

for example, also, making discrimination based on looks a new protected class.

Hmm that's an interesting idea(and its relevant to what I'm studying). I don't think it ever stands a chance at happening. Though, that depends on what you mean when you say "protected class". For example, Race is a protected/suspect class, but that simply means that laws concerning race trigger a higher scrutiny and are defaultly presumed wrong. I doubt there are many laws that would actually go so far as to mention "looks" in their wording, so I'm not sure how this protection would work from a legal standpoint. Additionally, it would be hard to prove "invidious discrimination" based on looks even in a law/policy that is facially neutral, but can be applied arbitrarily enough that it can be used in a discriminative way (Yick wo).

Additionally, under Carolene Products/Korematsu, a suspect class must be discrete and insular. Discrete means that they can recognize each other and insular means that its insulated from the majority--insulated from taking advantage of the political process to advance laws/society on their behalf. Looks are too subjective, with different ideas of what's good looking varying based on race and culture, for it to ever be recognized as "discrete". And, ugly people aren't "insulated" from the majority--since people's looks also differ based on what they're wearing/makeup/etc. A person's looks is definitely not an Immutable characteristic.

Thanks for the practice problem.

I think making discrimination based on looks has a strong chance of passing and it's been an overt and obvious problem for a long time. Currently, the default for getting a job by most people is that you do an in-person interview, when, in the past, in some cases, an over-the-phone interview worked just fine. Essentially, this new protected class (e.g. in the same vein as race, sex, religion, disability, national origin, and retaliation) would put on notice a company that insists on doing an in-person interview to doing an over-the-phone interview again; and, than, the law would be amended to account for speech as a possible form of perceived disability and subsequent discrimination; and, than, the weed out discrimination of African Americans based on inflection and vocabulary, or, an accent, in the case of Latinos; it's designed to increase the hurdles for companies who wish to continue engaging in employment discrimination; sure, a company has every right to say that they passed on someone for how they were dressing, but, within limits (e.g. someone dressing inappropriately versus someone who's just poor); and, yes, if a person can be argued by most to be considered ugly, such would qualify as evidence of direct discrimination and equate to someone saying "we don't hire the n word", in the case of African Americans; this new class would than present the same burden shifting standards, where an employer can overcome the assumption of discrimination based on looks by demonstrating that the person dressed inappropriately and was not, instead, economically disadvantaged; the burden of proof for both parties would be somewhat more narrow than say race discrimination; if the person speaks with a slur that is obvious, this would be direct evidence of perceived disability discrimination.

And what would be your response to a company's attorney arguing that being able to judge how a potential employer reacts and answers questions in person, since most jobs involve being in front of other people(making eye contact, body language, etc.), is a Bona Fide Occupational Qualification?

Or, what would you say when such a law is challenged and the opposing attorney literally says: "Stopping discrimination against ugly people is (1) not a legitimate government purpose AND (2) forcing everyone to do phone interviews is only barely rationally related to achieving such a purpose, since attraction encompasses more than looks--but voice, personality, etc. as well. Here are some studies that show that. And, ugly people are not a class because looks are not an immutable quality. And, ugly people if they were a class, do not need protecting since they are neither discrete nor insular--see Carolene Products footnote 4. They could never be a protected class on the level of race for that reason--even gender is not a suspect class your honor.

Additionally, your honor, there is already precedent in certain cases where courts have held that sex appeal could be used as a valid reasoning for a company choosing to hire only women for certain positions, such as Hooters. This case involves looks/sex appeal, but does not trigger the same concerns as it would if it involved discrimination based on gender. There has been a long history of past discrimination against women, but people of varying levels of attractiveness encompass all manner of positions in society. Your honor, if you acknowledge ugly people as a protected class, there's no logical stopping point for situations where applicants sue on that grounds--since attraction is so subjective--and the court is going to be flooded with frivolous litigation that wastes judicial resources. As much as I think it would be funny to have petitioners filing amicus briefs composed entirely of other people describing how ugly the petitioner is, I think that might make our court system a laughing stock"

Honestly, I feel like I could win this case on behalf of a company....

“And what would be your response to a company's attorney arguing that being able to judge how a potential employer reacts and answers questions in person, since most jobs involve being in front of other people(making eye contact, body language, etc.), is a Bona Fide Occupational Qualification?”

My proposal for Title VII to be amended by making discrimination based on looks is obviously something before even a preliminary rough draft; it’s not the final product with all of the specifics; addressing your points would be done before the final product. Apart of this new amendment to account for discrimination based on looks, in certain occupations, a company will be allowed to require applicants to have sex appeal. The occupations I’d envisioned would not be one of those circumstances.

It would be the company’s job to meet it’s burden of proof to demonstrate that the position being offered would require making eye contact, body language, etc and explain how the job applicant failed to demonstrate proper eye contact, body language, etc, during the job interview; but, the job applicant has the opportunity to demonstrate that these claims were pretext, under the new and revised employment laws which would make it easier for the job applicant to demonstrate pretext (e.g. demonstrating that a comment/explanation offered by the employer was false or a lie would be sufficient to meet this burden under the new law; or, that the employer gave insufficient bases for the applicant to demonstrate pretext would now be sufficient for the job applicant to meet his burden of proof).

“Or, what would you say when such a law is challenged and the opposing attorney literally says: "Stopping discrimination against ugly people is (1) not a legitimate government purpose AND (2) forcing everyone to do phone interviews is only barely rationally related to achieving such a purpose, since attraction encompasses more than looks--but voice, personality, etc. as well. Here are some studies that show that. And, ugly people are not a class because looks are not an immutable quality. And, ugly people if they were a class, do not need protecting since they are neither discrete nor insular--see Carolene Products footnote 4. They could never be a protected class on the level of race for that reason--even gender is not a suspect class your honor.”

Sure, a legitimate government purpose could be stopping discrimination against ugly people; ugly people, like anyone else need to make a living with employment; depriving these people of the privileges of people who are only more qualified because they look better is a legitimate government interest to stop. But, in most employment, with the exceptions outline in the law, attraction is not important for doing the job as a competent employee; personality, however, is already an issue addressed in a legitimate termination and is not something specific only to ugly people (e.g. a bad temperament). Your studies would have to show that it’s something that’s only systemic to ugly people and could not being a trait also displayed by good looking or normal looking people. I disagree; ugly people do need protecting and here’s a list of ugly people who have presented their stories of being disenfranchised because of their looks; we can easily extrapolate that their experiences are the same throughout the entire history of the civilized world. They sure can be protected at the level of race and sex; point of fact, someone who is not ugly cannot speak for people who are ugly, in this matter, no more than a white who is a million or billionaire can speak for a disenfranchised African American who is over 40 living in a ghetto; what makes you think that you can speak for ugly people to summarily deprive them of new protections, especially not being ugly yourself? No one person can speak for a whole racial group or sex in such a manner.

“Additionally, your honor, there is already precedent in certain cases where courts have held that sex appeal could be used as a valid reasoning for a company choosing to hire only women for certain positions, such as Hooters. This case involves looks/sex appeal, but does not trigger the same concerns as it would if it involved discrimination based on gender. There has been a long history of past discrimination against women, but people of varying levels of attractiveness encompass all manner of positions in society. Your honor, if you acknowledge ugly people as a protected class, there's no logical stopping point for situations where applicants sue on that grounds--since attraction is so subjective--and the court is going to be flooded with frivolous litigation that wastes judicial resources. As much as I think it would be funny to have petitioners filing amicus briefs composed entirely of other people describing how ugly the petitioner is, I think that might make our court system a laughing stock"”

Sure, and those cases have been listed in this new law as exceptions; the company is required to qualify a position as requiring sex appeal and get Justice Department approval in the spirit of this amended law. Hooters is just one company. But, similar companies like Burger King has not explicitly required this Hooters standard, although they can apply. But, in these circumstances, a person lacking this sex appeal can still work in the areas of the building outside of public view such as a cook or dishwasher; actually, the only ones in the Hooters example are the waiters; but, there are many other occupations at Hooters to fill. The main thrust and spirit of this law was intended for the professional fields requiring at least a 4 year college degree, but, we also try to account for the exceptions that don’t require a 4 year college degree. Under the new laws, the definition of what constitutes a frivolous filing has been revised, so, you’d need to be more specific. Additionally, as in the past, the administrative process necessarily dispenses of a frivolous cause of action; the fact that an applicant qualified for an interview or ranked/rated high is already grounds to dismiss a claim that a suit is frivolous. Additionally, additional staff and resources have been allocated in the budget to accommodate these new administrative and judicial suits. Maybe, but, the alleged ugly applicant is not laughing; proceed!

Online
Avatar image for echostarlord117
#243 Posted by echostarlord117 (5526 posts) - - Show Bio

Duh, how else did Bill Gates and Warren Buffett get where they are today? Through misogyny, racism, and white privilege of course!

Avatar image for dshipp17
#244 Edited by dshipp17 (5383 posts) - - Show Bio

@poeticwarrior said:
@dshipp17 said:
@poeticwarrior said:

@dshipp17: That has nothing to do with qualifying students, but they're doing a cultural exchange, no one is entitled to get into the schools, not just Asians, but also to other countries. Asians benefited from White privilege, how exactly? If you're gonna go that route then there are many athletes who are non-Asians getting into schools with terrible grades. By getting good grades and getting into a good schools? When you get into a school of higher learning, you see mostly Asians and Whites because they get good grades, especially foreign Asians. If you know what Asians have to go through to get into a good university, you would know that it's a lot more rigorous than the process over here. Asian culture is really high on suicide, especially among the students, there's a reason for that. School is very competitive oversea where they post your grades for everyone to see and ranking everyone on a bulletin board. You haven't shown how Asians benefit from any privilege yet, except they study hard?

Not quite; I said foreign students are not entitled to a seat in the United States; or, foreign students are less entitled to a seat in a United States university, unless that school can demonstrate that there were no qualified applicants for a seat in that school from within the United States; and, if a seat in the university goes unfilled, simply because that school was not allowed to import a student, that school should face severe legal consequences. It's not our schools' burden to consider what Asians have to go through in their own lands. They just need to fill the schools in their own country, or, some other country, unless the circumstances are such that they can get called to a United States university; obviously, I'm not singling out only Asian foreigners, but all foreigners; it's whites that's causing them to be singled out. They get good grades because of their culture, so, play cards in their own culture. Plenty African Americans, Latino, and Native Americans work hard and get good grades too. Abuse of the Hb-1 VISA at the expense of these three groups needs to be stopped, is my point. Even quotas for African Americans should be considered more justifiable than importing students at the current rate. I say, maybe narrow it down to no more than 10 foreign students per University in the United States; that would still be lots of imported students without further disenfranchising African Americans, Latinos, and Native Americans. I already demonstrated it by simply saying that Asian Americans or Asians in America benefit from positive stereotypes at the expense of African Americans suffering from negative stereotypes.

It's a program for cultural exchange, not to fill in seats, and even then, there would still be a bunch of Asians in there, there are many Asians with good grades that good rejected because the quota is already filled, look it up. How would it affect other races again? You're not entitled to get into a school just because you're born there, the school has different programs to accommodate different settings. Cultural exchange has nothing to do with filling in more students. What does it have to do with keeping minorities out? That would mean that it would also keep other Asian Americans from attending the school as well. You HAVEN'T demonstrated Asians getting benefit from any privilege except getting good grades. You basically said teachers give other minorities lower grades, but there is no proof of that. They are benefits from privileges for study hard, well, duh. Nothing about it about schools intentionally keeping other minorities down but somehow allow Asians to get in. Tell me what Asians get benefited from or why only Asians happen to get benefited from it, and if so, prove it to me instead of making an assumption.

“It's a program for cultural exchange, not to fill in seats, and even then, there would still be a bunch of Asians in there, there are many Asians with good grades that good rejected because the quota is already filled, look it up. How would it affect other races again? You're not entitled to get into a school just because you're born there, the school has different programs to accommodate different settings. Cultural exchange has nothing to do with filling in more students. What does it have to do with keeping minorities out? That would mean that it would also keep other Asian Americans from attending the school as well. You HAVEN'T demonstrated Asians getting benefit from any privilege except getting good grades. You basically said teachers give other minorities lower grades, but there is no proof of that. They are benefits from privileges for study hard, well, duh. Nothing about it about schools intentionally keeping other minorities down but somehow allow Asians to get in. Tell me what Asians get benefited from or why only Asians happen to get benefited from it, and if so, prove it to me instead of making an assumption.”

Sure, although it may have been intended for cultural exchange, it’s also having the affect of filling university seats to the great exclusion of African Americans, Latinos, and Native Americans. And, someone from these three racial groups with good grades get rejected; these groups are disenfranchised, for the large part, whereas Asian Americans or Asians in American are not disenfranchised. For one, by increasing the other races’ prospects at employment in a decent playing job and reducing certain negative perceptions and stereotypes of these groups. But, again, a US citizen is more entitled to a seat in a university than a foreign student. It has a lot to do with keeping certain groups out, if you can just walk to an institution of higher learning, see only Asians and whites, but, no African Americans, Latinos, or Asians in those schools or classes, while, at the same time, arguing against what you call entitlement programs. No, it wouldn’t mean that, because, Asians are the beneficiaries of positive stereotypes and these groups are hindered by negative stereotypes (e.g. hence, your continued assumption that the Asians are making good grades, but, members of these 3 groups aren’t making good enough grades). I have, they’re the beneficiaries of positive stereotypes as demonstrated by your own writing that have displayed your bias against members of these three groups, which, is the product of negative stereotypes (e.g. the assumption that someone from these groups was not selected, because they didn’t have good enough grades). No, they’re not necessarily the product of hard work (e.g. my prior point of one of these students benefiting from positive stereotypes which produces the circumstances were they are graded less harshly by their teachers and professors as compared to an African American).

Online
Avatar image for poeticwarrior
#245 Edited by poeticwarrior (3526 posts) - - Show Bio

@dshipp17: Asians have a history of discrimination as well, many of them can't even get jobs, were not even considered citizens, there were many laws that target them, steal their property. Somehow they didn't become disenfranchise. If you're talking about immigrants, many of the family coming here are extremely poor, and they earn jobs working as dishwashers and low wage workers and allowing their kids to go to school. You're assuming that cultural exchange is a way to keep minorities out of school, despite Asian Americans are a part of that. It makes no damn sense why they would do that. What's the point of keeping out minorities? Even in High School, go compare to grades between Asians and Asian Americans vs other races, higher than Whites even, tell me that they don't try their ass off to get good grade. Is it that surprising that those people on average with higher grades would attend higher learning Institutes? Statistic already shows they have higher grades. That's basically about them having higher grades on average, applying to school, and get in more. Didn't see any privilege there. If you think they get harsh grades then prove it, I hear you say it, but you need to prove it.

Avatar image for jezer
#246 Edited by Jezer (3409 posts) - - Show Bio

@dshipp17 said:
@jezer said:
@dshipp17 said:
@jezer said:

for example, also, making discrimination based on looks a new protected class.

Hmm that's an interesting idea(and its relevant to what I'm studying). I don't think it ever stands a chance at happening. Though, that depends on what you mean when you say "protected class". For example, Race is a protected/suspect class, but that simply means that laws concerning race trigger a higher scrutiny and are defaultly presumed wrong. I doubt there are many laws that would actually go so far as to mention "looks" in their wording, so I'm not sure how this protection would work from a legal standpoint. Additionally, it would be hard to prove "invidious discrimination" based on looks even in a law/policy that is facially neutral, but can be applied arbitrarily enough that it can be used in a discriminative way (Yick wo).

Additionally, under Carolene Products/Korematsu, a suspect class must be discrete and insular. Discrete means that they can recognize each other and insular means that its insulated from the majority--insulated from taking advantage of the political process to advance laws/society on their behalf. Looks are too subjective, with different ideas of what's good looking varying based on race and culture, for it to ever be recognized as "discrete". And, ugly people aren't "insulated" from the majority--since people's looks also differ based on what they're wearing/makeup/etc. A person's looks is definitely not an Immutable characteristic.

Thanks for the practice problem.

I think making discrimination based on looks has a strong chance of passing and it's been an overt and obvious problem for a long time. Currently, the default for getting a job by most people is that you do an in-person interview, when, in the past, in some cases, an over-the-phone interview worked just fine. Essentially, this new protected class (e.g. in the same vein as race, sex, religion, disability, national origin, and retaliation) would put on notice a company that insists on doing an in-person interview to doing an over-the-phone interview again; and, than, the law would be amended to account for speech as a possible form of perceived disability and subsequent discrimination; and, than, the weed out discrimination of African Americans based on inflection and vocabulary, or, an accent, in the case of Latinos; it's designed to increase the hurdles for companies who wish to continue engaging in employment discrimination; sure, a company has every right to say that they passed on someone for how they were dressing, but, within limits (e.g. someone dressing inappropriately versus someone who's just poor); and, yes, if a person can be argued by most to be considered ugly, such would qualify as evidence of direct discrimination and equate to someone saying "we don't hire the n word", in the case of African Americans; this new class would than present the same burden shifting standards, where an employer can overcome the assumption of discrimination based on looks by demonstrating that the person dressed inappropriately and was not, instead, economically disadvantaged; the burden of proof for both parties would be somewhat more narrow than say race discrimination; if the person speaks with a slur that is obvious, this would be direct evidence of perceived disability discrimination.

And what would be your response to a company's attorney arguing that being able to judge how a potential employer reacts and answers questions in person, since most jobs involve being in front of other people(making eye contact, body language, etc.), is a Bona Fide Occupational Qualification?

Or, what would you say when such a law is challenged and the opposing attorney literally says: "Stopping discrimination against ugly people is (1) not a legitimate government purpose AND (2) forcing everyone to do phone interviews is only barely rationally related to achieving such a purpose, since attraction encompasses more than looks--but voice, personality, etc. as well. Here are some studies that show that. And, ugly people are not a class because looks are not an immutable quality. And, ugly people if they were a class, do not need protecting since they are neither discrete nor insular--see Carolene Products footnote 4. They could never be a protected class on the level of race for that reason--even gender is not a suspect class your honor.

Additionally, your honor, there is already precedent in certain cases where courts have held that sex appeal could be used as a valid reasoning for a company choosing to hire only women for certain positions, such as Hooters. This case involves looks/sex appeal, but does not trigger the same concerns as it would if it involved discrimination based on gender. There has been a long history of past discrimination against women, but people of varying levels of attractiveness encompass all manner of positions in society. Your honor, if you acknowledge ugly people as a protected class, there's no logical stopping point for situations where applicants sue on that grounds--since attraction is so subjective--and the court is going to be flooded with frivolous litigation that wastes judicial resources. As much as I think it would be funny to have petitioners filing amicus briefs composed entirely of other people describing how ugly the petitioner is, I think that might make our court system a laughing stock"

Honestly, I feel like I could win this case on behalf of a company....

“And what would be your response to a company's attorney arguing that being able to judge how a potential employer reacts and answers questions in person, since most jobs involve being in front of other people(making eye contact, body language, etc.), is a Bona Fide Occupational Qualification?”

My proposal for Title VII to be amended by making discrimination based on looks is obviously something before even a preliminary rough draft; it’s not the final product with all of the specifics; addressing your points would be done before the final product. Apart of this new amendment to account for discrimination based on looks, in certain occupations, a company will be allowed to require applicants to have sex appeal. The occupations I’d envisioned would not be one of those circumstances.

It would be the company’s job to meet it’s burden of proof to demonstrate that the position being offered would require making eye contact, body language, etc and explain how the job applicant failed to demonstrate proper eye contact, body language, etc, during the job interview; but, the job applicant has the opportunity to demonstrate that these claims were pretext, under the new and revised employment laws which would make it easier for the job applicant to demonstrate pretext (e.g. demonstrating that a comment/explanation offered by the employer was false or a lie would be sufficient to meet this burden under the new law; or, that the employer gave insufficient bases for the applicant to demonstrate pretext would now be sufficient for the job applicant to meet his burden of proof).

“Or, what would you say when such a law is challenged and the opposing attorney literally says: "Stopping discrimination against ugly people is (1) not a legitimate government purpose AND (2) forcing everyone to do phone interviews is only barely rationally related to achieving such a purpose, since attraction encompasses more than looks--but voice, personality, etc. as well. Here are some studies that show that. And, ugly people are not a class because looks are not an immutable quality. And, ugly people if they were a class, do not need protecting since they are neither discrete nor insular--see Carolene Products footnote 4. They could never be a protected class on the level of race for that reason--even gender is not a suspect class your honor.”

Sure, a legitimate government purpose could be stopping discrimination against ugly people; ugly people, like anyone else need to make a living with employment; depriving these people of the privileges of people who are only more qualified because they look better is a legitimate government interest to stop. But, in most employment, with the exceptions outline in the law, attraction is not important for doing the job as a competent employee; personality, however, is already an issue addressed in a legitimate termination and is not something specific only to ugly people (e.g. a bad temperament). Your studies would have to show that it’s something that’s only systemic to ugly people and could not being a trait also displayed by good looking or normal looking people. I disagree; ugly people do need protecting and here’s a list of ugly people who have presented their stories of being disenfranchised because of their looks; we can easily extrapolate that their experiences are the same throughout the entire history of the civilized world. They sure can be protected at the level of race and sex; point of fact, someone who is not ugly cannot speak for people who are ugly, in this matter, no more than a white who is a million or billionaire can speak for a disenfranchised African American who is over 40 living in a ghetto; what makes you think that you can speak for ugly people to summarily deprive them of new protections, especially not being ugly yourself? No one person can speak for a whole racial group or sex in such a manner.

“Additionally, your honor, there is already precedent in certain cases where courts have held that sex appeal could be used as a valid reasoning for a company choosing to hire only women for certain positions, such as Hooters. This case involves looks/sex appeal, but does not trigger the same concerns as it would if it involved discrimination based on gender. There has been a long history of past discrimination against women, but people of varying levels of attractiveness encompass all manner of positions in society. Your honor, if you acknowledge ugly people as a protected class, there's no logical stopping point for situations where applicants sue on that grounds--since attraction is so subjective--and the court is going to be flooded with frivolous litigation that wastes judicial resources. As much as I think it would be funny to have petitioners filing amicus briefs composed entirely of other people describing how ugly the petitioner is, I think that might make our court system a laughing stock"”

Sure, and those cases have been listed in this new law as exceptions; the company is required to qualify a position as requiring sex appeal and get Justice Department approval in the spirit of this amended law. Hooters is just one company. But, similar companies like Burger King has not explicitly required this Hooters standard, although they can apply. But, in these circumstances, a person lacking this sex appeal can still work in the areas of the building outside of public view such as a cook or dishwasher; actually, the only ones in the Hooters example are the waiters; but, there are many other occupations at Hooters to fill. The main thrust and spirit of this law was intended for the professional fields requiring at least a 4 year college degree, but, we also try to account for the exceptions that don’t require a 4 year college degree. Under the new laws, the definition of what constitutes a frivolous filing has been revised, so, you’d need to be more specific. Additionally, as in the past, the administrative process necessarily dispenses of a frivolous cause of action; the fact that an applicant qualified for an interview or ranked/rated high is already grounds to dismiss a claim that a suit is frivolous. Additionally, additional staff and resources have been allocated in the budget to accommodate these new administrative and judicial suits. Maybe, but, the alleged ugly applicant is not laughing; proceed!

Your honor, they've failed to prove that my company didn't hire him simply because, while qualified and knowledgeable, the interviewer did not like him. Such a law as this is impossible to apply in practice because there are so many factors that my company, and every company, takes into account when hiring people---its a holistic approach, which includes like-ability. How would anyone suing under this law ever prove that the applicant was not hired because, say, the interviewer didn't like their shoes? Or their shirt? Or their personality?

Your honor, in many companies, people have the opportunity to move up the ranks through hard work. So, while eye contact and confidence don't seem necessary for a cook---when I look at the long run, its necessary for any employee who is eventually going to have the opportunity to move up the ranks. So why wouldn't I be allowed to interview all my applicants in person? I look for ambition and a desire to take larger responsibilities over time in any employee. I look for leadership as well. And a key to both of those, your honor, is the applicants ability to present themselves in a confident, articulate, and well put together way.

Out of persona, the court/any court would never budget additional resources and times to accomodate a new class of claims as a response to the idea that allowing it to go through would open the flood gates.... The reality is that looks-based discrimination, regardless of a person being qualified, could be cited by anyone. In fact, if you were a different race from me, I could cite a combination of racism and looks based discrimination, no matter how I look, because races have different ideas of what is considered attractive and unattractive. I could say you didn't hire me because I'm ugly, because you don't consider _______ people attractive.

I'll give you a fuller response to other things you said in this post after Finals.

EDIT: Btw- You're assuming I'm not ugly myself.

Avatar image for petey_is_spidey
#247 Edited by Petey_is_Spidey (11543 posts) - - Show Bio

@chimeroid said:
@w0nd said:

Depends on the state, and its hard to deny it when it's been outed before....

it's "rich" white privilege though, if they are trailer trash it won't make a difference

Does this statement imply that rich black people don't have those privileges?

They do, and anyone denying it is fooling themselves.

This thread should be changed to "Is rich-privileged real".

Avatar image for deactivated-57c3cf21b495e
#248 Posted by deactivated-57c3cf21b495e (2448 posts) - - Show Bio

The simple answer is, yes. Though, like with every real world issue, there is much more to it than a simple yes or no.

Avatar image for dshipp17
#249 Posted by dshipp17 (5383 posts) - - Show Bio

@dshipp17: Asians have a history of discrimination as well, many of them can't even get jobs, were not even considered citizens, there were many laws that target them, steal their property. Somehow they didn't become disenfranchise. If you're talking about immigrants, many of the family coming here are extremely poor, and they earn jobs working as dishwashers and low wage workers and allowing their kids to go to school. You're assuming that cultural exchange is a way to keep minorities out of school, despite Asian Americans are a part of that. It makes no damn sense why they would do that. What's the point of keeping out minorities? Even in High School, go compare to grades between Asians and Asian Americans vs other races, higher than Whites even, tell me that they don't try their ass off to get good grade. Is it that surprising that those people on average with higher grades would attend higher learning Institutes? Statistic already shows they have higher grades. That's basically about them having higher grades on average, applying to school, and get in more. Didn't see any privilege there. If you think they get harsh grades then prove it, I hear you say it, but you need to prove it.

“Asians have a history of discrimination as well, many of them can't even get jobs, were not even considered citizens, there were many laws that target them, steal their property. Somehow they didn't become disenfranchise.”

But, benefitting from positive stereotypes, the issues mention here was during a time long past. Asians sure can get jobs. Just like universities, corporations are even more so filled with only Asians and whites; that’s the point; pack all of the elite schools with Asians and whites, rely on the negative stereotypes and images created by whites, claim there are no qualified African Americans, Latinos, and Native Americans ro fill the positions, keep these groups disenfranchised, and support the Republican party. As I said, we’re in a legalized or updated version of the Jim Crow Era were most people, including minorities, don’t realize this reality.

“You're assuming that cultural exchange is a way to keep minorities out of school, despite Asian Americans are a part of that. It makes no damn sense why they would do that. What's the point of keeping out minorities?”

They do it because of white privilege and to perpetuate stereotypes about these three groups; it’s actually as simple as that; whites have been breed to believe certain things; it’s passed down generation to generation; it’s like a natural aversion against African Americans, in specific; it’s been grand-fathered into the system.

“Even in High School, go compare to grades between Asians and Asian Americans vs other races, higher than Whites even, tell me that they don't try their ass off to get good grade. Is it that surprising that those people on average with higher grades would attend higher learning Institutes? Statistic already shows they have higher grades.”

You just answered your previous questions right there; that’s a negative stereotype against these three minority groups and bull that you received from your parents to believe; you’re not considering a whole host of possible factors to explain that. Statics can be misused and abused; than, there’s my previously mentioned factor: grading African Americans more harshly and applying the soft bigotry of low expectations. There are still African Americans who work hard for good grades and either get good grades or are cheated out of good grades by biased professors and teachers (e.g. again, grading them more harshly).

“That's basically about them having higher grades on average, applying to school, and get in more. Didn't see any privilege there. If you think they get harsh grades then prove it, I hear you say it, but you need to prove it.”

No, because, it depends on who applied and the bogus statics you might be using or replying upon. There definitely is white privilege here. I already did; it’s my experience and the experiences of all students from these three minority groups, as long as they’re aware enough to realize what happened, as I’m aware of what happened. Besides, you haven’t proven your points either; they’re all assumptions on your part: because of statistics, any person who applied toi a university had lower grades than the people accepted. One very important factor you’re missing is that whites are likely the one’s making the enrollment decisions.

Online
Avatar image for poeticwarrior
#250 Edited by poeticwarrior (3526 posts) - - Show Bio

@dshipp17 said:
@poeticwarrior said:

@dshipp17: Asians have a history of discrimination as well, many of them can't even get jobs, were not even considered citizens, there were many laws that target them, steal their property. Somehow they didn't become disenfranchise. If you're talking about immigrants, many of the family coming here are extremely poor, and they earn jobs working as dishwashers and low wage workers and allowing their kids to go to school. You're assuming that cultural exchange is a way to keep minorities out of school, despite Asian Americans are a part of that. It makes no damn sense why they would do that. What's the point of keeping out minorities? Even in High School, go compare to grades between Asians and Asian Americans vs other races, higher than Whites even, tell me that they don't try their ass off to get good grade. Is it that surprising that those people on average with higher grades would attend higher learning Institutes? Statistic already shows they have higher grades. That's basically about them having higher grades on average, applying to school, and get in more. Didn't see any privilege there. If you think they get harsh grades then prove it, I hear you say it, but you need to prove it.

“Asians have a history of discrimination as well, many of them can't even get jobs, were not even considered citizens, there were many laws that target them, steal their property. Somehow they didn't become disenfranchise.”

But, benefitting from positive stereotypes, the issues mention here was during a time long past. Asians sure can get jobs. Just like universities, corporations are even more so filled with only Asians and whites; that’s the point; pack all of the elite schools with Asians and whites, rely on the negative stereotypes and images created by whites, claim there are no qualified African Americans, Latinos, and Native Americans ro fill the positions, keep these groups disenfranchised, and support the Republican party. As I said, we’re in a legalized or updated version of the Jim Crow Era were most people, including minorities, don’t realize this reality.

“You're assuming that cultural exchange is a way to keep minorities out of school, despite Asian Americans are a part of that. It makes no damn sense why they would do that. What's the point of keeping out minorities?”

They do it because of white privilege and to perpetuate stereotypes about these three groups; it’s actually as simple as that; whites have been breed to believe certain things; it’s passed down generation to generation; it’s like a natural aversion against African Americans, in specific; it’s been grand-fathered into the system.

“Even in High School, go compare to grades between Asians and Asian Americans vs other races, higher than Whites even, tell me that they don't try their ass off to get good grade. Is it that surprising that those people on average with higher grades would attend higher learning Institutes? Statistic already shows they have higher grades.”

You just answered your previous questions right there; that’s a negative stereotype against these three minority groups and bull that you received from your parents to believe; you’re not considering a whole host of possible factors to explain that. Statics can be misused and abused; than, there’s my previously mentioned factor: grading African Americans more harshly and applying the soft bigotry of low expectations. There are still African Americans who work hard for good grades and either get good grades or are cheated out of good grades by biased professors and teachers (e.g. again, grading them more harshly).

“That's basically about them having higher grades on average, applying to school, and get in more. Didn't see any privilege there. If you think they get harsh grades then prove it, I hear you say it, but you need to prove it.”

No, because, it depends on who applied and the bogus statics you might be using or replying upon. There definitely is white privilege here. I already did; it’s my experience and the experiences of all students from these three minority groups, as long as they’re aware enough to realize what happened, as I’m aware of what happened. Besides, you haven’t proven your points either; they’re all assumptions on your part: because of statistics, any person who applied toi a university had lower grades than the people accepted. One very important factor you’re missing is that whites are likely the one’s making the enrollment decisions.

Those stereotypes have to be reinforced in some ways. Those with a degree and finish colleges will earn a degree, maybe you should tackle why other races have higher drop out rates. You can't expect people who don't even finish High School to go to college and see them in college. Especially, statistic wise, Asians have higher grades. I'm also using my own experience but there is a degree of biased due to how we view and judge our own life, so you're not the only one. I don't have to prove anything, my point is basically statistically, Asians stay in school more, they have higher grades, you see them more in college which then they get jobs and earn money, which are all true and can be proven, you said other races get targeted by teachers, giving them lower grades, but you can't and haven't proven that. Yes, Whites are the ones making enrollment decisions, so when they see Asians, they have them go to school instead of other White students and that's why in many of the higher level schools like UCLA, Asians actually outnumbered Whites. Who would have thought Whites are racist against Whites in favor of Asian students.