I read this essay (long on words, short on content.) The summary:
"I have a new idea for a search engine. You should be allowed to suggest a modification to the search results. Your modification will be anonymously reviewed, Slashdot-moderation style, by a small, random subset of search engine users. It's nice to learn that the algorithm solves a problem that does not exist with contemporary link-network algorithms, but does with a hypothetical bad idea (the sockpuppetry issue.)"
Now can we talk about the idea? It's an interesting suggestion, actually, despite my snark. It does indeed bust out of the box a little, by leapfrogging google's focus on an arms race of increasingly arcane (one presumes) link-network analysis.
My feeling, though, is that it won't work: the issue being that it eliminates one serious advantage of the google algorithm, which is that it takes work to "vote". If we put aside the question of linkspam (I understand it's an issue, but if my search experience is representative, google is winning the arms race) for a moment. In order to affect search results, a good faith user has to create links to the pages he considers useful for her readers. It's reasonable to expect that such a linker has knowledge greater than the average member of the community.
Indeed, the whole point is that the average member of the community is going to a search engine in order to find out something he doesn't know already. The advantage google has is that it has figured out reasonably good algorithms that take advantage of this "hidden knowledge." Websites gain credibility, and accrue links; in proportion to this credibility, their own opinions count more. It's important to note that google is not a "one man one vote" system -- it is indeed a meritocracy to begin with.
The approximation of incompressible fluid probably holds very well for champaigne. But incompressibility simply means no volume change with pressure change. So you, um, let me think, are correct in your description. I am curious tonight whether this method holds out, however -- it seems that most of the ways to cause, e.g., beer to fizz simply involve mixing more air in (i.e., you need splashing.)
Well, not really -- it began with the Protestant Reformation, when people got sick of the hierarchy of the church and the ways they felt it distorted the faith. Reading the bible directly in their native tongue (instead of having it in Latin and mostly in the custody of priests) was a way to get back to the "true" church. Huge fights on this issue of course, were ordinary people qualified or prepared to do it themselves.
I just propose the radical idea that people should be judged by the content of thier character (and thier qualifications), and not the color of thier skin.
Sure, we are at a common impasse. I claim that black people suffer from racial discrimination, and that compensatory steps need to be taken. You (curiously) refuse to make any statement about racism; given that you are interested in talking about affirmative action, I find that strange. Given that you are making sweeping statements about whether or not we should have affirmative action, I find it rather presumptuous. If there was no racism, I strongly agree with you that affirmative action would be wrong.
Racism exists in America, and it have thousands of subtle effects none of which can be proven individually as racism in a court of law. I suggest, as I have suggested to others in this thread, that you talk to friends of yours who are black (I am assuming, given your comments, that you are indeed white) about racism. Ask them about it, ask them what they think about affirmative action, tell them what you think. I promise you will learn something.
As for me suggesting that you're racist, I didn't; I don't actually believe you are racist, just naieve. You may have been one of the people posting as "Anonymous Coward", however, in which case I suggest not taking offense.
When you hire the less qualified candidate based on thier race, it is plain, old-fashioned discrimination.
I never said that. As I've repeated over and over, I support affirmative action in many cases and do not consider it a form of discrimination. I consider it an imperfect, compensatory solution to historical and contemporary racism. We can debate the meaning of "qualified" unto infinity; my guess is that, in the broadest sense, most beneficiaries of affirmative action are more qualified than the whites whose positions they receive preference for.
The first case I cited, was definitely an example of what we have reaped from our "affirmative action" (i.e "two wrongs make a right") policies and legislation. Is it, just perhaps, because the current state of our laws regarding "affirmative action" makes them feel they need to bend over backwards (hence the "reverse") and to go out of thier way to ensure that an "appropriate" level of each minority?
I believe many companies have problems with racism, and that they try to compensate for it. The example you cited I think was a bad way to do it: it was underhanded, and possibly extreme.
You see only the bad consequences of a culture attentive to racism in society. You don't see the gains we've made. May I suggest you look to the recent riots in Paris for an example of how countries who take the views you do -- that affirmative action is, and can only be, "reverse racism" -- survive?
And, just for the record, I never stated that black people couldn't get jobs on thier merits. Nor anything close to it. thankyouverymuch.
I didn't suggest that about you!
Btw, thanks for admitting that there are at least one or two examples out there, which was my point.;->
I am not some crazy monster! It is a big country, and shit happens. But I maintain, and the data bear me out, that the overwhelming problem in our society is, and continues to be, discrimination against minorities.
No, I think you are correct in stating that PBS, the US government and the SCOTUS are not examples of "angry bloggers."
In the middle of getting the occasional flamebait and offtopic mod for my posts here (they seem to be disappearing) I never asserted that affirmative action doesn't exist. I absolutely resist the use of the doublethink phrase "reverse discrimination" (is that incrimination?) to describe it.
First of all, and most importantly, the case listed in [1] was not the result of civil rights legislation. It was a decision made by the company -- and IMO (from your summary) a very poor one. Why is this company trying to plump up its stats? My guess is that they are worried about workplace discrimination and unfair hiring practices, and are trying to compensate for it in case it ever goes to trial (no, we can't be racist, look at this black guy.)
Contrary to popular belief, black people can be awarded jobs on their merits. Companies doing stupid things are another matter.
[3]. 2% of all discrimination cases being a case of whites making claims certaintly would not occur to the vast numbers of posters on this thread who claim that the answer to "is there still racism in IT" is "yes, it's racism against whites". The level of victimization cultiness going on here is wild.
As for the rest of the thread, you are basically asserting that "affirmative action" and "reverse discrimination", along with the various quotas, shell companies, etc., does not exist.
I never asserted that "affirmative action" -- a policy I wholeheartedly support -- doesn't exist. What I do assert -- since you ask -- is that affirmative action is a necessary part of compensating for, and eliminating, racism in society.
By the way, the very strangeness of the phrase "reverse discrimination" should alert you to the fact that some doublethink is going on. If someone encountered an ad that said "no white person will be hired for this job", that would be discrimination, not "reverse discrimination", and would be treated as such by the courts.
I am amazed at the amount of "flamebait" and "offtopic" moderations I am receiving in my posts on this subject -- posts which I think, while aggressive, are reasoned and well sourced, certinatly more so than the urban legends and anonymous coward "I saw it happen for 25 years" posts that are getting "interesting" mods. I am shocked that a group of people with access to google and the knowledge of how to research a topic could suddenly become so shell-shocked by self-righteous indignation.
Look, I support affirmative action. What that means is that, for example, I support the occasional awarding of college entrance to a black candidate who is less qualified than a white candidate. Do I think that is discrimination? No. I believe -- and facts and figures back me up on this -- that the black candidate will have suffered greater discrimination, will have received a poorer chance at schooling, will have received less attention from teachers, will have had a far higher %age of friends and family in jail.
If he's overcome that to be the near-equal of a white candidate who didn't suffer that, not only is awarding him entrance the morally right thing to do, it is also the pragmatically right thing to do.
And how recently were those tenured professors hired?
Sure, older tenured professors are white males and will keep their job until they retire. But when the university goes to replace or add professors, then the discrimination kicks in.
Most of the profs I know are young, thirties or early forties. The black professor (actually not African-American, but Carribean-British) is I believe in his early forties. You continue to make up facts (actually, you're no longer even pretending to state facts, only opinions.)
When I was in college, I had a friend who was an assistant professor of chemistry, experienced and well-liked. A professorship opened up, and he applied, but was never offered the position. Instead, the university kept the position open for nearly two years, interviewing several dozen applicants, none of whom were white males. My friend, like many recently graduated chemistry doctorates, never did find a position teaching chemistry.
Professorships are hard to get. There are very few. Not to state the obvious, but even if your story ends with "and they hired a black person", your friend's inability to get a job does not mean it was the fault of his race. It is entirely possible -- although you perhaps would disagree -- that the applicant they hired was both better than your friend, and black.
Plenty of people get turned down for good reasons, and plenty get turned down for bad ones (a recent case in my department, e.g., where someone was sunk for petty personal reasons despite being popular and an excellent researcher.)
Cronyism is not automatically racist.
If you hire people because they are your friends, and all your friends are white, then, yes, it is racist, and you would deserve to get sued if a qualified black applicant was turned down in favor of a less qualified white applicant you took because he was your friend.
As I said before, I suggest you talk to friends of yours you trust -- not colleagues who you dislike and think should have been fired -- who are black. Ask them what they think about racism, tell them what you think. Have a discussion. You might learn something.
Considering Robert Byrd has spent years in public mea cupla for what he did, I don't think it's a problem for the Democrats.
Since you seem concerned about the KKK's involvement in national politics, you may be interested to learn that Republican candidates have bought the KKK's phone list -- one example being a 1996 campaign.
The Dems are not perfect, but it is the Republican party at this point who is taking political advantage of racism in our country.
"When I was looking for jobs in the early 1990's, I saw a number of posted positions which explicitly stated that only minority applicants would be considered; no white males need apply."
Except under what I imagine are very very limited circumstances, this was illegal under the Equal Opportunity Act. You could have reported those ads (which, forgive me, I very much believe did not exist), and received a very generous settlement from the company. You would have had no trouble receiving assistance from groups such as the Institute of Justice (a libertarian civil liberties group) in doing so.
Check out how universities recruit and promote tenure track professors. You can be the most qualified and experienced chemist in the world, but no matter how many doctorates you have, if you are a white male good luck finding a position as an Associate Professor anywhere in the USA. Usually the second paragraph of every posting will read "Minorities and women are encouraged to apply.".
I am a postdoc in physics, and know a great deal about minorities in science. I know perhaps a hundred or more professors; only one of them is black. You are now officially making up facts.
Please note that the phrase "minorities and women are encouraged to apply" does not mean "we will not give this job to white men", nor does it mean "we will preferrentially choose minorities or women in favor of equally or greater qualified men." It means that Universities wish to encourage minorities and women to apply for the job. Why would they have to do this? See my next response.
When I ran my own business, I hired people I could trust -- friends of the boss, people I went to college with, people with connections -- of whatever color or gender. So tell me again why I am incorrect to explain my own actions?
My guess is that, unless you are a statistical freak and making the rather non-leap assumption that you are white, that your friends came preferrentially from white races. If you hired only people you knew in a personal manner, you would automatically be guilty of promoting and continuing racism in workplace hiring.
There was a guy who I worked with who was fired, when I talked to him later he ranted on and on about the only reason he lost his job was because he was of mixed race, because his grandmother was Haitian.
It is strange to use the firing of a mixed race worker as evidence that racism does not exist.
Newspaper accounts? That's like saying if you see it on tv, it must be true. I'm not saying everything in the newspaper is false, but come on.
Eh?
OK, so reports in mainstream newspapers cannot be used to substantiate a claim. Neither can the television news, if I catch your drift. Clearly you live in a very information-restricted universe.
Look at the Businessweek article and tell me if you think it's full of lies.
Same goes for magazines. You can choose to trust them, but I would research the topic first.
The Businessweek article discussed a number of actual court cases using real names of real companies and real plantiffs. Don't you think they would be sued out of existence if they just made it up? As for "research the topic first", well, clearly, you haven't done so.
Bottom line is, the only thing I trust is personal experience, and I don't see this bias towards minorities in the workplace. I do see a bias towards lazy and stupid, which anyone can be.
Well, if you haven't seen it, it must not exist. Newspapers who report such things must have made it up for nefarious purposes (for example, Businessweek makes most of its money selling magazines to people who wish to bring down corporate America.)
I don't doubt some people are discriminated against, the same as I don't doubt minorities get preferencial treatment at some companies. I'm just saying I have yet to see either happening on a scale worth my time to think about during a bowel movement.
You must give a great deal of attention to your bowel. You've spent more than a few minutes trying to claim that the source I used to establish that racism in the workplace exists in a substantial fashion is unreliable.
I am not saying that -- on rare occasion -- a qualified white applicant loses to a qualified minority applicant.
What all of these "screw you I know it happens" posters, including you, feel somehow driven to forget about is that reverse situations, in which minority workers are discriminated against and penalised on account of their race, happen all the time. Hell, just google "racism in the workplace" or something similar, and you'll pull up all the newspaper accounts you could dream of.
Meanwhile, I'm sure you would not recognize the hiring of a white applicant over a black one as racism, even when it was. You would explain it as the white guy having connections, being a friend of the boss, having an in with the interviewer because they grew up in the same town or went to the same college. You are incorrect to do so.
You should try talking to black people sometime. Yeah, I know it's tense to talk about race, but the next time you're with a black friend having a beer, ask him what he thinks about the level of racism in American society, and the level he personally experiences as a white collar worker. And tell him what you think. See how he reacts. My guess is that he won't be surprised -- hell, there's an entire wing of the Republican party constructed to catch voters like you -- but he will disagree.
Well, I would assume a Chinese student would have even worse problems understanding an accented Pakistani than you would. So other students suffer more than you, and I would hardly describe it as something you suffer on account of being white.
That Universities find students from overseas more qualified to teach you than the "local english speaking caucasians" is hardly an example of discrimination. You are certaintly correct that many graduate students in the sciences enter the US with very poor English skills. Some study to the TOEFL exam in a very targeted way, leading to overestimates of their practical ability. From personal experience, I find that their skills improve rapidly; by their third year of immersion, they are speaking fluently.
Many companies are scared shitless that they will be targeted under civil rights laws because they appeared to (but actually dont, they just hire the most qualified people who happen to be asian or white for the most part) discriminate against blacks or if they fire a black worker for doing poorly.
Now would be a good time to provide newspaper accounts of such things. Yes, I'm sure if this happened, many would be unreported. But surely there is one good man or woman out there who will speak up with a specific example?
While you're digging that up (no, angry bloggers don't count) perhaps you'd like to read the socialist-communist-worker's party's political organ, Businessweek, whose 2001 article claimed "in an increasingly multicultural U.S., harassment of minorities is on the rise".
There is definitely a subculture of minorities out there who like to use their minority status as a crutch and leveraging tool in the workplace.
Perhaps. Whenever there is a law, even a just law like EOA, there will be people who will try to use it for their personal gain. What is without doubt it that there is a subculture of white people who have gained and retain a significant advantage in the workplace on account of their race.
I would say racism in hiring persists -- subtly -- in academia. My hopeful prediction is that it will disappear in the next ten to twenty years. It is not longer blatant; more a question of the accumulation of subtle factors over the years. (Also, IMO, sexism is a problem as well, and much more obvious -- some think racism is anathama, but have no problem in discriminating against women.)
Racism is much more blatant at the undergraduate and graduate levels of education (i.e., before you go on the academic job market.) In many cases, it is the result of underprepared minority students not being given the attention and training they need to get up to speed after admissions offices have "taken a chance" on students they think are bright but poorly prepared.
Our universities are some of the most successful institutions in the country; it is natural that politicians would like to shift the burden of solving racism at much earlier levels (elementary, grade and high-school education) to the universities.
Your claim is that the Equal Opportunity Act requires employers to hire less qualified workers if they are minorities, and that this explains why you weren't hired.
Wow, it took me two minutes to debunk both those claims.
prostate cancer kills about as many men as breast cancer kills women
No, it doesn't. Prostate cancer deaths are 75% of breast cancer deaths.
breast cancer gets 3x the funding
No, it doesn't. It gets 2x the funding. So, for reference, breast cancer is slightly "overfunded" ($/death, we spend 60% more.) If you're looking for a reason why that might be so, it's because breast cancer strikes at an earlier age. A woman under 40 is EIGHTY-FOUR times more likely to develop breast cancer than a man is to develop prostate cancer.
My guess would be that counting $/lost year of life makes the most sense; we spend (and should spend) much more per death on, say, preventing SIDS than we do on, say, preventing some equally rare consequence of late-stage chemotherapy. You could try to work out the numbers yourself, but I have a feeling you're not the kind of person who likes facts. Facts... they are so cold. Breast cancer versus prostate cancer stats.
OK, onto the next one:
men make up at least 35% of the victums of domestic violence
Well, you have to scroll through a few pages of websites whose main existence is to either promote "Men's Rights" or criticize feminism until you get to a reasonable source: the BBC. There you find the results of a 2001/2002 British Crime survey: "19% of domestic violence incidents were reported to be male victims with just under half of these being committed by a female abuser."
I'm going to take a wild stab in the dark here and suggest that you are less concerned with gay victims of domestic abuse because your larger point is that men in heterosexual relationships are somehow "discriminated" against. In any case, the correct statistic would be 9.5%, not "over 35%." BBC reference.
Thanks for playing "make up facts"; you have lost. Please try an easier game. We suggest cable TV.
Well, I was confused by your use of the word "superpower". There are plenty of countries doing well economically that aren't superpowers. Meanwhile, my vauge guess is that parts of China are well-off enough economically that they are starting to care about trivial things like not being able to speak their minds, have access to a fair court system or generally enjoy the fruits of their labor. AFAICT, the Chinese are a lot like Americans, as in, they generally want two things: personal freedom of the bill-of-rights kind, and to make scads of cash.
Communicate what, though? Everyone knows that getting thrown into prison on a whim or being executed for your religion are Bad Things, so what can a march teach them? Maybe a march accompanies with rock/mototov parties. At least that'll communicate the crucial message that "some shit is about to go down shortly, and you should either pick a side or get out of the way."
China is not going to have a civil war. In part because nobody wants the massive violence that would be associated with one. Meanwhile, a march communicates to people that "you are not alone" -- that the thoughts you're having that you might be too afraid to express are shared by others.
You seem to think that the Chinese government is just being silly in suppressing wikipedia and outside (and internal) sources of information. My feeling is that while totalitarian governments often make strange decisions (and some make very strange decisions, N. Korea and Burma, e.g.), they know exactly what they're doing here.
The Chinese government, unlike the North Korean one, depends for its national security on its citizens making lots of money, and in order to make a lot of money you need to have certain elements of freedom. They can't shoot everyone who disagrees lest they destroy their economy. They prefer to shoot a few of the "worst" ones, with the hope that it will discourage others. It's a bit of a prisoner's dilemma, in a way, and marches are a way of solving it: people stand up and say, not only do I think the way you do, but I'm willing to take risks to express it.
Debtaes on China's superpower status aside -- what does superpower status have to do with civil rights? -- marching has been quite effective in the past. When other communications are suppressed by law, custom, or technological barriers, marches are one of the most effective ways to communicate with your fellow citizens. Why do you think China suppresses them?
Microsoft: How's it going?
Developer: Great. I am working on this new program, "Firefox".
Microsoft: Oh.
Developer: Yeah, it's going to be great. Would you like to fund my new project, "Open Source".
Microsoft: Well, that's an excellent idea. How about we start a foundation?
Developer: Great.
Microsoft: Here is a large amount of money for a new foundation. It's called "New Frontiers in Not Web Browsers."
Developer: Uh...
Microsoft: It also promotes Not Open Source, a modified version of your excellent "Open Source" idea.
Developer: Uh...
Microsoft: Think of the impact you will have on the Not Open Source Not Web Browser world.
Actually, I believe the best use of RSS is for infrequently-updated blogs. My own blog I update once a week or so; I estimate -- from anecdotal reports alone! -- that about a quarter or more of my traffic comes from people using RSS-like systems. And this is for a lit-related blog, hardly a domain of super-tech-guru knowledge -- people use things like my.yahoo, I don't believe many use a local machine application.
It seems silly to use RSS for sites like slashdot or people who write a post or more a day. You can't keep up with that, so you end up having to "manage" your RSS inbox rather heavily. On the other hand, it's a great way to keep track of the less updated blogs; instead of having to load up a whole bunch of sites over and over waiting for new content, you can just be alerted when something new comes up.
Well done, yes, this is quite true. I believe the General Relativistic (gravity) and Special Relativistic (relative motion) effects are actually of the same order, and indeed, the software does have to take both into account to reach the accuracy it does. I believe that this is the only use of General Relativity in consumer applications.
I was studying for the GREs (the subject test, which is hard -- at least in physics, where overseas students study question banks all year and wreck the curve -- not the general one.) A friend of mine and I were in the local cafe at different desks drilling all the inane formulae you need to remember. This was back when I smoked.
Anyway, I'm sitting there working away, and this insanely beautiful woman I've never seen before walks in and sits down across from me at my tiny table. She is Middle Eastern-looking, so hot I now understand why suicide bombers do it for the seventy-two. Doing all this sultry stuff with her eyes. Anyway.
She takes a cigarette from my pack and waits for me to light it, which I do kind of shakily because I've never been hit on in this extremely hardcore fashion. My mind is processing two very incompatible pieces of information. Career as physicist... extremely hot woman right now... career as physicist... extremely hot woman right now...
As you can imagine, because I am a loser, I then very awkwardly explained why she had to leave now (even more awkward because up to this point nobody had said anything and the cafe was rather quiet.) I've never seen a woman look so disgusted with me in my life. After she left the cafe I turned to my friend and I was like, you saw that, right, you totally saw that.
I feel like I spend half my life in cafes. Never has anything remotely like it ever happened again. I have angered the cafe gods and it will never happen again.
Slashdot Mirror
I read this essay (long on words, short on content.) The summary:
"I have a new idea for a search engine. You should be allowed to suggest a modification to the search results. Your modification will be anonymously reviewed, Slashdot-moderation style, by a small, random subset of search engine users. It's nice to learn that the algorithm solves a problem that does not exist with contemporary link-network algorithms, but does with a hypothetical bad idea (the sockpuppetry issue.)"
Now can we talk about the idea? It's an interesting suggestion, actually, despite my snark. It does indeed bust out of the box a little, by leapfrogging google's focus on an arms race of increasingly arcane (one presumes) link-network analysis.
My feeling, though, is that it won't work: the issue being that it eliminates one serious advantage of the google algorithm, which is that it takes work to "vote". If we put aside the question of linkspam (I understand it's an issue, but if my search experience is representative, google is winning the arms race) for a moment. In order to affect search results, a good faith user has to create links to the pages he considers useful for her readers. It's reasonable to expect that such a linker has knowledge greater than the average member of the community.
Indeed, the whole point is that the average member of the community is going to a search engine in order to find out something he doesn't know already. The advantage google has is that it has figured out reasonably good algorithms that take advantage of this "hidden knowledge." Websites gain credibility, and accrue links; in proportion to this credibility, their own opinions count more. It's important to note that google is not a "one man one vote" system -- it is indeed a meritocracy to begin with.
The approximation of incompressible fluid probably holds very well for champaigne. But incompressibility simply means no volume change with pressure change. So you, um, let me think, are correct in your description. I am curious tonight whether this method holds out, however -- it seems that most of the ways to cause, e.g., beer to fizz simply involve mixing more air in (i.e., you need splashing.)
Well, not really -- it began with the Protestant Reformation, when people got sick of the hierarchy of the church and the ways they felt it distorted the faith. Reading the bible directly in their native tongue (instead of having it in Latin and mostly in the custody of priests) was a way to get back to the "true" church. Huge fights on this issue of course, were ordinary people qualified or prepared to do it themselves.
This is all starting in the 16th century.
I just propose the radical idea that people should be judged by the content of thier character (and thier qualifications), and not the color of thier skin.
Sure, we are at a common impasse. I claim that black people suffer from racial discrimination, and that compensatory steps need to be taken. You (curiously) refuse to make any statement about racism; given that you are interested in talking about affirmative action, I find that strange. Given that you are making sweeping statements about whether or not we should have affirmative action, I find it rather presumptuous. If there was no racism, I strongly agree with you that affirmative action would be wrong.
Racism exists in America, and it have thousands of subtle effects none of which can be proven individually as racism in a court of law. I suggest, as I have suggested to others in this thread, that you talk to friends of yours who are black (I am assuming, given your comments, that you are indeed white) about racism. Ask them about it, ask them what they think about affirmative action, tell them what you think. I promise you will learn something.
As for me suggesting that you're racist, I didn't; I don't actually believe you are racist, just naieve. You may have been one of the people posting as "Anonymous Coward", however, in which case I suggest not taking offense.
When you hire the less qualified candidate based on thier race, it is plain, old-fashioned discrimination.
;->
I never said that. As I've repeated over and over, I support affirmative action in many cases and do not consider it a form of discrimination. I consider it an imperfect, compensatory solution to historical and contemporary racism. We can debate the meaning of "qualified" unto infinity; my guess is that, in the broadest sense, most beneficiaries of affirmative action are more qualified than the whites whose positions they receive preference for.
The first case I cited, was definitely an example of what we have reaped from our "affirmative action" (i.e "two wrongs make a right") policies and legislation. Is it, just perhaps, because the current state of our laws regarding "affirmative action" makes them feel they need to bend over backwards (hence the "reverse") and to go out of thier way to ensure that an "appropriate" level of each minority?
I believe many companies have problems with racism, and that they try to compensate for it. The example you cited I think was a bad way to do it: it was underhanded, and possibly extreme.
You see only the bad consequences of a culture attentive to racism in society. You don't see the gains we've made. May I suggest you look to the recent riots in Paris for an example of how countries who take the views you do -- that affirmative action is, and can only be, "reverse racism" -- survive?
And, just for the record, I never stated that black people couldn't get jobs on thier merits. Nor anything close to it. thankyouverymuch.
I didn't suggest that about you!
Btw, thanks for admitting that there are at least one or two examples out there, which was my point.
I am not some crazy monster! It is a big country, and shit happens. But I maintain, and the data bear me out, that the overwhelming problem in our society is, and continues to be, discrimination against minorities.
No, I think you are correct in stating that PBS, the US government and the SCOTUS are not examples of "angry bloggers."
In the middle of getting the occasional flamebait and offtopic mod for my posts here (they seem to be disappearing) I never asserted that affirmative action doesn't exist. I absolutely resist the use of the doublethink phrase "reverse discrimination" (is that incrimination?) to describe it.
First of all, and most importantly, the case listed in [1] was not the result of civil rights legislation. It was a decision made by the company -- and IMO (from your summary) a very poor one. Why is this company trying to plump up its stats? My guess is that they are worried about workplace discrimination and unfair hiring practices, and are trying to compensate for it in case it ever goes to trial (no, we can't be racist, look at this black guy.)
Contrary to popular belief, black people can be awarded jobs on their merits. Companies doing stupid things are another matter.
[2]. I completely support affirmative action, especially in university admissions. I've posted a response on that elsewhere.
[3]. 2% of all discrimination cases being a case of whites making claims certaintly would not occur to the vast numbers of posters on this thread who claim that the answer to "is there still racism in IT" is "yes, it's racism against whites". The level of victimization cultiness going on here is wild.
Here is some data on interracial friendships.
Like you, I live in a diverse city.
As for the rest of the thread, you are basically asserting that "affirmative action" and "reverse discrimination", along with the various quotas, shell companies, etc., does not exist.
I never asserted that "affirmative action" -- a policy I wholeheartedly support -- doesn't exist. What I do assert -- since you ask -- is that affirmative action is a necessary part of compensating for, and eliminating, racism in society.
By the way, the very strangeness of the phrase "reverse discrimination" should alert you to the fact that some doublethink is going on. If someone encountered an ad that said "no white person will be hired for this job", that would be discrimination, not "reverse discrimination", and would be treated as such by the courts.
I am amazed at the amount of "flamebait" and "offtopic" moderations I am receiving in my posts on this subject -- posts which I think, while aggressive, are reasoned and well sourced, certinatly more so than the urban legends and anonymous coward "I saw it happen for 25 years" posts that are getting "interesting" mods. I am shocked that a group of people with access to google and the knowledge of how to research a topic could suddenly become so shell-shocked by self-righteous indignation.
Look, I support affirmative action. What that means is that, for example, I support the occasional awarding of college entrance to a black candidate who is less qualified than a white candidate. Do I think that is discrimination? No. I believe -- and facts and figures back me up on this -- that the black candidate will have suffered greater discrimination, will have received a poorer chance at schooling, will have received less attention from teachers, will have had a far higher %age of friends and family in jail.
If he's overcome that to be the near-equal of a white candidate who didn't suffer that, not only is awarding him entrance the morally right thing to do, it is also the pragmatically right thing to do.
And how recently were those tenured professors hired? Sure, older tenured professors are white males and will keep their job until they retire. But when the university goes to replace or add professors, then the discrimination kicks in.
Most of the profs I know are young, thirties or early forties. The black professor (actually not African-American, but Carribean-British) is I believe in his early forties. You continue to make up facts (actually, you're no longer even pretending to state facts, only opinions.)
When I was in college, I had a friend who was an assistant professor of chemistry, experienced and well-liked. A professorship opened up, and he applied, but was never offered the position. Instead, the university kept the position open for nearly two years, interviewing several dozen applicants, none of whom were white males. My friend, like many recently graduated chemistry doctorates, never did find a position teaching chemistry.
Professorships are hard to get. There are very few. Not to state the obvious, but even if your story ends with "and they hired a black person", your friend's inability to get a job does not mean it was the fault of his race. It is entirely possible -- although you perhaps would disagree -- that the applicant they hired was both better than your friend, and black.
Plenty of people get turned down for good reasons, and plenty get turned down for bad ones (a recent case in my department, e.g., where someone was sunk for petty personal reasons despite being popular and an excellent researcher.)
Cronyism is not automatically racist.
If you hire people because they are your friends, and all your friends are white, then, yes, it is racist, and you would deserve to get sued if a qualified black applicant was turned down in favor of a less qualified white applicant you took because he was your friend.
As I said before, I suggest you talk to friends of yours you trust -- not colleagues who you dislike and think should have been fired -- who are black. Ask them what they think about racism, tell them what you think. Have a discussion. You might learn something.
Considering Robert Byrd has spent years in public mea cupla for what he did, I don't think it's a problem for the Democrats.
Since you seem concerned about the KKK's involvement in national politics, you may be interested to learn that Republican candidates have bought the KKK's phone list -- one example being a 1996 campaign.
The Dems are not perfect, but it is the Republican party at this point who is taking political advantage of racism in our country.
"When I was looking for jobs in the early 1990's, I saw a number of posted positions which explicitly stated that only minority applicants would be considered; no white males need apply."
Except under what I imagine are very very limited circumstances, this was illegal under the Equal Opportunity Act. You could have reported those ads (which, forgive me, I very much believe did not exist), and received a very generous settlement from the company. You would have had no trouble receiving assistance from groups such as the Institute of Justice (a libertarian civil liberties group) in doing so.
Check out how universities recruit and promote tenure track professors. You can be the most qualified and experienced chemist in the world, but no matter how many doctorates you have, if you are a white male good luck finding a position as an Associate Professor anywhere in the USA. Usually the second paragraph of every posting will read "Minorities and women are encouraged to apply.".
I am a postdoc in physics, and know a great deal about minorities in science. I know perhaps a hundred or more professors; only one of them is black. You are now officially making up facts.
Please note that the phrase "minorities and women are encouraged to apply" does not mean "we will not give this job to white men", nor does it mean "we will preferrentially choose minorities or women in favor of equally or greater qualified men." It means that Universities wish to encourage minorities and women to apply for the job. Why would they have to do this? See my next response.
When I ran my own business, I hired people I could trust -- friends of the boss, people I went to college with, people with connections -- of whatever color or gender. So tell me again why I am incorrect to explain my own actions?
My guess is that, unless you are a statistical freak and making the rather non-leap assumption that you are white, that your friends came preferrentially from white races. If you hired only people you knew in a personal manner, you would automatically be guilty of promoting and continuing racism in workplace hiring.
There was a guy who I worked with who was fired, when I talked to him later he ranted on and on about the only reason he lost his job was because he was of mixed race, because his grandmother was Haitian.
It is strange to use the firing of a mixed race worker as evidence that racism does not exist.
Newspaper accounts? That's like saying if you see it on tv, it must be true. I'm not saying everything in the newspaper is false, but come on.
Eh?
OK, so reports in mainstream newspapers cannot be used to substantiate a claim. Neither can the television news, if I catch your drift. Clearly you live in a very information-restricted universe.
Look at the Businessweek article and tell me if you think it's full of lies.
Same goes for magazines. You can choose to trust them, but I would research the topic first.
The Businessweek article discussed a number of actual court cases using real names of real companies and real plantiffs. Don't you think they would be sued out of existence if they just made it up? As for "research the topic first", well, clearly, you haven't done so.
Bottom line is, the only thing I trust is personal experience, and I don't see this bias towards minorities in the workplace. I do see a bias towards lazy and stupid, which anyone can be.
Well, if you haven't seen it, it must not exist. Newspapers who report such things must have made it up for nefarious purposes (for example, Businessweek makes most of its money selling magazines to people who wish to bring down corporate America.)
I don't doubt some people are discriminated against, the same as I don't doubt minorities get preferencial treatment at some companies. I'm just saying I have yet to see either happening on a scale worth my time to think about during a bowel movement.
You must give a great deal of attention to your bowel. You've spent more than a few minutes trying to claim that the source I used to establish that racism in the workplace exists in a substantial fashion is unreliable.
I am not saying that -- on rare occasion -- a qualified white applicant loses to a qualified minority applicant.
What all of these "screw you I know it happens" posters, including you, feel somehow driven to forget about is that reverse situations, in which minority workers are discriminated against and penalised on account of their race, happen all the time. Hell, just google "racism in the workplace" or something similar, and you'll pull up all the newspaper accounts you could dream of.
Meanwhile, I'm sure you would not recognize the hiring of a white applicant over a black one as racism, even when it was. You would explain it as the white guy having connections, being a friend of the boss, having an in with the interviewer because they grew up in the same town or went to the same college. You are incorrect to do so.
You should try talking to black people sometime. Yeah, I know it's tense to talk about race, but the next time you're with a black friend having a beer, ask him what he thinks about the level of racism in American society, and the level he personally experiences as a white collar worker. And tell him what you think. See how he reacts. My guess is that he won't be surprised -- hell, there's an entire wing of the Republican party constructed to catch voters like you -- but he will disagree.
Well, I would assume a Chinese student would have even worse problems understanding an accented Pakistani than you would. So other students suffer more than you, and I would hardly describe it as something you suffer on account of being white.
That Universities find students from overseas more qualified to teach you than the "local english speaking caucasians" is hardly an example of discrimination. You are certaintly correct that many graduate students in the sciences enter the US with very poor English skills. Some study to the TOEFL exam in a very targeted way, leading to overestimates of their practical ability. From personal experience, I find that their skills improve rapidly; by their third year of immersion, they are speaking fluently.
Many companies are scared shitless that they will be targeted under civil rights laws because they appeared to (but actually dont, they just hire the most qualified people who happen to be asian or white for the most part) discriminate against blacks or if they fire a black worker for doing poorly.
Now would be a good time to provide newspaper accounts of such things. Yes, I'm sure if this happened, many would be unreported. But surely there is one good man or woman out there who will speak up with a specific example?
While you're digging that up (no, angry bloggers don't count) perhaps you'd like to read the socialist-communist-worker's party's political organ, Businessweek, whose 2001 article claimed "in an increasingly multicultural U.S., harassment of minorities is on the rise".
There is definitely a subculture of minorities out there who like to use their minority status as a crutch and leveraging tool in the workplace.
Perhaps. Whenever there is a law, even a just law like EOA, there will be people who will try to use it for their personal gain. What is without doubt it that there is a subculture of white people who have gained and retain a significant advantage in the workplace on account of their race.
I would say racism in hiring persists -- subtly -- in academia. My hopeful prediction is that it will disappear in the next ten to twenty years. It is not longer blatant; more a question of the accumulation of subtle factors over the years. (Also, IMO, sexism is a problem as well, and much more obvious -- some think racism is anathama, but have no problem in discriminating against women.)
Racism is much more blatant at the undergraduate and graduate levels of education (i.e., before you go on the academic job market.) In many cases, it is the result of underprepared minority students not being given the attention and training they need to get up to speed after admissions offices have "taken a chance" on students they think are bright but poorly prepared.
Our universities are some of the most successful institutions in the country; it is natural that politicians would like to shift the burden of solving racism at much earlier levels (elementary, grade and high-school education) to the universities.
Your claim is that the Equal Opportunity Act requires employers to hire less qualified workers if they are minorities, and that this explains why you weren't hired.
These claims are false. Please check for yourself.
Wow, it took me two minutes to debunk both those claims.
prostate cancer kills about as many men as breast cancer kills women
No, it doesn't. Prostate cancer deaths are 75% of breast cancer deaths.
breast cancer gets 3x the funding
No, it doesn't. It gets 2x the funding. So, for reference, breast cancer is slightly "overfunded" ($/death, we spend 60% more.) If you're looking for a reason why that might be so, it's because breast cancer strikes at an earlier age. A woman under 40 is EIGHTY-FOUR times more likely to develop breast cancer than a man is to develop prostate cancer.
My guess would be that counting $/lost year of life makes the most sense; we spend (and should spend) much more per death on, say, preventing SIDS than we do on, say, preventing some equally rare consequence of late-stage chemotherapy. You could try to work out the numbers yourself, but I have a feeling you're not the kind of person who likes facts. Facts... they are so cold. Breast cancer versus prostate cancer stats.
OK, onto the next one:
men make up at least 35% of the victums of domestic violence
Well, you have to scroll through a few pages of websites whose main existence is to either promote "Men's Rights" or criticize feminism until you get to a reasonable source: the BBC. There you find the results of a 2001/2002 British Crime survey: "19% of domestic violence incidents were reported to be male victims with just under half of these being committed by a female abuser."
I'm going to take a wild stab in the dark here and suggest that you are less concerned with gay victims of domestic abuse because your larger point is that men in heterosexual relationships are somehow "discriminated" against. In any case, the correct statistic would be 9.5%, not "over 35%." BBC reference.
Thanks for playing "make up facts"; you have lost. Please try an easier game. We suggest cable TV.
Well, I was confused by your use of the word "superpower". There are plenty of countries doing well economically that aren't superpowers. Meanwhile, my vauge guess is that parts of China are well-off enough economically that they are starting to care about trivial things like not being able to speak their minds, have access to a fair court system or generally enjoy the fruits of their labor. AFAICT, the Chinese are a lot like Americans, as in, they generally want two things: personal freedom of the bill-of-rights kind, and to make scads of cash.
Communicate what, though? Everyone knows that getting thrown into prison on a whim or being executed for your religion are Bad Things, so what can a march teach them? Maybe a march accompanies with rock/mototov parties. At least that'll communicate the crucial message that "some shit is about to go down shortly, and you should either pick a side or get out of the way."
China is not going to have a civil war. In part because nobody wants the massive violence that would be associated with one. Meanwhile, a march communicates to people that "you are not alone" -- that the thoughts you're having that you might be too afraid to express are shared by others.
You seem to think that the Chinese government is just being silly in suppressing wikipedia and outside (and internal) sources of information. My feeling is that while totalitarian governments often make strange decisions (and some make very strange decisions, N. Korea and Burma, e.g.), they know exactly what they're doing here.
The Chinese government, unlike the North Korean one, depends for its national security on its citizens making lots of money, and in order to make a lot of money you need to have certain elements of freedom. They can't shoot everyone who disagrees lest they destroy their economy. They prefer to shoot a few of the "worst" ones, with the hope that it will discourage others. It's a bit of a prisoner's dilemma, in a way, and marches are a way of solving it: people stand up and say, not only do I think the way you do, but I'm willing to take risks to express it.
PS: the Velvet Revolution?
Debtaes on China's superpower status aside -- what does superpower status have to do with civil rights? -- marching has been quite effective in the past. When other communications are suppressed by law, custom, or technological barriers, marches are one of the most effective ways to communicate with your fellow citizens. Why do you think China suppresses them?
Microsoft: How's it going?
Developer: Great. I am working on this new program, "Firefox".
Microsoft: Oh.
Developer: Yeah, it's going to be great. Would you like to fund my new project, "Open Source".
Microsoft: Well, that's an excellent idea. How about we start a foundation?
Developer: Great.
Microsoft: Here is a large amount of money for a new foundation. It's called "New Frontiers in Not Web Browsers."
Developer: Uh...
Microsoft: It also promotes Not Open Source, a modified version of your excellent "Open Source" idea.
Developer: Uh...
Microsoft: Think of the impact you will have on the Not Open Source Not Web Browser world.
Actually, I believe the best use of RSS is for infrequently-updated blogs. My own blog I update once a week or so; I estimate -- from anecdotal reports alone! -- that about a quarter or more of my traffic comes from people using RSS-like systems. And this is for a lit-related blog, hardly a domain of super-tech-guru knowledge -- people use things like my.yahoo, I don't believe many use a local machine application.
It seems silly to use RSS for sites like slashdot or people who write a post or more a day. You can't keep up with that, so you end up having to "manage" your RSS inbox rather heavily. On the other hand, it's a great way to keep track of the less updated blogs; instead of having to load up a whole bunch of sites over and over waiting for new content, you can just be alerted when something new comes up.
Well done, yes, this is quite true. I believe the General Relativistic (gravity) and Special Relativistic (relative motion) effects are actually of the same order, and indeed, the software does have to take both into account to reach the accuracy it does. I believe that this is the only use of General Relativity in consumer applications.
A rather technical ref.
Why do you keep turning up the volume?
The exam was the next day. We had put off studying the horrible thing until the last possible moment.
And it happened RIGHT HERE. Oh the trauma.
I was studying for the GREs (the subject test, which is hard -- at least in physics, where overseas students study question banks all year and wreck the curve -- not the general one.) A friend of mine and I were in the local cafe at different desks drilling all the inane formulae you need to remember. This was back when I smoked.
Anyway, I'm sitting there working away, and this insanely beautiful woman I've never seen before walks in and sits down across from me at my tiny table. She is Middle Eastern-looking, so hot I now understand why suicide bombers do it for the seventy-two. Doing all this sultry stuff with her eyes. Anyway.
She takes a cigarette from my pack and waits for me to light it, which I do kind of shakily because I've never been hit on in this extremely hardcore fashion. My mind is processing two very incompatible pieces of information. Career as physicist... extremely hot woman right now... career as physicist... extremely hot woman right now...
As you can imagine, because I am a loser, I then very awkwardly explained why she had to leave now (even more awkward because up to this point nobody had said anything and the cafe was rather quiet.) I've never seen a woman look so disgusted with me in my life. After she left the cafe I turned to my friend and I was like, you saw that, right, you totally saw that.
I feel like I spend half my life in cafes. Never has anything remotely like it ever happened again. I have angered the cafe gods and it will never happen again.