• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Women And Minorities Complain About Receiving Discounts At Bake Sale

A Native American Woman would get her baked goods for free! And really, free is the best price when it comes to baked goods :)
 
Yet another example of Republicans having no ethics beyond "pissing off liberals". I mean, is this the best young Teabaggers have to offer the world? Racial grievance?

Wait, don't answer that. I know the answer. Because if there's any group that needs to defend against racial animosity, it's white kids at Berkeley.
 
Good point Indy. Send in one Native American woman to clean them out, and the problem's solved!
 
"The pricing structure is there to bring attention, to cause people to get a little upset," Campus Republican President Shawn Lewis, who planned the event, told CNN-affiliate KGO. "But it's really there to cause people to think more critically about what this kind of policy would do in university admissions."

Lewis says it's a way to make a statement about pending legislation that would let the California universities consider race or national origin during the admission process.

But the young Republicans have been on the receiving end of a fierce backlash. Reaction has been so negative they've been forced to cancel their customary lunchtime tabling duties, according to KGO.

Lewis told CNN's Don Lemon that they expected a certain amount of opposition but not the level of outrage they experienced.

"We didn't expect the volume, the amount of response that we got," Lewis said. "In the first few hours, hundreds of posts on our Facebook page. And the tone of some of the responses -- we expected people to be upset. We didn't expect personal threats to be made. They were implicit and explicit threats made to the organizers of the event, from burning down the table to throwing our baked goods at us and other kinds of physical threats."
Click to expand...

It seems like a very effective publicity stunt.

But I agree with the point they're making. Race shouldn't be an issue. So-called "positive discrimination" based on race is still racial discrimination. (Same applies for gender.)
 
A conservative group did the same thing at UCONN when I was there. After I suggested they go by parents' income so they could get the cupcakes for free, granted I could to but that would only be because I served in the Army, they got very upset... insisted I leave their booth.
 
I totally agree with one commentator that it is a "sarcastic and rather smarmy slap at people of color." I do not agree with that same commentator that he "gets the joke". The joke is that the proposed UC admissions policies are a slap at people of color. I thought it rather clever.
 
Meh. The "argument" is colossally stupid in the grand scheme of things, but if you're a college student, you take whatever low-priced food you can get.
 
The stunt misses the point. The point about +ve discrimination is to correct previous discrimination. For example if you have discriminated against women and so correctly have no women employed it should be OK to employ a greater % of women until such time as they are 50% of the workforce.
 
personally, I find inability to see invisible privilege more offensive than clumsy attempts to correct invisible privilege.

I've always quite liked this cartoon on the subject:

owZUJ.jpg
 
rjh01 said:
The stunt misses the point. The point about +ve discrimination is to correct previous discrimination. For example if you have discriminated against women and so correctly have no women employed it should be OK to employ a greater % of women until such time as they are 50% of the workforce.
Click to expand...

Right, so they should charge skinny people less to help correct their previous underconsumption of cake.
 
NotJesus said:
Right, so they should charge skinny people less to help correct their previous underconsumption of cake.
Click to expand...

you're confusing something being done to someone with someone doing something to themselves.
 
rjh01 said:
The stunt misses the point. The point about +ve discrimination is to correct previous discrimination. For example if you have discriminated against women and so correctly have no women employed it should be OK to employ a greater % of women until such time as they are 50% of the workforce.
Click to expand...

But what if the number of women applying for available positions is significantly less than 50%? Or even exactly 50%? You'd end up with men with better qualifications and experience being refused employment solely because of their gender, so that hiring targets can be met. Which is still sexual discrimination, but against the opposite gender. Two wrongs don't (necessarily) make a right.

And you'd end up with a large portion of the workforce assuming that any women in the job got hired simply on the basis of their gender, rather than actual ability or qualifications, leading to continued bigotry.

The better solution would be to hire people solely on their abilities and qualifications, and let attrition correct the imbalance over time.

The only situation where this kind of "positive discrimination" has merit is in situations where extreme levels of sexual (or racial) discrimination remain prevalent throughout the industry.
 
Lamuella said:
personally, I find inability to see invisible privilege more offensive than clumsy attempts to correct invisible privilege.

I've always quite liked this cartoon on the subject:

[qimg]http://i.imgur.com/owZUJ.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...

Of course, the fair thing to do in that situation would be to help anyone below that level get up, regardless of race. And if a disproportionate number of people below that level just happen to be one specific race, then members of that one underprivileged race will just happen to end up with a disproportionate level of assistance from those already above, without the need to deliberately provide positive discrimination.
 
I agree that purely economic forms of positive discrimination would work better than ones based on race, hence describing this as a clumsy attempt. However, I consider this clumsy attempt to be considerably better than no attempt at all, and I doubt that the college republicans in the lead story would be proposing the economic solution as an alternative.
 
Brian-M said:
But what if the number of women applying for available positions is significantly less than 50%? Or even exactly 50%? You'd end up with men with better qualifications and experience being refused employment solely because of their gender, so that hiring targets can be met. Which is still sexual discrimination, but against the opposite gender. Two wrongs don't (necessarily) make a right.
Click to expand...

If the ratio of your hires doesn't match the ratio of your aplications then you probably have an issue.

And you'd end up with a large portion of the workforce assuming that any women in the job got hired simply on the basis of their gender, rather than actual ability or qualifications, leading to continued bigotry.
Click to expand...

They assume that anyway what of it?

The better solution would be to hire people solely on their abilities and qualifications, and let attrition correct the imbalance over time.
Click to expand...

Perhaps but that is a minority position (unless you count "I know your friends" as a qualification).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom