Student Rejected for Diversity Post Because He is "White"

Originally posted by Hopechest


Until then, what somebody looks like does still have some impact and should be taken into consideration.

Sorry, but I cant buy that, and cant take it into consideration. The only "impact" is the one that cant differentiate between qualified or unqualified.

Discrimination is discrimination. We shouldn't sugarcoat it, to justify it. MHO.

i have issues with 'diversity' groups and anti discrimination groups all together because all they do is perpetuate peoples differences.

Discrimination has existed since the beginning of mankind , thousands of years already, and for a reality check they are not going to go away.

Oh yeah what the hell does rape have to do with the topic?

reply to post by sonnny1


I think that being representative of the group or groups you are trying to help is a qualification, but granted, a man who is passionate about what he is doing should be able to overcome an issue such as his different ethnicity.

I did say I would have given him a shot but I do understand the angst against him.

What happens when "minorities" are no longer the minority? This is happening in Texas and will continue to do so. Hispanics will become the majority of the population within the next ten years.

Will the term "minority" apply to whites? Just curious, because the designation affects a lot of things, such as scholarships, benefits, etc.

What then? I agree, and have also said for years that the pendulum in America always swings to far to achieve markable change. But, then what? People have a long memory for things such as discrimination, how long will they remain bitter when they are in fact, the majority?

Originally posted by neo96


Oh yeah what the hell does rape have to do with the topic?

To put it into context of maybe females having a problem with a male leading the subject matter of rape, would be one. I could see someone being uncomfortable about a male, but how about a male who was raped? That was the context.

Originally posted by Hopechest


I did say I would have given him a shot but I do understand the angst against him.

I hear you.

Its too bad those who have that "angst" cant see past their stigmas.

Categorizing humans according race should not happen within, of all places, academia. Race is a social construct, not a scientific or logical one. A person may be considered to belong to a particular race in one society, but a different society could consider them to be an entirely different race. In the US we have historically defined a person's race according to an illogical one-drop rule.

Is this guy black? Is he white?



Here he is accompanied by his mother and father.



Does his red hair and light skin make him white? Does his dark skinned parent make him black? Is his mother of a pure ethnic heritage? Does such a thing even exist in the real world at this stage? I doubt it very much. We are all mixed.

reply to post by sonnny1


Then for a 'diversity group' an all 'inclusive' group they discriminated.

“The fact that senators did not take Piotrkowski’s relevant experiences into consideration and rejected him on the basis of race, gender and sexual orientation symbolizes a step backward for our community in diversity conversations,” the newspaper noted.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by Sphota

 

Originally posted by Sphota
White as an ethnic term is non existent, by clinging to it we get nowhere. If you are talking about the dominant culture, fine, but call it by other terms,

Call us the "dominant culture" around a bunch of white people and see how open to discussion they are.

I am using "white" as a general term, meaning the historically dominant culture in the US.

...because if my supposed ethnic purity vis-a-vis my skin color and perceived ethnic make-up are supposed to, on the one side give me brownie points, and on the other tear me down with guilt, then I don't get it.

Being white isn't "supposed to" give you brownie points, nor is it "supposed to" make you feel guilty. Who are you listening to?

I don't feel privileged...

Privileged people usually don't. If you want to understand white privilege, have yourself made up as a black male for a day and check out people's response to you. Or watch this video...

I think you and I are basically of the same mindset, but we have different ways of resolving the issue.

I think so, too.

Again, I must reiterate, both you and I are using the term "white" for convenience sake. I agree with you on that point. If I stopped using "white" to refer to a socio-cultural paradigm that we are both referring to, there would be a total communication break down and/or I would have to use a whole paragraph to refer to this phenomenon each time. I get that, I have a background in linguistics....but that's also the problem: it reaffirms the stereotype from BOTH angles:

1) that white people...all, not just the controlling class (who happen to look like you and me more often then not) are in charge, so that the more Fox News watching, Palin-loving, Limbaugh-listening, good ol' boys and church-goin folk feel like they are being targeted (and cling to their bible and guns, as Obama put it).

2) and that people who are not white, all, not just those who have been genuinely oppressed, have to be micromanaged within our society for their own good, thus having them learn to be inculcated into this whole "white" thing that technically isn't white but we keep referring to it that way. Wash, rinse, repeat.

Everything is a dialog. I didn't care for that Django movie, but went to see it and noted the old southern colonel sanders character speaking "Black"/"Southern". You don't end up with spontaneous English out of the mouths of Sub-Saharan Africans and Scotch-Irish landed gentry of the Antebellum South did not spontaneously start talking southern dialect. There was a give and take, a process, a dialog between white slave owners and their families and the slaves they held in bondage. Every "white" Southerner and every Black American wears this dialog on their sleeve, as soon as they open their mouths and you hear the way they talk, you are hearing centuries of complex, inter cultural interaction.

The same thing must be done in reverse. There has to be a dialog that includes all sides. It was good enough a method for South Africa during reconciliation post apartheid.

reply to post by sonnny1

Originally posted by sonnny1
Does a male need to be raped, to qualify for the position?

In an ideal world? Of course not. But as someone who has been raped, I'd be much more inclined to believe that someone who had been raped would have my best interests in mind and would UNDERSTAND how I felt - more than someone who hadn't, male OR female.

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by sonnny1

 

Then for a 'diversity group' an all 'inclusive' group they discriminated.

“The fact that senators did not take Piotrkowski’s relevant experiences into consideration and rejected him on the basis of race, gender and sexual orientation symbolizes a step backward for our community in diversity conversations,” the newspaper noted.

edit on 18-5-2013 by neo96 because: (no reason given)

Agree.

Second.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by sonnny1

 

Originally posted by sonnny1
Does a male need to be raped, to qualify for the position?

In an ideal world? Of course not. But as someone who has been raped, I'd be much more inclined to believe that someone who had been raped would have my best interests in mind and would UNDERSTAND how I felt - more than someone who hadn't, male OR female.

Great take, and its too bad others don't approach difficult matters like this. I feel the same way.

reply to post by artnut

Originally posted by artnut
What happens when "minorities" are no longer the minority? This is happening in Texas and will continue to do so. Hispanics will become the majority of the population within the next ten years.

The word "minority" in this context isn't talking about numbers, believe it or not. It means a group that isn't part of the "dominant culture", which, in the US is "white people". A hundred years from now, who knows?

Minority Group

a culturally, ethnically, or racially distinct group that coexists with but is subordinate to a more dominant group. As the term is used in the social sciences, this subordinancy is the chief defining characteristic of a minority group. As such, minority status does not necessarily correlate to population. In some cases one or more so-called minority groups may have a population many times the size of the dominating group, as was the case in South Africa under apartheid (c. 1950-91).

reply to post by Sphota


Whoo! That was a good one! And I agree. The dialog has to include all sides. One day, as that give-and-take process allows the pendulum to settle a little more, it will. White males WILL lead diversity groups and rape groups, if they are the most qualified to do so. Then after that, there will be no call for ethnic diversity groups.

This story is part of that give-and-take process. It's not pretty. Some are offended. Some probably feel that they're justified by excluding the white guy. A little revenge, perhaps? It's understandable. It's part of the process.

reply to post by Hopechest


the problem is - " diversity " is not about assisting one group - its about all < alledgedly > so which group should you be a member off ????????

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by artnut

 

Originally posted by artnut
What happens when "minorities" are no longer the minority? This is happening in Texas and will continue to do so. Hispanics will become the majority of the population within the next ten years.

The word "minority" in this context isn't talking about numbers, believe it or not.

It means a group that isn't part of the "dominant culture", which, in the US is "white people".

A hundred years from now, who knows?

Minority Group

a culturally, ethnically, or racially distinct group that coexists with but is subordinate to a more dominant group. As the term is used in the social sciences, this subordinancy is the chief defining characteristic of a minority group. As such, minority status does not necessarily correlate to population. In some cases one or more so-called minority groups may have a population many times the size of the dominating group, as was the case in South Africa under apartheid (c. 1950-91).

Okay, I understand it is not defined as based on a number, and thanks for that. Perhaps in a hundred years it will be the case for the United States, but for parts of Texas, it is already true.

Take San Antonio, Texas for example. A large city with a Hispanic majority, not just by the numbers, but in terms of dominant culture as well as positions of power within the community. The Hispanic population is doing exactly as the whites, and every other race or ethnicity has done in history, they are becoming the majority in all walks of life, and don't hesitate to discriminate based on ethnicity. Regardless of whether this is fair, or revenge, or whatever anyone wants to call it, it is still happening and will continue to due so.

So what happens next? I assume eventually whites will move out of these areas? I don't know. As long as the cultures can integrate in some sort of mutually beneficial way, it can work. I just don't think it will. Projections for Texas indicate a very large Hispanic majority on it's way.

All I am saying, is that history will repeat itself, from one dominant culture over the other. The same thing will happen, only in a reversal of ethnicity. Will classifications change? Will whites have to fight for equality? I just don't know what the answer is.

reply to post by neo96


I think that people are confusing "understanding" with "relating too".

I understand when someone is being discriminated against and they are pissed off. But I cannot relate to it if say it were a non gender, race ideology based discrimination.

The lack of "Understanding", "relating too", etc are often used as weapons against people who do not have the same mindset as the other. The tolerent will often call others Nazi, Bigoted, Racist, etc, because it just fit in their worldview, especially when they are losing the debate. They go with their emotions, rather than rational responses.

We see that all the time here in the political forums.

I guess you could say that I am now intolerant of tolerance. It's a feel good trap nowadays that really is rarely used in the correct meaning.

I prefer to see people for who they are as demonstarted by their words, actions and deeds.

By the way...a BIG thanks to everyone for keeping this thread civil.

Regardless of how we all feel about tolerance, ideology, race, gender, you are in my opinion are the bright example on how to discuss these types of topics. You've opened my mind to other POV's, but of course, it is up to me whether to keep or discard.

Kudos!

reply to post by winofiend


Oh, pish posh with the persecution complex. It's not as if the African Empire is invading America and raping your wives and enslaving your sons and killing their fathers!

This is all silly nonsense - nothing to worry about. It's not as if it's a public office or something - it's not as if the Supreme Court has legislated and declared that it would not be "fair" to have a white president!

This is nonsense - non-news, not important at all. If anything, the only people you have to blame for all of this liberal PC nonsense and uber-immigration are your European ancestors. If you could see them now, I'd advise you to slap them in the face and slap them hard - they're the ones who are responsible for the modern persecution of "the white man" - How ironic and quaint...

We have a diversity committee at my retail employer, and while I understand and support the concept, it makes me uncomfortable that white males are not at all represented in it. Because we were once a predominately white male company, our efforts to balance the diversity through inclusive hiring practices and development have led to an extreme where we are not just equalizing the scales, but tipping them in a discriminatory manner towards everyone else. A council like that should reflect the community, workforce, etc with balance and inclusiveness, not simply a prejudice against the majority groups. Bias like this lessens the acceptance by the excluded groups, and removes a valid perspective from that team. We are now at a point where gender or race carry more weight than professional credentials. If two candidates were absolute equals in skill set, I could see the tipping point being diversity points, but pigmentation or reproductive organs should never be the basis for a hiring decision.