The predominant factor in black deaths by police is more crimes commited - not racism

[Crazy Eddie]

I seriously doubt that even the people who applied and enforced Jim Crow laws thought they were fair or even fairly applied. Same for slavers and slave owners.

This is actually kind of debatable. History suggests that the advent of white supremacism was in the first place a social construct meant to justify what seemed to be the economic necessity of chattel slavery. That this line of thought didn't really catch on in England or Europe would explain why slavery was abolished more quickly in those areas. On the other hand, white supremacist thought was actually amplified in the African colonies where continued subjugation of blacks was even more important and white control of the population was that much more tenuous; the ramifications of THAT continue to be felt centuries later.

Jim Crow is the result of the meme that was created to assuage the consciences of slave owners: that slavery was actually GOOD for slaves, that slaves were happier in chains than they were free, that slavery brought them to Christ and therefore saved their souls, that they would be degenerates and savages otherwise. Jim Crow took this idea, extracted and then amplified the superiority complex that had grown up around it. By their twisted internal logic, I think segregationists DID believe that Jim Crow was better for black people, and that the reason it seemed to be unfair was because black people were genuinely inferior in the first place and therefore weren't entitled to a similar standard of services (babies eat baby food; kids sit in booster seats; girls use the girl's room, and colored people go to colored schools).

 

[Metaphor]

First I need to know the point of this question.

You're claiming that race can be a relevant factor to use in selection. I'm asking for an example.

Does an anaesthesiologist's race have a bearing on how good an anaesthesiologist she is?

Any of those is pretty one dimensional.

That's why I listed more than one.

I think academic success means a more fully educated person. Grades are a very imperfect measure of that. I have never understood the completion of a degree on time as a measure of academic success. Completion of higher degrees is more a measure of the tolerance of low standards of living than anything else.

It's nothing of the kind. You can't get into higher degrees without the proven academic aptitude to handle it. Or do you believe anyone has the aptitude and interest in completing a PhD, and the rest of the people are just tired of being income-poor?

When communities expect their firefighters to reflect their demographics.

The individuals in those communities who want and expect that are immoral, racist idiots.

I seriously doubt that even the people who applied and enforced Jim Crow laws thought they were fair or even fairly applied. Same for slavers and slave owners.

So, people know affirmative action is unfair, but they don't care.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

I should have thought my example clarified it.

You gave an example of an organization doing research and coming up with a perfectly logical rationale for preferring white teachers. This rationale is obviously politically inconvenient for that organization, and that would have to deal with it carefully however they chose to address it.

Is there something absurd about organizations having to leverage politics with efficiency? I'm pretty sure that happens quite a lot in the real world.

No. You didn't say 'look for a candidate with a new perspective.' You said look for a candidate of a particular race.

Is the problem that you don't believe that people from different racial backgrounds are likely to possess a different social perspective? Or that you don't believe that organizations can/should/do use racial background as a starting point when searching for a different perspective? I'm pretty sure that ALSO happens quite a lot in the real world.

Do you think every Black person is interchangeable with any other?

No. And probably neither do the human resources people who have to interview potential new hires to find out if the minority candidate who applied for the job actually fits the criteria that management is looking for. This is why affirmative action programs BEGIN with "looking for qualified minority candidates." I have never seen a job offering that reads "Looking for two token black guys to boost our street cred. Any two will do."

Skin colour is not a perspective.

It's also not the sole criterion in hiring minorities. And I'm pretty sure you knew that already.

So, it's fine to hire people based partly on race, wholly on race, or indeed, on any criterion you care to name, as long as you've got community support?

No. It's fine to hire people based on a criterion you identify as ideal for your organization's needs. In this case, the school has determined that white children respond better to a white teacher. Assuming that research is valid and the theory is sound (lol) then winning the support of the community is a POLITICAL issue, not a moral one. That is to say, how would you go about convincing your community that your hiring decisions really ARE based on a reasoned and well-thought-out assessment of what your school really needs?

So, allowing race to influence hiring=social justice?

Depends on why you're doing it. Affirmative action programs, in particular, are structured for that purpose. So are programs that seek to promote general diversity representation, among other reasons.

I'm pretty sure you knew that too, and your faux outrage on this subject is getting just a LITTLE bit tiresome.

 

[barbos]

http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/pdf/10.1146/annurev-publhealth-031914-122535

Interesting statistics. 90% of gun related deaths among blacks is homicide, and 90% of deaths among whites is suicide. NRA people who are predominantly white are mostly use guns to kill themselves.

 

[Metaphor]

You gave an example of an organization doing research and coming up with a perfectly logical rationale for preferring white teachers. This rationale is obviously politically inconvenient for that organization, and that would have to deal with it carefully however they chose to address it.

They'd be legally prevented from doing it.

Is there something absurd about organizations having to leverage politics with efficiency? I'm pretty sure that happens quite a lot in the real world.

They'd be legally prevented from doing it.

Is the problem that you don't believe that people from different racial backgrounds are likely to possess a different social perspective? Or that you don't believe that organizations can/should/do use racial background as a starting point when searching for a different perspective? I'm pretty sure that ALSO happens quite a lot in the real world.

Why does the organisation need a 'different perspective'? How is a 'different perspective' related to the organisation's goals? Can it be any 'perspective' or can it only be the perspective of a minority? Does having one minority give enough 'perspective' or does every minority bring a different perspective? Can only minorities bring perspective?

his is why affirmative action programs BEGIN with "looking for qualified minority candidates." I have never seen a job offering that reads "Looking for two token black guys to boost our street cred. Any two will do."

Of course they don't, just as you've never seen a job ad that says 'looking for qualified White candidates'. That's because hiring based on excluding a particular race is frowned upon.

Or at least it used to be.

It's also not the sole criterion in hiring minorities. And I'm pretty sure you knew that already.

I never claimed it was.

No. It's fine to hire people based on a criterion you identify as ideal for your organization's needs. In this case, the school has determined that white children respond better to a white teacher. Assuming that research is valid and the theory is sound (lol) then winning the support of the community is a POLITICAL issue, not a moral one. That is to say, how would you go about convincing your community that your hiring decisions really ARE based on a reasoned and well-thought-out assessment of what your school really needs?

You'd probably be pushing shit uphill, since the majority of people are neither convinced by evidence nor will listen to reason.

Depends on why you're doing it. Affirmative action programs, in particular, are structured for that purpose. So are programs that seek to promote general diversity representation, among other reasons.

I'm pretty sure you knew that too, and your faux outrage on this subject is getting just a LITTLE bit tiresome.

Faux outrage? I assure you, there's nothing faux about it.

I believe allowing your racial preferences to influence hiring decisions is immoral and bad for the fabric of society and it's bad for the economy.

 

[Davka]

http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/pdf/10.1146/annurev-publhealth-031914-122535

Interesting statistics. 90% of gun related deaths among blacks is homicide, and 90% of deaths among whites is suicide. NRA people who are predominantly white are mostly use guns to kill themselves.

Wish they'd hurry up already.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You are deeply confused about your terms here. The cost of labor is equivalent to the cost of paying your workers' wages on a regular basis. Slave owners do not pay their slaves, therefore their labor costs are very near zero. They do have fixed costs of feeding and maintaining their slaves, but these amount to operating expenses and are not technically labor costs.

Actually, the savings won't be all that great. Were they freemen they wouldn't have had a much higher standard of living. What slavery got you was the ability to overwork and mistreat them.

- - - Updated - - -

And when you assume, what do you do? Ass-u-me.

To tell the truth would get them nailed. Of course they're lying.

Speaking the truth you don't want to hear makes someone a liar. Do you realize how fucking ridiculous that makes you look?

What you are missing is that what she's reporting it what they are bound to say no matter what the reality is. Taking their word for it is akin to taking the suspect's word that he's not guilty.

 

[Toni]

Well, the only thing I am assuming is that admissions counselors are basically honest when I've talked with them and when I read articles where they are quoted extensively.

If you read what I have written or better yet, the words of admissions counselors, you will see that indeed some perfect scorers do not get into some programs. Because being good at taking tests is no the same as being a good doctor.

I think you will find you are not correct in your other assumptions.

And when you assume, what do you do? Ass-u-me.

Rubber/glue and all of that. So what's next? Triple dog dare followed by a scathing Nanny nanny boo boo?

You realize that universities are under a great deal of scrutiny and must be able to substantiate their admissions follow stated policy. And the law.

To tell the truth would get them nailed. Of course they're lying.

To consider that characteristics which make one a suitable candidate for admissions to institutions of higher learning are not overwhelmingly found among white males compared with say: black or brown people or people with vaginas would make your head explode, wouldn't it?

Here's the truth: the only reason that almost all who were admitted to Ivy League schools prior to affirmative action were white men is because the rules were set up to ensure all the seats went to white men.

The fact that white men are no longer at the top of every list for all that is good and profitable does not mean that white men are being discriminated against. It's just that white men cannot practice as much open discrimination as they used to.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

History called to say you're full of shit. History says that slavery was the economic engine of the South, creating the cotton empire.

Your history revisionism is transparent - the South was far poorer than the north, one of the reasons they lost the civil war from the far more productive and prosperous slave free north. Economics explains it quite well, which I see you don't even attempt to refute.

The North won because the North was industrialized to a far greater degree than the South.

 

[Axulus]

And your assessment about the idea that slavery helped power the US economic boom just before and during the industrial revolution and made the country more prosperous? You find that plausible?

Please provide a quote of mine to that effect.

I'm asking you to weigh in, hence the questions.

 

[Axulus]

Your history revisionism is transparent - the South was far poorer than the north, one of the reasons they lost the civil war from the far more productive and prosperous slave free north. Economics explains it quite well, which I see you don't even attempt to refute.

The North won because the North was industrialized to a far greater degree than the South.

Yes, and I'm arguing that slavery is part of the reason the south was less industrialized than the North. Slavery made investing in large, otherwise inefficient (but for the slavery) plantations profitable, misallocating resources and harming the economy as a result. The south continued to invest in plantations when they should've been investing in industrialization like in England and the North. Slavery played a key part in that decision.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

They'd be legally prevented from doing it.

Only if someone could prove that they deliberately excluded a qualified black candidate purely on the basis of his or her race. In the event they find themselves facing an ACLU lawsuit, it would fall to them to demonstrate that their hiring decision was actually based on solid sociological research and NOT based on an intent to exclude a candidate of a specific race.

Considering that this scenario is occurring in what you implied to be an overwhelmingly white community, the odds of this happening would be pretty slim.

Is there something absurd about organizations having to leverage politics with efficiency? I'm pretty sure that happens quite a lot in the real world.

They'd be legally prevented from doing it.

They'd be legally prevented from adopting a politically controversial policy for the sake of efficiency?

Is the problem that you don't believe that people from different racial backgrounds are likely to possess a different social perspective? Or that you don't believe that organizations can/should/do use racial background as a starting point when searching for a different perspective? I'm pretty sure that ALSO happens quite a lot in the real world.

Why does the organisation need a 'different perspective'?

Because the old one is flawed in some way, obviously.

Of course they don't, just as you've never seen a job ad that says 'looking for qualified White candidates'. That's because hiring based on excluding a particular race is frowned upon.

Frowned upon, but not explicitly illegal. Casting directors, for example, pretty much have free reign to single out whatever ethnicities they like for a particular role and it's just about impossible to prove racial discrimination in such cases since half the time a description for the character they're playing is found in the actual script. Thus, if you're auditioning for a the part of Abraham Lincoln in a civil war drama, your odds probably aren't that good if you happen to be a short stocky black man with a Canadian accent. You can sue the production company all you want, but they have a concrete reason for excluding their picks to tall skinny white guys, and you'd have hard time proving that reason is, in fact, racism.

You'd probably be pushing shit uphill, since the majority of people are neither convinced by evidence nor will listen to reason.

That goes without saying. I suspect this is one of the reasons why successful politicians tend to be accomplished bullshitters.

I believe allowing your racial preferences to influence hiring decisions is immoral and bad for the fabric of society and it's bad for the economy.

But we weren't discussing hiring based on racial preferences. We were discussing hiring based on the need to promote either increased racial harmony (e.g. "Our all-white staff appears to be totally unable to relate to their black students,") hiring based on a hypothetical sociological fit ("Our all-white student body is more comfortable with an all-white faculty"). Race is a factor in these like almost any other immutable characteristic; you are probably aware by now that many schools hire almost exclusively female teachers in Kindergarten classrooms primarily because most research shows that very young children are more comfortable with female teachers than males. You could claim this is discriminatory too, but in THIS case the research actually backs it up and the practice has survived a number of court challenges over the years.

Racism and racial prejudice have an inherent disconnect with reality, relying on assumptions about race and ethnicity that cannot bear even minor contact with facts. Race itself is a social construct whose definitions are contradictory and often arbitrary, but insofar as it still MATTERS to people, it's still a real thing that sometimes has to be taken account in the real world. Ignoring race and pretending it's irrelevant isn't always the best solution, especially in dealing with a problem that at least partially ORIGINATES from racial differences in the first place. I'm all for eliminating racial discrimination in the workplace, but that's not the REALITY of what is happening in those situations.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Actually, the savings won't be all that great. Were they freemen they wouldn't have had a much higher standard of living.

Were they free men they wouldn't have been living in the South in the first place (at least, not the South as it did/could have existed in the 19th century) so that point is missing the mark on multiple levels.

Taking their word for it is akin to taking the suspect's word that he's not guilty.

Why even bother entering a plea, since you assume the suspect is ALWAYS guilty?

 

[Crazy Eddie]

The North won because the North was industrialized to a far greater degree than the South.

Yes, and I'm arguing that slavery is part of the reason the south was less industrialized than the North. Slavery made investing in large, otherwise inefficient (but for the slavery) plantations profitable, misallocating resources and harming the economy as a result. The south continued to invest in plantations when they should've been investing in industrialization like in England and the North. Slavery played a key part in that decision.

That's because, inefficient as it was, the plantation system was actually MASSIVELY profitable for the slaveowning class and drove an accumulation of capital in the south that more than rivaled the north. The fact that the Confederacy's (universally wealthy) leadership was willing to start a war just to protect that investment is proof enough of this; slavery was their PRIMARY source of wealth, and the benefits of that system in the form of cotton and tobacco exports were utterly vital to the South's economy. Without those exports and the low prices slavery made possible, there'd be a rapid shift away from the existing slave owning class to a more modernized group of industrialists capable of leveraging new forms of trade and new technologies.

It wasn't that slavery weakened their economy -- far from it, in fact -- it's that slavery guaranteed the concentration of wealth in the hands of a small economic elite that possessed both the capital and the connections to benefit from a slave-based economy. There was, in fact, a LOT of wealth to be concentrated, and the Confederacy wielded this wealth so effectively that the Union was able to defeat them only with GREAT difficulty.

 

[Metaphor]

Only if someone could prove that they deliberately excluded a qualified black candidate purely on the basis of his or her race. In the event they find themselves facing an ACLU lawsuit, it would fall to them to demonstrate that their hiring decision was actually based on solid sociological research and NOT based on an intent to exclude a candidate of a specific race.

Huh? Of course they intended to exclude all nonWhite candidates in my scenario.

Considering that this scenario is occurring in what you implied to be an overwhelmingly white community, the odds of this happening would be pretty slim.

The odds of what happening? Someone getting sued for breaking the law?

They'd be legally prevented from adopting a politically controversial policy for the sake of efficiency?

Discriminating on the basis of race is illegal, at least in Australia.

Because the old one is flawed in some way, obviously.

So, because an organisation has a limited perspective, it should discriminate based on race?

Frowned upon, but not explicitly illegal.

It is in most jobs and industries except when it's inherent to the job.

Casting directors, for example, pretty much have free reign to single out whatever ethnicities they like for a particular role and it's just about impossible to prove racial discrimination in such cases since half the time a description for the character they're playing is found in the actual script. Thus, if you're auditioning for a the part of Abraham Lincoln in a civil war drama, your odds probably aren't that good if you happen to be a short stocky black man with a Canadian accent. You can sue the production company all you want, but they have a concrete reason for excluding their picks to tall skinny white guys, and you'd have hard time proving that reason is, in fact, racism.

It's an inherent requirement of the job to look like a particular race (and to be a particular gender) when playing a role.

But we weren't discussing hiring based on racial preferences. We were discussing hiring based on the need to promote either increased racial harmony (e.g. "Our all-white staff appears to be totally unable to relate to their black students,") hiring based on a hypothetical sociological fit ("Our all-white student body is more comfortable with an all-white faculty"). Race is a factor in these like almost any other immutable characteristic; you are probably aware by now that many schools hire almost exclusively female teachers in Kindergarten classrooms primarily because most research shows that very young children are more comfortable with female teachers than males.

I wasn't aware of it, I've never read that research, and I would be ashamed if hiring practises took that into account. Most kindergarten teachers are women because most graduates in early childhood education are women.

You could claim this is discriminatory too, but in THIS case the research actually backs it up and the practice has survived a number of court challenges over the years.

I've never heard of any of this. Would you care to show me a case?

Racism and racial prejudice have an inherent disconnect with reality, relying on assumptions about race and ethnicity that cannot bear even minor contact with facts. Race itself is a social construct whose definitions are contradictory and often arbitrary, but insofar as it still MATTERS to people, it's still a real thing that sometimes has to be taken account in the real world. Ignoring race and pretending it's irrelevant isn't always the best solution, especially in dealing with a problem that at least partially ORIGINATES from racial differences in the first place. I'm all for eliminating racial discrimination in the workplace, but that's not the REALITY of what is happening in those situations.

Of course it's happening. When you make a decision influenced by race, that is racial discrimination.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Huh? Of course they intended to exclude all nonWhite candidates in my scenario.

That's not what I said:

Only if someone could prove that they deliberately excluded a 1) qualified black candidate 2) purely on the basis of his or her race.

If "being white" is a qualification -- one they can justify reasonably, as hard a sell as that may be -- then he/she is not a "qualified black candidate" and has not been excluded "purely on the basis of his or her race."

Like I said, that would be a pretty hard sell; their research would have to be pretty damn solid if they seriously hoped to back that up if somebody called them on it.

Because the old one is flawed in some way, obviously.

So, because an organisation has a limited perspective, it should discriminate based on race?

If an organization determines it needs to hire someone of a particular race that differs from the rest of its faculty -- assuming this determination is based on a factual analysis of the situation and not just administrators being morons -- then it should definitely find a way to do that.

I take it you think they should not. I think I see your point about people being unwilling to listen to reason.

Frowned upon, but not explicitly illegal.

It is in most jobs and industries except when it's inherent to the job.

Exactly.

But we weren't discussing hiring based on racial preferences. We were discussing hiring based on the need to promote either increased racial harmony (e.g. "Our all-white staff appears to be totally unable to relate to their black students,") hiring based on a hypothetical sociological fit ("Our all-white student body is more comfortable with an all-white faculty"). Race is a factor in these like almost any other immutable characteristic; you are probably aware by now that many schools hire almost exclusively female teachers in Kindergarten classrooms primarily because most research shows that very young children are more comfortable with female teachers than males.

I wasn't aware of it, I've never read that research, and I would be ashamed if hiring practises took that into account.

You would be more comfortable with 10 to 20% of kindergarteners completely loosing their shit and freaking out because they aren't comfortable being left alone with unfamiliar male teachers? Because I can tell you point blank: PARENTS aren't. For that matter, neither are teachers. This is probably because most educators are a lot more concerned with doing what's best for the welfare of their students and creating a strong and supportive educational environment than wading knee-deep into some bullshit experiment in political correctness.

So kindergarten programs OVERWHELMINGLY prefer female teachers. It works better. Everyone knows it works better. No one's complaining about it.

YOU think this wrong. Is there an actual reason for this, or does it just FEEL wrong to you?

Of course it's happening. When you make a decision influenced by race, that is racial discrimination.

Incorrect. When you make a decision influenced ONLY by race, that is racial discrimination. Even assuming that this is invariably a bad thing, that's not what we're discussing in your example.

Because in YOUR scenario, the decision is based on the psychological needs of the students, (supposedly) solid scientific research and the school's overall education goals. In my scenario, the decision is based on social tension between the students and faculty, the distress and mistrust of the parents and the recognition of the administration that there is a sociological disconnect that cannot be bridged through conventional means.

By the way, my scenario is not a hypothetical. It actually happened in our school district. The school board and the superintendent very wisely sought out and hired three very highly qualified award-winning minority educators from neighboring towns, partially as a gesture to parents, but primarily coming to the realization that the problem was caused by a large group of teachers who had been raised and educated in all-white communities and had never actually MET a black person until a dozen of them walked into their room on the first day of class (their reactions ranged from the hilarious to the shameful; the parents were far from amused).

So here YOU are, full of righteous indignation, trying to convince me regarding race as a factor in ANY WAY is morally wrong. You also seem surprised that GENDER is a legitimate factor to consider in teacher assignments; I find that especially amusing, but overall it reflects the facts that you are arguing in generalities and don't actually have REASONS to back up your assertions:
It FEELS wrong. So it must BE wrong.
I happen to think the reason trumps feelings. I happen to think that race is a real thing that matters to people, and that in many situations (not all, not even most) it's something that has to be taken into account if you want to be able to deal with people effectively. Sticking your head in the sand and pretending race doesn't exist doesn't actually make things better; most of the time, it actually makes things much much worse.

 

[Metaphor]

If an organization determines it needs to hire someone of a particular race that differs from the rest of its faculty -- assuming this determination is based on a factual analysis of the situation and not just administrators being morons -- then it should definitely find a way to do that.

I take it you think they should not. I think I see your point about people being unwilling to listen to reason.

What on earth is a 'factual analysis' of the situation? You seem to believe that 'racial diversity' is a legitimate reason. Is racial purity a legitimate reason? Why or why not?

You would be more comfortable with 10 to 20% of kindergarteners completely loosing their shit and freaking out because they aren't comfortable being left alone with unfamiliar male teachers?

I'd be more comfortable with you actually citing evidence for your claim, which I can see you've not bothered to do.

So I'll ask again:

i) Please link to the research that shows Kindergarten children are afraid of male teachers
ii) Please link to the evidence that schools take this into account by discriminating against male teachers
iii) Please show the court cases you claimed that challenged this and failed

Because I can tell you point blank: PARENTS aren't. For that matter, neither are teachers. This is probably because most educators are a lot more concerned with doing what's best for the welfare of their students and creating a strong and supportive educational environment than wading knee-deep into some bullshit experiment in political correctness.

What parents? Do you have a link?

So kindergarten programs OVERWHELMINGLY prefer female teachers. It works better. Everyone knows it works better. No one's complaining about it.

No. Kindergarten programs have more female teachers because most of the graduates in early childhood education are female.

And, I assure you, plenty of people make noise about every side of every issue. Indeed, there is a movement to have more males in primary schools as role models.

YOU think this wrong. Is there an actual reason for this, or does it just FEEL wrong to you?

Discriminating arbitrarily based on race is wrong. If you'd like to go back to a world that used to do it, the 1950s called and they'll receive you with open arms.

Incorrect. When you make a decision influenced ONLY by race, that is racial discrimination. Even assuming that this is invariably a bad thing, that's not what we're discussing in your example.

Huh? Why 'only'? No decision is ever only influenced by race, even a hard racist who doesn't want to hire any Whites would still choose the most qualified nonWhite he can find.

Because in YOUR scenario, the decision is based on the psychological needs of the students, (supposedly) solid scientific research and the school's overall education goals. In my scenario, the decision is based on social tension between the students and faculty, the distress and mistrust of the parents and the recognition of the administration that there is a sociological disconnect that cannot be bridged through conventional means.

What if you have a psychological need for racial purity?

So here YOU are, full of righteous indignation, trying to convince me regarding race as a factor in ANY WAY is morally wrong. You also seem surprised that GENDER is a legitimate factor to consider in teacher assignments; I find that especially amusing, but overall it reflects the facts that you are arguing in generalities and don't actually have REASONS to back up your assertions:

You believe it's okay to discriminate by race and gender (and lord knows what else -- height? hair colour?). I don't. We're at an impasse.

It FEELS wrong. So it must BE wrong.

No. Discriminating by race or gender is an inherent affront to a person's humanity, and a society that condones it as a poorer society for it.

I happen to think the reason trumps feelings. I happen to think that race is a real thing that matters to people, and that in many situations (not all, not even most) it's something that has to be taken into account if you want to be able to deal with people effectively. Sticking your head in the sand and pretending race doesn't exist doesn't actually make things better; most of the time, it actually makes things much much worse.

Whereas while I believe you that race is real and it matters to people, those people are racially prejudiced assholes, and society should not be built on catering to the whims of racially prejudiced assholes.

My GP is a Black woman who was not born in Australia (I assume she's African, but I didn't ask). Should people who feel African women are incompetent be able to get her fired, and replace her with a race and/or gender they like better?

 

[Deepak]

You would be more comfortable with 10 to 20% of kindergarteners completely loosing their shit and freaking out because they aren't comfortable being left alone with unfamiliar male teachers? Because I can tell you point blank: PARENTS aren't. For that matter, neither are teachers. This is probably because most educators are a lot more concerned with doing what's best for the welfare of their students and creating a strong and supportive educational environment than wading knee-deep into some bullshit experiment in political correctness.

So kindergarten programs OVERWHELMINGLY prefer female teachers. It works better. Everyone knows it works better. No one's complaining about it.

YOU think this wrong. Is there an actual reason for this, or does it just FEEL wrong to you?

Do you have an actual cite for this study you're quoting because it sounds like a fetid pile of dingo's kidneys.

10 to 20% (which is it?) of young children don't lose their shit around male family members.

 

[Mumbles]

Blacks commit far more violent crimes. They make up 13% of the population, but committed 52% of the homicides from 1980-2008. 38.5% of arrests for violent crime in general (rape, murder, robbery, manslaughter) were black, about 3 times their population proportion. Remember this proportion, it will be important for later.

Are the greater numbers of arrests due to racism? Generally no, as concluded by academic studies. The reason? Arrest rates match pretty closely to victimization surveys, suggesting that racism is only a tiny factor, if a factor at all. There is no good evidence here that racism is anything close to significant.

See the full analysis of the data here:

http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/factcheck-black-americans-commit-crime/19439

Now, how many more blacks die at the hands of police? About 3 per million individuals per year for blacks and 1 per million per year for whites, a 3 to 1 rate compared to whites. Now remember that violence crime arrest ratio? Matches almost exactly.

Data for deaths at hands of police by race here:

http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/factcheck-black-americans-killed-police/19423

I can only ask one question, and forgive me if you already answered this one:

What, exactly, is the non-racist thinking behind me being slammed into a wall at age 12 by a cop while committing no wrong, because some other person who happens to have my skin color happened to commit a violent crime?

 

[barbos]

Blacks commit far more violent crimes. They make up 13% of the population, but committed 52% of the homicides from 1980-2008. 38.5% of arrests for violent crime in general (rape, murder, robbery, manslaughter) were black, about 3 times their population proportion. Remember this proportion, it will be important for later.

Are the greater numbers of arrests due to racism? Generally no, as concluded by academic studies. The reason? Arrest rates match pretty closely to victimization surveys, suggesting that racism is only a tiny factor, if a factor at all. There is no good evidence here that racism is anything close to significant.

See the full analysis of the data here:

http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/factcheck-black-americans-commit-crime/19439

Now, how many more blacks die at the hands of police? About 3 per million individuals per year for blacks and 1 per million per year for whites, a 3 to 1 rate compared to whites. Now remember that violence crime arrest ratio? Matches almost exactly.

Data for deaths at hands of police by race here:

http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/factcheck-black-americans-killed-police/19423

I can only ask one question, and forgive me if you already answered this one:

What, exactly, is the non-racist thinking behind me being slammed into a wall at age 12 by a cop while committing no wrong, because some other person who happens to have my skin color happened to commit a violent crime?

Maybe you looked much older than 12?