RoadBikeReview.com's Forum Archives - Non-Cycling Discussions


Archive Home >> Non-Cycling Discussions(1 2 3 4 )


Why NOT to profile.(14 posts)

Why NOT to profile.liu02bhs
Jun 1, 2002 4:53 PM
I know it doesn't make sense but it benefits all of us in the long run. This is just like some of the supreme court cases in which we let criminals go free because their civil rights were violated (i.e. Miranda vs. Arizona). At the moment the decision seemed very obsurd, but the landmark cases enlarged everyone's rights. Plus, profiling runs into discrimination issues. Not all the Muslims are terrorists, in fact 99.99% aren't. Should we punish the entire religion because of that .01%? What happen if we started to profile everyone? Would you like to be viewed as rude and inconsiderate just because you are a cyclist? What if we profile people by hair color? A blonde person might find it more difficult to obtain a job in comparison with her dark-haired counterparts. Furthermore, there is always ways to get around the system. If screener profiled Muslims, it would make it easier for non-Muslims to sneak bombs. I'm sure there are plenty of disgruntled people out there to fill the spot. Who will you profile then?

What I consider to be unfair is affirmative action based on race. This is just like reverse discrimination. It defeats the purpose of competition. What if we did affirmative action to the NBA or NFL? I think it would be much more sensiable to do it by economic status. Because a rich Black kid is not more disadvantaged against a poor White/Asian kid. I learned the seriousness of this issue this year while applying for college. Some of the rich black kids who have similiar academic performance than me in my school are getting in to the top schools with scholarships. While if I had applied, I probably won't get accepted. Not only this, people with worse academic and extracurricula performances are getting full scholarships to my future college, while they are much more capable than me in paying for it.
re: Why NOT to profile.weiwentg
Jun 1, 2002 5:43 PM
> I think it would be much more sensiable to do it by economic status.

you would be correct. however, Blacks of equal SES (socioeconomic status) are at a disadvantage to Whites and Asians of equal SES. the severity of the difference varies.
affirmative action is not a perfect system, but it is a start. it does have some impact on the difference between races, which is quite severe. it is not enough, but eliminating it would be a step back at this point in time.
re: whoa... affirmative-instatutionalized racismsctri
Jun 2, 2002 4:43 PM
Affimative action was little more than political correctness gone horribly awry, perhaps with the best of intentions it manages to lessen the value of individals and the quality of a given service or instatution.

How can someone who had traditionally been, and to a lesser degree still are, treated unfairly (ie. minority groups) seek a solution that falls so short of equality? Affirmitive action has nothing to do with equality, as its very nature is based on necessary quotas, stripping away any fairness or freedom of compatition.

If i was in a burning bulding, and a fire personel person, was to save me, I would want the best fire personel person possible, regardless of gender, age, race, or SES....

my .02 (with out spell check....)

rc
are you a minority?weiwentg
Jun 2, 2002 6:45 PM
affirmative action is designed to eventually bring about equality. leave everything as it is, and few low-SES individuals, a group which is disproportionately Black, will get into the good colleges. it's not perfect, but it's a step, as I said. what you said about the political correctness bit makes no sense.
you are, presumably, not from an under-priveliged group. easy for you to say do away with affirmative action.
Explain?liu02bhs
Jun 2, 2002 4:53 PM
I don't understand how Blacks/Hispanics of equal SES as Whites/Asians are at a disadvantage?
Explain?weiwentg
Jun 2, 2002 6:51 PM
in my sociology class, an author did a case study of two groups of low-SES indivudials. one group was mainly Black, one was mainly White. the Blacks were, from his observation, more hardworking and willing to learn. the Whites had more or less given up hope.
of course, none of these individuals made it out of the low-SES group. however, the Whites tended to get the better jobs. the sole White member of the mainly Black group was far and away the most successful on the job market.
the book is called 'Ain't no Makin' It: Aspirations and Attainment in a Low-INcome Neighborhood' by Jay McLeod. alternatively, you could take an introductory sociology class - be forewarned that even introductory sociology classes tend to be predominantly liberal, and conservatives may feel uncomfortable. it will challenge your assumptions of the social order - and it would seem (according to my teacher) that very few conservatives stay after the intro class (there are practically none in my current intro class). most likely too disturbing for them. it certainly was disturbing for me, a few years ago when I started reading stuff like this.
Hard Work!netso
Jun 3, 2002 5:01 AM
We were Puerto Rican, we were poor, we lived in Harlem in New York City. However, through hard work from our parents and us we succeeded. I have a Ph.D. and M.D., My brother is a Chemist, my other brother is a Lt. in the Sheriffs Department, My sister has an M.D., one of my cousins is an Attorney. We managed through hard work. True it was difficult, but we made it.
nope.weiwentg
Jun 3, 2002 9:39 AM
in your case, yes. in the case of one Black family in my sociology class, yes. there are always isolated cases of success. some people have what we call cultural capital - some skill or asset that is of value in the culture. one might speak English well. one might be a superb violinist. one might play football or basketball (or one might also cycle). some might get lucky. some might come into contact with progressive employers.
for the most part, the underclass and the working class does not advance, even if they work hard. many Blacks simply cannot work hard because they are refused jobs. they live in segregated districts, not because of their own isolationism. when middle-class Blacks move into White districts (if they can - often banks refuse to give them loans, neighbors may treat them curtly, etc) the value of the property goes down. more than a certain percentage Black, and tipping will occur - the Whites move out, the property values go down further, until a mostly-White middle class neighborhood becomes a predominantly Black working class neighborhood. once Blacks are segregated, lose their political voice. they're in the minority of voters, so when other districts demand police stations, fire stations, parks, schools, etc, the Black districts get passed over.
I could go on. I could post the titles of the articles I've read. but the point I wish to make is that there is a pervasive form of non-overt racism at work. there are tremendous obstacles to Black achievement. the underclass and working class in general face obstacles to their achievement. this may be shocking for you to hear. it was not for me only because by then I was quite cynical. a few families here and there may make it. most don't.
nope.netso
Jun 3, 2002 10:29 AM
I have to admit it is hard to be a minority because you have no one to look up to except drug dealers, pimps etc. I also have to admit it helped me to be White.
The screaky wheel always gets the oilliu02bhs
Jun 3, 2002 11:38 AM
often banks refuse to give them loans

Where did you get this from? Banks can't just refuse people loans because of their race. Oftentimes when banks rejects a loan it's because the person has bad credit. Maybe 40 years ago this was true, but I hardly believe it's the case nowadays.

until a mostly-White middle class neighborhood becomes a predominantly Black working class neighborhood. once Blacks are segregated, lose their political voice

Can you explain how the Blacks lose their political voice when the district becomes predominantly Black? Furthermore, the voting rights law provides that district must be drawn so that certain minorities get representation. This often results in over-representation of a minority group.

Okay, back to the subject of affirmative action. You said that affirmative action to balance out the tyranny of the majority (Whites). So why is it that Asians also find it difficult to get in to prestigious universities in comparison with Blacks? I believe the current demography there are about 12% African American, 9% Hispanic, and like 1-2% Asians. I'm not too clear about the exact percentage, but the fact is, there are a lot more Blacks than Asians. So how is it that Asians manage to do well, when discrimination is so pervasive. In fact, the Asian population is severely under-represented in the political arena. Your justification for affirmative action is to help out the low SES minority groups. Most Asians in America are immigrants or decendants of immigrants who have to start from scratch at the low SES spectrum. So is it they not only not benefit from affirmative action but suffer from it.
I simply think it's unfair about the fact that someoneone who work diligently to get the same thing as someone who does not. You even suggested it yourself in the previous post. And I'm tired that anyone who brings out this issue is automatically branded with RACISM. When in fact I am the one whose being discriminated against.

I like to leave you with this old proverb to think about
"The screaky wheel always gets the oil."
The screaky wheel always gets the oilweiwentg
Jun 3, 2002 1:45 PM
1) see 'Ain't no makin' it' above. you'll have to read the book.

2) you have some BLack districts and many White ones, all segregated. all of them are clamoring for resources. the tendency is to help the White districts, because they contain the most voters.

3) I tend to think that all low-SES individuals should be helped. especially Blacks. I don't know why there are so few Asians in the better universities.

4) life is unfair. however, it is less fair for some people. take an introductory sociology class - you need to fulfil some social science requirements anyway, right? then you will see why.
Govt in playliu02bhs
Jun 4, 2002 9:31 PM
2) you have some BLack districts and many White ones, all segregated. all of them are clamoring for resources. the tendency is to help the White districts, because they contain the most voters.

Actually it helps the Black district because the voters vote don't count it's their representatives' votes that counts. So if there is less voter per representative, the voter have more say in the political process. That's one of the reason Black districts actually have more say. Think of it as an analogy. Say the representative is a pie, and there are 2 people in one district and 4 in another. Who gets more pie? The district with few people.

3) I tend to think that all low-SES individuals should be helped. especially Blacks. I don't know why there are so few Asians in the better universities.

I didn't say there is a shortage of Asians in the more prestigious institutions. I stated that it's harder for Asians to get them because there is a plethora of well-qualified applicants at this level, because universities reserve spots for the under-represented race, when these spots would other wise goes to a more qualified individual if there is no affirmative action.
re: Yes...jrm
Jun 3, 2002 9:32 AM
Regardless of race, creed or color..if the kid's got the brains, but not the cash, the kid should go.

As a white male i paid my own way through college.
what happen...liu02bhs
Jun 3, 2002 11:40 AM
What if the kid without the brain gets to go instead of the one with the brain?

if the kid's got the brains, but not the cash, the kid should go.

I agree with you 100%. That's why I suggested to do away with affirmative action based on race, but instead on economic level.