Is this racism?

Say a student government wants to write a new constitution. And say that student government has in its current government voting seats for various student orgs including orgs based around ethnicity AKA the "X student association/group/whatever".

Now in this new constitution the number of student orgs is increased from 7 to 10. But it was decided that seven will be permanent seats and the new seats will be able to be applied for by other orgs that are not represented currently. Say that some of the permanent seats are given to ethnic orgs that are currently popular and large in number but may not have been in the past or in the future. For a constitution that will be around for at least 10-15 years, wouldn't you say that this is not fair to any future ethnic orgs that become large in number as the student demographics change over time? Wouldn't you say that the mere fact that some ethnicities are large in number currently does not mean we should give them decades of permanent power? Wouldn't you say that this in fact goes against the value of the student government of promoting the representation of all groups that have been disenfranchised over history? Wouldn't you say that this borders on racism since you are giving every other group scraps to fight over while you get the privilege of never worrying about your vote?

This is all hypothetical by the way.

Students writing constitutions??? what do your students unions do that they need constitutions.

Really I am intrigued as to what it's for.


We have students unions but I never remember any constitution, I suppose we have charters which state some vague aim about student welfare etc etc etc but thats it.

As to the racism angle to me it jus seems short sighted to be making any constitution that divides up people in any grouping. People should just form such groups and make representations to the relevant authority/government but giving these groups actual votes and seats is short sighted and at worse idiotic.

Course that does not mean that people will want to hear such an idea so if one was making such a constitution then include a clause that changes with demographics.

Ours had a constitution.

Though, I just had a look at my old student union and they have changed it from what it used to be when I attended the university. So what I was going to comment about seems rather invalid.

I think we all know the true answer depends on who the ethnic organizations are. If it is white people being left out in favor of the Pacific Islander Thespian Lesbian Association, then it is not racism.

But at face value, it is less racist and more non-inclusive. Excluding someone of a race is not, in and of itself, racism. It's the manner of exclusion that makes it racism.

Also, 10 reps is an awfully small number for a college unless we are talking a tiny school, which is irrelevant because we all know you are not really a college student anyway.

Both my university and my hall student bodies have constitutions, heh. Our university union simply has one minority rep - although it would be ideal to have members of every ethnicity represented, it's both clumsy to have representation for every ethnicity, as well as providing opportunities for divide and rule in the face of policies that distinctly advantage the majority (i.e. whitey) over minorities. Also, it helps avoid the idea that minority students can only run for the minority rep positions.

Regarding the question - I don't think so. It would be extraordinary if student demographics changed fast enough over a decade to warrant it, but even if it did, it would only be racist if there was a policy of exclusion to these new groups. If the student body said "Sure, the Ruritanian student body is now large enough to give them their own rep", then that wouldn't cause any issues.

The end does not justify the means.

Exception to the rule is the UN Security council. After all failure at that level could have all sorts of fallout. MAD is something best avoided even if it steps on equal representation.

For a student body:
"All for one, one for all."
"Do as you please, please as you do."
No special interest groups, just use ranked voting and it should mean equal representation in the wash.

In this hypothetical student government, the old constitution has 30 reps from sub-governments that represent the different dorms and about 7 reps from student/ethnic orgs. In this new one the ratio is now 20 student reps to 10 student orgs. And to clarify, the student orgs justify this by saying that their group dedicated to only a specific portion of the population is NOT a special interest group.

TBh, ACIN I'm somewhat disgusted with how much sway ethnic minority groups have at your school. Why is that so damn relevant at a university.

Kids are stupid and the things that they make are stupid. No amount of "constitutional immortalization" will stop another future generation of stupid kids from ignoring it and writing their own. Let them have fun.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Centurion1

TBh, ACIN I'm somewhat disgusted with how much sway ethnic minority groups have at your school. Why is that so damn relevant at a university.

---

Because one of the "values" of this hypothetical student government is that we need to make sure that we provide a voice to those who have been historically disenfranchised. It's taken very seriously.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg

Kids are stupid and the things that they make are stupid. No amount of "constitutional immortalization" will stop another future generation of stupid kids from ignoring it and writing their own. Let them have fun.

---

Current constitution for this hypothetical group has lasted since 1986 and was only revised 3 times since then. Any new constitution hammered out will be on track to last at least another 20 years.

A student organization is a place where intelligence goes to die.

They are all a waste of time and money. No exceptions! May they all burn.

I probably shouldn't thank your statement @HoreTore but I am just going to pretend it was in jest.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

I probably shouldn't thank your statement @HoreTore but I am just going to pretend it was in jest.

---

No jest whatsoever.

Student organizations are worthless.

lol, looks like a bunch of students pretending to be politicians making real decisions.

Meanwhile, somewhere else, something important happened.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

Why won't every form of affirmative action just die in a fire?

---

Because without any positive discrimination, we're left with just negative discrimination.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Because without any positive discrimination, we're left with just negative discrimination.

---

Sure, and the positively discriminated is going to feel really fine knowing that everybody knows that they got the job because of positive discrimination. And everybody does, good luck being taking seriously.

Little addition, positive discrimination will burn anyone within a year, how would you try to do anything right, without trying too hard in the perception of others? Can't do anything right either way. Just leave people be society is the sum not the outcome

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Because without any positive discrimination, we're left with just negative discrimination.

---

You canot discriminate against someone in a positive manner

https://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y1...ger/brick7.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

That's not an argument, that's a sound byte! I don't hold it against you though as my post hardly warranted a serious response.

But seriously, can you explain that? Positive discrimination? Color me skeptical, but last time I checked Affirmative Action was about filling slots in a beaurocratic fashion that benefits nobody but the PR department.

---

I'm speaking generally of course, not US-specific.


The basis is that white, heterosexual males are the subject of positive discrimination too, that they will be preferred over other candidates. Thus legislation is introduced to level the playing field, and force employers to consider candidates who are not white, heterosexual males.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

I don't disagree. I think there was a time when it was much more necesarry, and there are some places where it might still be necesarry, but in parts of the US where white people are not a LARGE ethnic majority it makes absolutely no sense.

---

I can't comment on Affirmative Action specifically, I don't know all that much about it, sorry.

I agree with your statement, with the addition that a large ethnic majority is not in itself the issue, but rather an ethnic group(minority, majority, whatever) with a dominant position in power(think about Syria and Iraq).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tiaexz

Ours had a constitution.

Though, I just had a look at my old student union and they have changed it from what it used to be when I attended the university. So what I was going to comment about seems rather invalid.

---

Ours too and.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

In this hypothetical student government, the old constitution has 30 reps from sub-governments that represent the different dorms and about 7 reps from student/ethnic orgs. In this new one the ratio is now 20 student reps to 10 student orgs. And to clarify, the student orgs justify this by saying that their group dedicated to only a specific portion of the population is NOT a special interest group.

---

I makes this illegal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Because without any positive discrimination, we're left with just negative discrimination.

---

All discrimination is negative, you don't hire black people because you think white people are better - you don't hire white people because you think black people are more deserving. The difference is a completely irrelevant nuance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

The basis is that white, heterosexual males are the subject of positive discrimination too, that they will be preferred over other candidates. Thus legislation is introduced to level the playing field, and force employers to consider candidates who are not white, heterosexual males.

---

The legislation tends to incite racism because it disenfranchises the group not being discriminated for. Once this reaches the point that everybody has "positive" discrimination the non-target group becomes anew underclass. You're already starting to see this in the UK with the makeup of the EDL being mostly poor white youths. It also encounters the problem that because disgrimination is a form of corruption it harms the system itself, an example of this from the UK would be the Met hiring under-qualified Black and Asian recruits over better white ones, or the Irianian-born Commander who had to be convited of corruption twice because the first time he pulled the race card.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

Because one of the "values" of this hypothetical student government is that we need to make sure that we provide a voice to those who have been historically disenfranchised. It's taken very seriously.

---

I would say this is definately racist, ACIN. At Exeter you are not even allowed to restrict the membership of a student society, for any reason. Our Evangelical Christians tried to sue us over that one, but after four years and the largest student EGM in living memory gathered to vote their motions down they gave up.


As an aside, Council here is made up of members from EVERY society.

Disenfranchised majority my behind.

If the majority is unable to see that without any legislationm they are being prefered over others, then they should educate themselves. I take no responsibility for the opinions of idiots.

The EDL is made up of nutters, haters and the mentally handicapped. They are utterly irrelevant.

All that needs to be said about the EDL is that the group of people who have done their utmost to disgrace Englands reputation during the last decades are now claiming to want to save the English culture. Hah! Stick 'em in an institution.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Because without any positive discrimination, we're left with just negative discrimination.

---

This is an example of a wrong answer

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

https://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y1...ger/brick7.jpg

---

Would smash

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

If the majority is unable to see that without any legislationm they are being prefered over others.

---

The thing is you are not asking why white people fare bettern in employment than minorities. Is it because they are white, or because the minorities tend to be poor?

If you then start giving a helping hand to all minorities but not the poor white underclass, then the poor white underclass is disenfranchised.

The solution to increasing social mobility is to make sure that everyone has a decent level of access to education and/or apprenticeships and such schemes aimed at getting them into the workplace and giving them a chance to advance in it.

Simply giving employers arbitrary quotas means that people are going to feel that they are being excluded on account of their race, gender, or whatever. Because, well... they are.

When two sets of resumes are sent out, identical ones except for norwegian names on one set and foreign names on the other set, and the norwegian set gets many times the number of calls to interview than the foreign set, then the answer is simply plain old racism.

Which is why we need such laws here in Norway, to ensure that the best qualified person gets the job. Do we white, heterosexual males feel that we got our jobs because of our ethnicity and not our qualifications? No? Then I see no reason why any ethnics should feel that way.


I can't speak for the rest of the world, however.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

When two sets of resumes are sent out, identical ones except for norwegian names on one set and foreign names on the other set, and the norwegian set gets many times the number of calls to interview than the foreign set, then the answer is simply plain old racism.

Which is why we need such laws here in Norway, to ensure that the best qualified person gets the job. Do we white, heterosexual males feel that we got our jobs because of our ethnicity and not our qualifications? No? Then I see no reason why any ethnics should feel that way.


I can't speak for the rest of the world, however.

---

I could have sworn I replied already but never mind.

OK, so Norway is racist, fine.

You need to be less racist then, giving preferential treatment to non-whites will just make you more racist.

I'm curious though: would I be disadvantaged, name wise, being Swedish (my name, that is, not me).

Beyond that, "positive" discrimination often takes the form of quota-filling, or making allowances for "disadvanged" groups viz qualifications and this is usually because the non-white candidates are often not up to par for one reason or another. We had this with ethnic minorities in the Met, a moderate scandal, and they are now suggesting the same thing for university admissions.

The fact is, these policies not only harm the image of "minorities" they also harm the organisations they are inflicted on by making them take sub-par candidates.

There was a famous version of that resume name study that found that women were much less likely to get called back compared to men. Then they redid the study controlling for how pleasing the name sounded to people (e.g. people like the name Sarah but not Ruth), and found that there was no difference between the rate that men and women were called back. In other words, people will decide whether to bin a resume or not on completely trivial things. This is also why people obsess about how their resume looks and the kind of paper it's printed on. It's quite possible that you could get a 10:1 callback ratio by changing the font.

To accept that those studies show racism you have to claim that what people say about how good an employee they would be is really useful and a good basis for deciding to hire them. But everyone knows it generally crap. Two people have the same years of experience means very little.

I feel like, in America at least, racism would go away naturally on it's own if we would stop talking about it and making such a big deal about it. Kids are going to school with other kids of different ethnic groups, making friends and not thinking anything of it until they get older and find out that being friends with a black kid or a white kid is "special" or "different". In our crusade to eradicate the racism of the 20th century, which is already a thing of the past, we're creating a new kind of racism, a paranoid divide where people are afraid of being seen as racist or are afraid of facing discrimination at every turn. I hope that makes sense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

When two sets of resumes are sent out, identical ones except for norwegian names on one set and foreign names on the other set, and the norwegian set gets many times the number of calls to interview than the foreign set, then the answer is simply plain old racism.

---

Maybe it's just safer to hire the Norwegian because of positive discrimination, should he be a screwup you can just fire him without having to deal with the equality-industry. And he's much less likely to fall prey to sudden hijjab-syndrome. A small or middle-sized company can't afford these lawsuits, it's simply not worth the trouble most of the time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Sure, and the positively discriminated is going to feel really fine knowing that everybody knows that they got the job because of positive discrimination. And everybody does, good luck being taking seriously.

---

I only ever hear this argument (that minorities will feel bad about getting recognition of the additional difficulties society puts in their way) from the mouths of straight white middle class men.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

The basis is that white, heterosexual males are the subject of positive discrimination too, that they will be preferred over other candidates. Thus legislation is introduced to level the playing field, and force employers to consider candidates who are not white, heterosexual males.

---

Ding ding! We have a winner!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Subotan

I only ever hear this argument (that minorities will feel bad about getting recognition of the additional difficulties society puts in their way) from the mouths of straight white middle class men.



Ding ding! We have a winner!

---

...because saying white people are racist isn't racist.

White males are overrepresented in education at all levels compared to men of other minorities (excepting some Indian and Chinese demographics) in most Western countries.

Technically creating the distinction of "white" and "non-white" automatically begins to process of prejudice and discrimination in how you identify the two groups. What makes some one racist is when you begin to bring in stereotypical social behaviours and apply the actions of a minority upon the majority. For simplistic sake, if we took "Philipvs Valindervs Calicvia" views as being "white", then you are unfairly attributing him to many other posters, for example, myself, who does not have his devout faith in his Lord and I think he would be horrified if my own views were being attributed as his own as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tiaexz

Technically creating the distinction of "white" and "non-white" automatically begins to process of prejudice and discrimination in how you identify the two groups. What makes some one racist is when you begin to bring in stereotypical social behaviours and apply the actions of a minority upon the majority. For simplistic sake, if we took "Philipvs Valindervs Calicvia" views as being "white", then you are unfairly attributing him to many other posters, for example, myself, who does not have his devout faith in his Lord and I think he would be horrified if my own views were being attributed as his own as well.

---

I'd be more horrified to be associated with Kadagar.

Anyway - lets talk about those "equality" forms.

Never mind the fact that "Asian" covers "Chinese" and "other", I always have to put "Other White Background" and then "Anglo-Swedish" because there is not "European" option.

for me, that has always encapsulated the idiocy of the whole "racial equalities" thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

I'd be more horrified to be associated with Kadagar.

---

Hah, it was more a teasing simplistic comparison.

Quote:

---

Anyway - lets talk about those "equality" forms.

Never mind the fact that "Asian" covers "Chinese" and "other", I always have to put "Other White Background" and then "Anglo-Swedish" because there is not "European" option.

for me, that has always encapsulated the idiocy of the whole "racial equalities" thing.

---

Then there is British White, irish White, White other, etc. It is just very silly in the end. Should simply be "Are you human?" because end of that day, that is all that matters.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tiaexz

Technically creating the distinction of "white" and "non-white" automatically begins to process of prejudice and discrimination in how you identify the two groups.

---

So if we make that distinction and then just talk about something else for a while, the process will be chugging along all the time under the surface, and in X amount of time we will be lynching people?

Quote:

---

What makes some one racist is when you begin to bring in stereotypical social behaviours and apply the actions of a minority upon the majority.

---

No it isn't. For example "black people are good at sports" is not racist. An inaccurate stereotype is not racism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

No it isn't. For example "black people are good at sports" is not racist. An inaccurate stereotype is not racism.

---

You miss the bit about application of said stereotypes (as I read it 't was meant to be a continuation), so it would be more apt to reject a white basketball player from NBA team because we all know "white men can't jump". Think that was what Tiaexz (honestly, Beskar was an easier name) was getting at.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

So if we make that distinction and then just talk about something else for a while, the process will be chugging along all the time under the surface, and in X amount of time we will be lynching people?

---

Strawman and a slipperly slope.

I am referring to: Self-categorization theory and Social identity theory

Quote:

---

You miss the bit about application of said stereotypes (as I read it 't was meant to be a continuation), so it would be more apt to reject a white basketball player from NBA team because we all know "white men can't jump". Think that was what Tiaexz (honestly, Beskar was an easier name) was getting at.

---

Thank you, Tellos Athenaios.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tiaexz

Technically creating the distinction of "white" and "non-white" automatically begins to process of prejudice and discrimination in how you identify the two groups. What makes some one racist is when you begin to bring in stereotypical social behaviours and apply the actions of a minority upon the majority. For simplistic sake, if we took "Philipvs Valindervs Calicvia" views as being "white", then you are unfairly attributing him to many other posters, for example, myself, who does not have his devout faith in his Lord and I think he would be horrified if my own views were being attributed as his own as well.

---

This is what I was trying to get at in my incoherent rambling above. I think what racism we have left would go away on it's own if we stopped putting so much emphasis on race & ethnicity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios

You miss the bit about application of said stereotypes (as I read it 't was meant to be a continuation), so it would be more apt to reject a white basketball player from NBA team because we all know "white men can't jump". Think that was what Tiaexz (honestly, Beskar was an easier name) was getting at.

---

I feel like everything has been run through babelfish in this thread...what is "application of stereotypes" and why is it "more apt" to reject a white basketball player? What does this have to do with innacurate stereotypes not being the equivalent of racism?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tiaexz

Strawman and a slipperly slope.

---

It's what you said yourself, that's why I was asking you...can you explain in your own words? What did you mean by "automatically begins a process"?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

I feel like everything has been run through babelfish in this thread...what is "application of stereotypes" and why is it "more apt" to reject a white basketball player? What does this have to do with innacurate stereotypes not being the equivalent of racism?



It's what you said yourself, that's why I was asking you...can you explain in your own words? What did you mean by "automatically begins a process"?

---

"White men can't jump" is a racial prejudice, rejecting an NBA player for your team, based on that, is racist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

It's what you said yourself, that's why I was asking you...can you explain in your own words? What did you mean by "automatically begins a process"?

---

I didn't intend for it to come across like that, I do recommend the article of Self-categorization theory though from wikipedia, should convey what I am trying to do better. Most of my own academic study has involved a lot from this theory.

But yes, hypothetically over prolonged reinforcement socially to the extreme, it can explain your slippery slope argument. It doesn't mean that is the "natural conclusion", as it is possible to become "non-racist" from such a view point as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

"White men can't jump" is a racial prejudice, rejecting an NBA player for your team, based on that, is racist.

---

Ok I see now. The point being that a positive stereotype about one group is in some way a negative stereotype about the other group. People talk about that with white running backs and stuff, or asian basketball players. But this still shows the failure of our way of talking about racism. You can't just keep stretching the word. You can't extend it to the kind off off the cuff heuristics that people use constantly, and that can't be avoided. Rejecting a white NBA player because you think it's a black sport is only stupid, or bad drafting. We need to stop pulling out the racism and sexism sirens for things that are just stupid. If you tell me that someone is racist, and it later it turns out that they just believe one of those silly sports superstitions, you've committed slander.

Though I still don't understand what beskar said.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tiaexz

I didn't intend for it to come across like that, I do recommend the article of Self-categorization theory though from wikipedia, should convey what I am trying to do better. Most of my own academic study has involved a lot from this theory.

But yes, hypothetically over prolonged reinforcement socially to the extreme, it can explain your slippery slope argument. It doesn't mean that is the "natural conclusion", as it is possible to become "non-racist" from such a view point as well.

---

But what are we talking about exactly? Prolonged reinforcement of what? You would have to reinforce something specific and strongly negative. Just creating the distinction in no way starts a process towards racism. It's not just possible to become non-racist, by default you aren't racist and naturally stay that way. I don't see an explanation for racism here, unless you equate stereotypes about race with racism.

The problem with race in America today, specifically in regard to blacks, is that it has become an industry. All the legitimate goals of the Civil Rights movement were attained long ago, but the people and organizations that made that happen never went away. The movement became a livelihood. And like any industry, it must generate demand for its product. Unfortunately, that product is victimhood. Black people make hundreds of millions of dollars each year making other black people feel disenfranchised and discriminated against. Jackson and the Rainbow Coalition folks make their money shaking down big corporations while Sharpton and his people have turned a history of shameless race baiting into a lucrative protest circuit. Reverend Al has even secured himself a sweet gig on MSNBC. The NAACP is anachronistic as its name, but still fleeces black people across the country through scare tactics and contrived fights with Tea Party types. The president himself built his political career on black victimhood, and has never hesitated to invoke the language of the Civil Rights movement to serve his purposes.

But those are just the figureheads. Underneath them lies a network of people making money off of perceived white racism. From the African American studies departments that have sprung up in colleges around the country, to the government workers who toil away each day counting employees and issuing fines and threats of lawsuits to small businesses for not making racial quotas, to the community organizers in the countless umbrella groups in cities across the country working hard to make sure black people get out and vote for democrats, there are hundreds of thousands of paychecks dependent on black oppression. If that oppression goes away, it’s all gone. The money dries up. The community organizers will have to go back to flipping burgers.

We have reached a point in this country where black leaders are incentivized to promote black victimhood and white guilt. There is no money to be made in a nation where people are not judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. The truly sad thing about the current state of race relations in America is that, as always, blacks suffer disproportionately. Sure it sucks when a white kid loses his spot at his number one college to a black kid with worse grades, but he can at least settle for his number two or three picks. The black kid who decides not to even bother with college because he’s grown up immersed in a culture of victimhood that constantly reinforces the belief that he cannot be successful in anything other than sports or media because of white oppression really suffers.

There is a body of research that supports the idea that such outside pressures create a vicious cycle where black people (and other protected classes) conform to their own social expectations. In essence, black leaders have created an environment of constant perceived oppression. The struggle, which by most measures was ostensibly won many years ago, is made to be endless. (The election of the president, which was played up to white audiences during the election as a symbolic end to the movement has been used to reinforce its importantance to black audiences ever since.) They are told that they live in a country where they can be smarter and work harder than white people and still do worse and many live their lives accordingly.

I agree, but it's even more pervasive than that.

People, for some reason that is alien to me, enjoy casting themselves in the victim role, and do it on the slightest excuse. Over race, over sex, over sexuality, over religion...the police abuses thread has a bunch of this stuff too. The latest there is some guy who decided, after the fact, that he had been intimidated by an apologetic female media relations officer. Maybe they enjoy associating themselves with the real victims and get some enjoyable sense of martyrdom out of it (without the actual pain). I don't see how they aren't ashamed to say that stuff though...

And then the counterpart is people who eager to appear to be fighting injustice, and enjoy "being on the right side".

I think it's much less about it being an industry in a financial sense, more about people finding meaning in their life from taking on a role. The problem is that people are content with just the trappings of the role. Maybe it's the "religious instinct" finding an outlet.