Real life example: Was I racially discriminated against?

[prideandfall]

It doesn't matter that it's a volunteer group--he was told no whites need apply.

no he wasn't, that is a blatant and bald faced absolute unmitigated lie.
i'm sure that you as a person are not lying, knowing your posting history i'm sure you honestly believe that, but that statement you just made has no merit within the known facts of this incident.
we've been around and around this, if you don't understand what preference means then you never will and there's no point in arguing it.

"No whites need apply" is just as offensive as "No blacks need apply". If the former is acceptable then so is the latter.

the former and the latter are absolutely acceptable when it comes to independent and individual organizations that aren't employers and don't fall under federal regulations for EoE - there's no law against racial exclusion from clubs. you think that the fact the KKK doesn't have good ethnic diversity in its membership is something anybody gives a fuck about? get real.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Mind explaining how?? Had he been first it just means someone else would have been the victim.

No one was a victim. There was one slot in the volunteer organization open for someone of his overall characteristics and he missed it. If he had been "excluded" pr "discriminated against" because they had enough CPAs, would there have a reason to discuss this at all? The underlying issue is whether it is legitimate for this volunteer organization to seek out a diverse group of volunteers in order to fulfill its mission. I don't know that answer to that question. Interestingly, it appears no one in this thread does. Yet the kneejerk reactions from the SJW white males keeps on coming.

But the characteristic is race--and a decision based on race is racism.

- - - Updated - - -

no he wasn't, that is a blatant and bald faced absolute unmitigated lie.
i'm sure that you as a person are not lying, knowing your posting history i'm sure you honestly believe that, but that statement you just made has no merit within the known facts of this incident.
we've been around and around this, if you don't understand what preference means then you never will and there's no point in arguing it.

No--I understand. I just recognize that racism cuts both ways.

"No whites need apply" is just as offensive as "No blacks need apply". If the former is acceptable then so is the latter.

the former and the latter are absolutely acceptable when it comes to independent and individual organizations that aren't employers and don't fall under federal regulations for EoE - there's no law against racial exclusion from clubs. you think that the fact the KKK doesn't have good ethnic diversity in its membership is something anybody gives a fuck about? get real.

There's no rule in the social realm. There is in the business realm.

 

[laughing dog]

No one was a victim. There was one slot in the volunteer organization open for someone of his overall characteristics and he missed it. If he had been "excluded" pr "discriminated against" because they had enough CPAs, would there have a reason to discuss this at all? The underlying issue is whether it is legitimate for this volunteer organization to seek out a diverse group of volunteers in order to fulfill its mission. I don't know that answer to that question. Interestingly, it appears no one in this thread does. Yet the kneejerk reactions from the SJW white males keeps on coming.

But the characteristic is race--and a decision based on race is racism.

Really? So if a black actor auditions for the part of Dwight Eisenhower or Harry Truman or Abraham Lincoln, but the director wants a white actor, that is a racist decision? Or that in my part of the world where the vast majority of the viewing audience is white, that the news anchors that are hired are white, that is a racist decision?

 

[whichphilosophy]

But the characteristic is race--and a decision based on race is racism.

Really? So if a black actor auditions for the part of Dwight Eisenhower or Harry Truman or Abraham Lincoln, but the director wants a white actor, that is a racist decision? Or that in my part of the world where the vast majority of the viewing audience is white, that the news anchors that are hired are white, that is a racist decision?

It would more likely be a racist decision if a black candidate was given the part of Abraham Lincoln in lieu of white candidate.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

But the characteristic is race--and a decision based on race is racism.

Really? So if a black actor auditions for the part of Dwight Eisenhower or Harry Truman or Abraham Lincoln, but the director wants a white actor, that is a racist decision? Or that in my part of the world where the vast majority of the viewing audience is white, that the news anchors that are hired are white, that is a racist decision?

I have specifically exempted actors and quasi-actors (For example, I have no problem with an ethnic restaurant hiring staff whose appearance matches the theme of the restaurant.)

 

[laughing dog]

Really? So if a black actor auditions for the part of Dwight Eisenhower or Harry Truman or Abraham Lincoln, but the director wants a white actor, that is a racist decision? Or that in my part of the world where the vast majority of the viewing audience is white, that the news anchors that are hired are white, that is a racist decision?

I have specifically exempted actors and quasi-actors (For example, I have no problem with an ethnic restaurant hiring staff whose appearance matches the theme of the restaurant.)

So, in other words, a decision based on race is racism when you think it is racism, otherwise it isn't. Not a terribly helpful standard to anyone else to use.

Do you think it is just possible that the appearances of the volunteers on this board needed to match the goals of the organization which would mean that this was not a LP-deemed racist decision?

 

[whichphilosophy]

the former and the latter are absolutely acceptable when it comes to independent and individual organizations that aren't employers and don't fall under federal regulations for EoE - there's no law against racial exclusion from clubs. you think that the fact the KKK doesn't have good ethnic diversity in its membership is something anybody gives a fuck about? get real.

Actually, the British National Party in the UK was taken to court and forced to take members other than White. I think it recruited one Indian.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I have specifically exempted actors and quasi-actors (For example, I have no problem with an ethnic restaurant hiring staff whose appearance matches the theme of the restaurant.)

So, in other words, a decision based on race is racism when you think it is racism, otherwise it isn't. Not a terribly helpful standard to anyone else to use.

Do you think it is just possible that the appearances of the volunteers on this board needed to match the goals of the organization which would mean that this was not a LP-deemed racist decision?

It's racism unless there's an actual appearance requirement to the job. I disagree with the law on how much of an appearance requirement there needs to be--to me a secondary but relevant requirement (say, the ethnic restaurant) is enough.

 

[laughing dog]

So, in other words, a decision based on race is racism when you think it is racism, otherwise it isn't. Not a terribly helpful standard to anyone else to use.

Do you think it is just possible that the appearances of the volunteers on this board needed to match the goals of the organization which would mean that this was not a LP-deemed racist decision?

It's racism unless there's an actual appearance requirement to the job. I disagree with the law on how much of an appearance requirement there needs to be--to me a secondary but relevant requirement (say, the ethnic restaurant) is enough.

Two observations. First, this is not about a job and it is about the appearance of the group. Second, according to you, it is not racism to deny a white person a job as a waiter at a Chinese restaurant but it is racism to deny a white person a volunteer position in order to have a more diverse group. I find your position difficult to take seriously.

 

[Toni]

It's racism unless there's an actual appearance requirement to the job. I disagree with the law on how much of an appearance requirement there needs to be--to me a secondary but relevant requirement (say, the ethnic restaurant) is enough.

Two observations. First, this is not about a job and it is about the appearance of the group. Second, according to you, it is not racism to deny a white person a job as a waiter at a Chinese restaurant but it is racism to deny a white person a volunteer position in order to have a more diverse group. I find your position difficult to take seriously.

I would say that it is less about the 'appearance' of the group than it is about ensuring that the group is representative of the community at large. On second thought, it is entirely possible that it is about 'appearance' than about representation.

 

[Toni]

Sounded to me more like: we're looking to have a group that more accurately reflects the community and btw, we're full up with people who are less interested in serving and more interested in how being on this board will look on their resume. Even if the number fulfilling the category outlined after the word 'and' is zero it is still a good point.

Why assume based on race that somebody doesn't accurately reflect a community? For all you know the white guy grew up in Hong Kong and the Asian guy grew up in Kansas.

And worse yet, why assume based on race that somebody is more or less interested in serving?

And by this logic, if you are the only black guy in some whitewashed town, should you be forever excluded from such boards because you lack whiteness and so we should assume you cant reflect the community, and you must only be interested in putting this on your resume?

First of all, that white guy born/raised in Hong Kong will always be seen/judged as 'white.' And in the US, that Asian-AMERICAN (did you forget the American part?) will be seen by at least some as Asian first and American...somewhere after first. And will also be judged as being good at math and science and not so good at mechanics or driving. Or guitar.

The other thing is that even my community, which is squarely middle America, mid-west 95% white (percentage white brought down somewhat by the presence of a university) and all that means does have some diversity including blacks and Asian Americans. It seems reasonable to assume that Washington state communities have a >0% Asian population, if only because it is a coastal state.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It's racism unless there's an actual appearance requirement to the job. I disagree with the law on how much of an appearance requirement there needs to be--to me a secondary but relevant requirement (say, the ethnic restaurant) is enough.

Two observations. First, this is not about a job and it is about the appearance of the group. Second, according to you, it is not racism to deny a white person a job as a waiter at a Chinese restaurant but it is racism to deny a white person a volunteer position in order to have a more diverse group. I find your position difficult to take seriously.

I don't find "a diverse group" to be something that actually benefits the employer and thus there's no justification for it.

 

[laughing dog]

Two observations. First, this is not about a job and it is about the appearance of the group. Second, according to you, it is not racism to deny a white person a job as a waiter at a Chinese restaurant but it is racism to deny a white person a volunteer position in order to have a more diverse group. I find your position difficult to take seriously.

I don't find "a diverse group" to be something that actually benefits the employer and thus there's no justification for it.

Two observations, First, that reduces your definition of racism to "A decision based on race is racism, unless I believe otherwise". Second, you assume you know more about the employer or organization's goals, objectives, etc... and what benefits it and what doesn't than the people who are running it. Unless, of course, it is an ethnic restaurant.

 

[Toni]

Just a note: It's always interesting when white men don't get chosen for something they want. There is often a rush to cry "Unfair racism and/or sexism!" but rarely do they consider the many and diverse ways they have benefited precisely because they are white and male. I don't think this is because white men are inherently racist or sexist. I think it really just speaks to how much the status quo is internalized, especially by those who benefit the most from it. And how much easier it is to see injustice when you feel you or those you love are the victims of injustice.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Just a note: It's always interesting when white men don't get chosen for something they want. There is often a rush to cry "Unfair racism and/or sexism!" but rarely do they consider the many and diverse ways they have benefited precisely because they are white and male. I don't think this is because white men are inherently racist or sexist. I think it really just speaks to how much the status quo is internalized, especially by those who benefit the most from it. And how much easier it is to see injustice when you feel you or those you love are the victims of injustice.

Toni,

It's the two hundred points on the SAT

When I was in high school, there was a very popular myth among white students at my school that black students got an extra two hundred point on the SAT simply for being black. would be followed by some screed about how lucky black people were and how unfair and hard it was to be white. The two point bonus of course was not true, but even it had been, what the white students never thought about was that you don't get to be black just for the SATs. Black is a lifetime commitment. You have to be black at traffic stops. You have to black in department stores. You have to black when applying for loans or apartments. You have to be black in the doctor's office and when buying insurance. You have to be black in the all statistics that say you die sooner, live sicker, and are incarcerated longer and more frequently than your white counterparts. Funny but no white students at my school wanted to black in any of those situations.

That is why scenarios like the one in the OP can either elicit eye-rolls, confusion, or belly laughs from people of all colors.

If the OP is to be be believed, even Axulus isn't sure about how to describe what happened and it happened to him.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I don't find "a diverse group" to be something that actually benefits the employer and thus there's no justification for it.

Two observations, First, that reduces your definition of racism to "A decision based on race is racism, unless I believe otherwise". Second, you assume you know more about the employer or organization's goals, objectives, etc... and what benefits it and what doesn't than the people who are running it. Unless, of course, it is an ethnic restaurant.

I'm defining it as a a decision based on the notion that particular races are better or worse without there being an actual reason related to the task at hand.

 

[laughing dog]

Two observations, First, that reduces your definition of racism to "A decision based on race is racism, unless I believe otherwise". Second, you assume you know more about the employer or organization's goals, objectives, etc... and what benefits it and what doesn't than the people who are running it. Unless, of course, it is an ethnic restaurant.

I'm defining it as a a decision based on the notion that particular races are better or worse without there being an actual reason related to the task at hand.

But since you are the sole arbiter of "without there being an actual reason related to the task at hand", that reduces "A decision based on race is racism unless I believe otherwise". Especially, since you appear to believe that you know more about the specifics of a situation than the actors involved.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

I think some consistency is in order. Were this a board consisting thus far of three black women, and they then insisted that regardless of anything else the last spot must be filled by a white male, i dont think we would see all this hand waving and excuse making. It would be rightly called race discrimination.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

I think some consistency is in order. Were this a board consisting thus far of three black women, and they then insisted that regardless of anything else the last spot must be filled by a white male, i dont think we would see all this hand waving and excuse making. It would be rightly called race discrimination.

I don't know. They need someone to handle the money, so insisting on having at least one white guy is just common sense.

 

[Toni]

I think some consistency is in order. Were this a board consisting thus far of three black women, and they then insisted that regardless of anything else the last spot must be filled by a white male, i dont think we would see all this hand waving and excuse making. It would be rightly called race discrimination.

I don't know. They need someone to handle the money, so insisting on having at least one white guy is just common sense.

So long as he was Jewish.