Are white, straight men persecuted today?

[Drogue]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Do you have any basis for that assertion?

Yes. The minority comments were a reaction against the Affirmative Action that seems to be popular in many US universities. Giving a quantitative rise to someone because their 'group' is under represented is still discrimination.

My comments about rich and poor was that the UK government has given targets for entry, so that universities must have a set proportion of poorer students in order to get extra funding, and thus universities have to get more poorer students in, and thus they grades they require and the offers they give reflect this. That is why 5 A students that come from fee paying schools can be rejected when students that lower marks from state schools get in. This has been especially prevelant at Bristol, who have rejected many 5 and 6 A candidates, but allowed in those with lower grades. The government targets for poor students in every university also doesn't take into account applications. Sure, 45% of the students at Oxford are from fee paying schools, but then 55% of the applicants are from fee paying schools. It is very hard to get the number of students from state schools up when the application ratios are already marginally in their favour. Why not just fund the universities properly and have them to continue to be need blind. Why would any university weight it's admission in favour of fee paying schools? It wants the best candidates, since it gets the same money for each.

I come from a state school, and I have an interview for Oxford entrance tomorrow and on Friday. I know I am more likely to get a place than a fee paying school candidate of equal ability, because they need more state school people. That sickens me. I want them to accept the candidates they feel will get the best grades, get the most out of it, add the most to university life, not who'll appease the goverment statistics most.

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Let me give some exampled. In 1993, I was an editor at my university newspaper, The DePaulia. The school mission was to be a university to help the urban poor and working classes (St. Vincent DePaul and all that). In a city that was (at the time) 44% Black, 37% white, and 14% Hispanic (and the rest misxed or declined to answer) only 11% of the incoming freshmen were Black and only 7% were Hispanics. The graduation rate was slightly different. Only 9% of those graduating were Black, and only 6% were Hispanic.

And what are the application rates? Sure, the city might be that proportion of black and hispanic people, but what proportion of applicants are black and hispanic? Does DePaul judge purely on merit, or is it trying to activly recruit more minorities? All I ask is that someone's ethnic status is a non-issue, and they are judges exactly the same as someone of a different ethnic origin. Hence I would like them not to know.

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Is this, then, an example of whites being persecuted? DePaul is fairly prestegious and important university in Chicago. Given that the student body were largely Chicagoans, one wonders how, if whites were being discriminated against, did they manage to more than double their numbers there.

Possibly not. And it depends on applicants. If 11% of applicants are black, then the freshman % looks about right. Also, that is all circumstancial. Is there any university that has a qualitative bonus for whites? Or for men? I don't know of one. But there are universaties that admit to a qualitative advatage for black students, like the University of Michigan. Indeed, from their own website:

the Supreme Court of the United States upheld the right of universities to consider race in admissions procedures in order to achieve a diverse student body.

I'm not asking for whites, men, or any other group to be given preferential treatment. I'm asking for race not to be an issue. I don't see race as an issue. I don't make sure I have diverse friends. That would be silly. I want universities and employers to judge purely on merit.

A quote from the Harvard Gazette:

I think we can predict very well what would happen if all the colleges and professional schools in the United States simply adopted race-blind admissions, and that would be a drastic drop in underrepresented minorities

Why? Either these universities do not appeal to minorities, which is a problem with their image; or it is because the minorities come from lower income families, as this quote implies:

[Harvard has an] imbedded preference for wealth in its admissions practices.

which is a problem with it's fees and with money, rather than race; or it is because without affirmative action, without "preferential admissions" policies (quote taken from same article) with judging based on merit, minority students wouldn't get the places they do.

Just because it's seen as acceptable, as 'positive discrimination', does not make it any less discrimination.

I do not think that race, gender, sexual orientation, disability, wealth or geographical location should be a factor in whether you get a place to study or a job. I think merit should be.

Moreover the question Mr Fun asked was not if blacks were discriminated against. It was if white, straight men were, and yes, in many cases, they are, as I have shown. Obviously there are many places there not too.

[Q Classic]

maybe if I see a point to college again, I might consider UIC...

uic is different from uoc/uchicago.



figures someone who went to depaul wouldn't know the difference.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Japher
I made one post and then decided not bite this stupid troll... It's an obvious attempt to belittle the white non-homosexual males on this board.

Bite damn you!

[Drake Tungsten]

Nobody's persecuted today, at least in America.

[Frankychan]

Until there is an American president that is NOT white, no-the whiteman is not persecuted.

[Dis]

walks outside- judges people's reactions to my presence.

Nope- I am not being persecuted.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Do you have any basis for that assertion?

Let me give some exampled. In 1993, I was an editor at my university newspaper, The DePaulia. The school mission was to be a university to help the urban poor and working classes (St. Vincent DePaul and all that). In a city that was (at the time) 44% Black, 37% white, and 14% Hispanic (and the rest misxed or declined to answer) only 11% of the incoming freshmen were Black and only 7% were Hispanics. The graduation rate was slightly different. Only 9% of those graduating were Black, and only 6% were Hispanic.

Is this, then, an example of whites being persecuted? DePaul is fairly prestegious and important university in Chicago. Given that the student body were largely Chicagoans, one wonders how, if whites were being discriminated against, did they manage to more than double their numbers there.

Now, part of it has to do with DePaul drawing suburbanites in, where the number of whites far exceeds the number of minorities. But the school wasn't mostly suburbanites. And many of those suburbanites were from the inner ring of suburbs, which has a higher percentage of minorities than the ones further out, say where Sava (who goes to DePaul) lives.

Anyway, for pointing this out in a paper editorial, the Adminiastrion came down like a ton of bricks on me. I was summarily fired and they attempted to make it look like I was making crap up. But the numbers came from a confidential report I had gotten my hands on. Oh well, being a firebraqnd isn't easy.

Corelation is not causation. Was persecution to blame for the fact that when whites arrived in the Americas many of the inhabitants were technologically backward? Culture seems to play an even larger role in how people fare economically and educationally than persecution of the sort you seem to allege. Asians and Jews were also persecuted in the United States as well, including pogroms and officially sanctioned discrimination, yet both groups manage to secure more than their fair share of slots in our institutions of higher learning. Asians now have the dubious honor of being once again discriminated against in education because of their successes. Way to go!

[Q Classic]

asian americans tend to be ambivalent about racial politics simply because we don't really have a unifying or monolithic viewpoint.

that's right, asian americans. not asians. the vast majority of people with asian ethnicity see themselves as american, not asian. only difference is, we look foreign. you'd never dream about calling black people africans--you'd always call them african-americans. asian americans, on the other hand, have no strong distinction in the popular american mindset with asian asians.

which is why we often are asked when we're going back. seriously.

that said, asian americans these days are quite successful--but again, it's not a general level of success. there are those, for instance, that live in the ghettos who will never get support because asians are supposed to be successful.

in the arena of racial politics, asian americans are again split. when it's politically good for them, the white people lay claim to us; when it's not, they reject us. we are pointed to as the model minority, lifting ourselves up by our bootstraps, but then there's that cyclic yellow panic that goes around, as one saw in the mid-clinton years against wen ho lee, or chung and his financial indiscretions. we're touted as hard workers who don't make a fuss, always polite and friendly, but then the legal justice system ignores us entirely when we ask for justice. look at the case in the eighties when a chinese american was beaten to death by white trash because they thought he was japanese--and they'd lost their jobs in the auto manufactory recently. or the fact that the police did nothing as african-americans looted and pillaged korean american stores in the rodney king riots.

asian americans themselves have no civil/political groups as strong as the naacp--and what groups they have have been closely modeled after those found in african-american communities, which doesn't work because the asian american experience is vastly different from that of blacks.

which is why i myself am quite ambivalent about racial politics. i think any white guy who complains about being discriminated against is full of bull****, even though i will admit that it's rather uncool to be a white straight male right now. i think that african-americans who cry racism at the drop of a hat are filled with hate, and that asking for reparations is nothing more than trying to extort welfare from groups that had nothing to do with slavery. i think that asian americans are very lucky to not be discriminated against visibly--but am galled by the fact that stereotypes about us have not been challenged at all. not all of us know kung fu. keanu reeves, as bad as he is at it, is still better than me. not all of us are geniuses at school. my brother, a 2nd gen like myself, cares very little for school. not all of us are foreign. i think in english, i exclaim in english, i curse in english, i love in english, and i was born in english--and then i get complimented on how i speak with no accent.

yes, asian americans are lucky. we don't get hit with the same overt discrimination that the other minorities get. people don't think of us as bringing down the values of the neighborhood (there's no white flight when we move in), people like having us work for them (efficient, polite, intelligent), and people don't think we're drug dealers (most of us don't speak spanish as a first or second tongue). at the same time, we do get a lot of covert discrimination: nobody wants asians in management, because we're supposed to be too polite to be good leaders, everybody thinks we have split loyalties between american and our homeland (even if that imaginary homeland is metro atlanta), everybody thinks that we're all a big undifferentiated successful monolith.

white men don't get that. people see differences in white men. they respect white ceos, they like white politicians, they laugh at white rednecks.

so even if it's uncool to be white right now, you white people still have things good. so quit your *****ing.

[CerberusIV]

Those who are successful are always persecuted by those unable to achieve success on their own merits.

In other words, those who can, do and those who can't whine and try to drag everyone else down.

And being white, straight and male aren't necessarily a cause for being persecuted, usually just an excuse like all the other excuses for persecution.

Then again some people deserve, and ask, nay beg, to be persecuted.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Dissident
walks outside- judges people's reactions to my presence.

Nope- I am not being persecuted.

Got that great feeling of relief, didn't you?