Lots of emotions play into this. You can feel threatened even when you are not. Based on a description of the scuffle, it sounds like tensions were pretty high after Wilson tried to pull Brown into the car. I don't find anything from Johnson in the link above hard to believe.
It still seems fishy to me.
Another fishy thing is a suspect being able to assault an officer inside a police car.
I won't discount it, but I guarantee it happens.
I'll make this point again, because you seem to have missed it: long before there was affirmative action, people assumed that black doctors, lawyers, etc., did not deserve their status. Affirmative action did not change that assumption. Removing affirmative action, to the degree it exists at all, will not change that assumption.
It compounds that assumption, which is why race should not be a factor. Using income, education of parents, etc., would still largely benefit poor blacks based on statistics, but won't have the stigma. If we want to have true racial equality, we need to practice what we preach.
Even so much as awarding "extra points" was unconstitutional, yet you think it can be a "major factor"?
https://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/16/...s-race-in-admissions-for-university.html?_r=0
It wasn't the extra points, it was giving so many points that admission was more or less automatic. Again this is the Michigan case. A related case that same year ruled race can be a factor, just not an automatic. But in practice, it is allowing minorities in with scores that are very low, and no non-minorities get in with the same scores. It perpetuates the bias.
Thomas would be better off if he had been admitted only to a lesser law school, and seen his career limited as a result? That's your argument?
Your quotes are conflicting now. First you infer that he would be better off if he had been admitted to a lesser law school and would have had a lesser career but for affirmative action. Then you counter that in the next post with people disputed his grades because blacks aren't supposed to be that smart. Again, these are two different types of racism. One existed before affirmative action, and one is caused by affirmative action. We are attempting to correct racism bias by introducing more.
I believe everyone should have a fair opportunity to succeed, but it should be based on class, not race.
Having no details on this program or when this data was processed, I have no idea if this is relevant in any way to the issue of affirmative action today. I see no reason to think so.
I encourage you to, for example, go and look at any top school admission demographics. They will list how many students get in at each level, and the study. It would be one thing to let a minority in over a non-minority with similar qualifications, but in practice this does not happen. I noticed this when reviewing ivy league schools, that I had a fat chance to get into with my scores, and was surprised to see some very low score/GPA combination admittees. This same chart listed demographics and it was telling. When reviewing the charts of the schools I went to for my masters and doctorate, the same phenomenon existed.
Any reasonably intelligent person knows that, whether affirmative action was involved Thomas' admission or not, his grades would have been solely the result of his hard work. No professor graded on a race curve. However, Thomas was nonetheless questioned about his grades. This is because affirmative action was irrelevant to the interviewers; what mattered was that he was black, and black men weren't supposed to be that smart. He would have faced these same questions even in a world where affirmative action never existed. Professional black men have always faced these questions in the USA, long before affirmative action.
I don't disagree, but affirmative action compounds the issue by making people think affirmative action helped someone when they likely didn't need it, as his grades clearly indicated (contrary to your assumption that without affirmative action he would have went to a lesser law school, etc., I hope you can see the bias it creates). I am also not calling you a racist by any means. I am saying you are making stereotypical assumptions that are created solely due to affirmative action. And I'm not saying racism will not exist without affirmative action, I am saying affirmative action is a double edged sword that stimulates bias.
You are embarrassing yourself with this type of example, in an ugly way. Please stop, at least until you can incorporate into your example a reason there were no red-heads at IBM to begin with.
We are talking about two different things. Yes, there is racism in this country before affirmative action and the civil rights laws. Yes it still exists, and affirmative action has made some progress. But it is clearly a double edged sword for those minorities who didn't need it. Based on the comments from the professor I mentioned and yours, if I were in Clarence Thomas' shoes, I would be offended. I understand there are more issues involved, and racism existed prior to affirmative action.
Even if, in my example, red heads had been discriminated against prior to the MIT admission policy, the resulting bias would still be created/perpetuated by the rule.
I think affirmative action is a good thing, but I think the way it is implemented causes unnecessary bias when it should have always been done based on class/opportunity. It should be changed. If you can't see it causes a clear bias, then we can just agree to disagree. That is it for me today.
. As blacks are proportionately poor, it keeps them down. Social programs should be set up to promote those who want to better themselves, not punish them. The welfare system needs to taper off more slowly.
