| |
ATRL: The H.N.I.C | #BlackDontCrack
Member Since: 9/18/2011
Posts: 18,295
|
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 4/17/2011
Posts: 9,162
|
Affirmative Action Has Helped White Women More Than Anyone
In the coming days, the U.S. Supreme Court is expected to rule in a potentially landmark case on the constitutionality of affirmative action. The original lawsuit was filed on behalf of Abigail Fisher, a woman who claims that she was denied admission to the University of Texas because she is white. But study after study shows that affirmative action helps white women as much or even more than it helps men and women of color. Ironically, Fisher is exactly the kind of person affirmative action helps the most in America today.
Originally, women weren’t even included in legislation attempting to level the playing field in education and employment. The first affirmative-action measure in America was an executive order signed by President Kennedy in 1961 requiring that federal contractors “take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin.” In 1967, President Johnson amended this, and a subsequent measure included sex, recognizing that women also faced many discriminatory barriers and hurdles to equal opportunity. Meanwhile, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 only included sex in the list of prohibited forms of discrimination because conservative opponents of the legislation hoped that including it would sway moderate members of Congress to withdraw their support for the bill. Still, in a nation where white women and black people were once considered property — not allowed to own property themselves and not allowed to vote — it was clear to all those who were seeking fairness and opportunity that both groups faced monumental obstacles.
(MORE: Touré: Why We Still Need Affirmative Action)
While people of color, individually and as groups, have been helped by affirmative action in the subsequent years, data and studies suggest women — white women in particular — have benefited disproportionately. According to one study, in 1995, 6 million women, the majority of whom were white, had jobs they wouldn’t have otherwise held but for affirmative action.
Another study shows that women made greater gains in employment at companies that do business with the federal government, which are therefore subject to federal affirmative-action requirements, than in other companies — with female employment rising 15.2% at federal contractors but only 2.2% elsewhere. And the women working for federal-contractor companies also held higher positions and were paid better.
Even in the private sector, the advancements of white women eclipse those of people of color. After IBM established its own affirmative-action program, the numbers of women in management positions more than tripled in less than 10 years. Data from subsequent years show that the number of executives of color at IBM also grew, but not nearly at the same rate.
(MORE: Eric Liu: What Asian Americans Reveal About Affirmative Action)
The successes of white women make a case not for abandoning affirmative action but for continuing it. As the numbers in the Senate and the Fortune 500 show, women still face barriers to equal participation in leadership roles. Of course, the case for continuing affirmative action for people of color is even greater. The median wealth of white households is 20 times that of black households. Researchers found that the same résumé for the same job application will get twice as many callbacks for interviews if the name on the résumé is Greg instead of Jamal. School districts spend more on predominantly white schools than predominantly black schools. The fact that black workers earn, on average, 35% less than white workers in the same job isn’t erased by the election of an African-American President— one who, by the way, openly praises the role of affirmative action in his life and accomplishments.
As for Fisher, there is ample evidence that she just wasn’t qualified to get into the University of Texas. After all, her grades weren’t that great, and the year she applied for the university, admissions there were actually more competitive than Harvard’s. In its court filings, the university has pointed out that even if Fisher received a point for race, she still wouldn’t have met the threshold for admissions. Yes, it is true that in the same year, the University of Texas made exceptions and admitted some students with lower grades and test scores than Fisher. Five of those students were black or Latino. Forty-two were white.
|
|
|
|
Banned
Member Since: 10/28/2011
Posts: 21,283
|
I heard Rachel clocked the defense attorney. 
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 9/18/2011
Posts: 18,295
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Beyond Say
Affirmative Action Has Helped White Women More Than Anyone
In the coming days, the U.S. Supreme Court is expected to rule in a potentially landmark case on the constitutionality of affirmative action. The original lawsuit was filed on behalf of Abigail Fisher, a woman who claims that she was denied admission to the University of Texas because she is white. But study after study shows that affirmative action helps white women as much or even more than it helps men and women of color. Ironically, Fisher is exactly the kind of person affirmative action helps the most in America today.
Originally, women weren’t even included in legislation attempting to level the playing field in education and employment. The first affirmative-action measure in America was an executive order signed by President Kennedy in 1961 requiring that federal contractors “take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin.” In 1967, President Johnson amended this, and a subsequent measure included sex, recognizing that women also faced many discriminatory barriers and hurdles to equal opportunity. Meanwhile, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 only included sex in the list of prohibited forms of discrimination because conservative opponents of the legislation hoped that including it would sway moderate members of Congress to withdraw their support for the bill. Still, in a nation where white women and black people were once considered property — not allowed to own property themselves and not allowed to vote — it was clear to all those who were seeking fairness and opportunity that both groups faced monumental obstacles.
(MORE: Touré: Why We Still Need Affirmative Action)
While people of color, individually and as groups, have been helped by affirmative action in the subsequent years, data and studies suggest women — white women in particular — have benefited disproportionately. According to one study, in 1995, 6 million women, the majority of whom were white, had jobs they wouldn’t have otherwise held but for affirmative action.
Another study shows that women made greater gains in employment at companies that do business with the federal government, which are therefore subject to federal affirmative-action requirements, than in other companies — with female employment rising 15.2% at federal contractors but only 2.2% elsewhere. And the women working for federal-contractor companies also held higher positions and were paid better.
Even in the private sector, the advancements of white women eclipse those of people of color. After IBM established its own affirmative-action program, the numbers of women in management positions more than tripled in less than 10 years. Data from subsequent years show that the number of executives of color at IBM also grew, but not nearly at the same rate.
(MORE: Eric Liu: What Asian Americans Reveal About Affirmative Action)
The successes of white women make a case not for abandoning affirmative action but for continuing it. As the numbers in the Senate and the Fortune 500 show, women still face barriers to equal participation in leadership roles. Of course, the case for continuing affirmative action for people of color is even greater. The median wealth of white households is 20 times that of black households. Researchers found that the same résumé for the same job application will get twice as many callbacks for interviews if the name on the résumé is Greg instead of Jamal. School districts spend more on predominantly white schools than predominantly black schools. The fact that black workers earn, on average, 35% less than white workers in the same job isn’t erased by the election of an African-American President— one who, by the way, openly praises the role of affirmative action in his life and accomplishments.
As for Fisher, there is ample evidence that she just wasn’t qualified to get into the University of Texas. After all, her grades weren’t that great, and the year she applied for the university, admissions there were actually more competitive than Harvard’s. In its court filings, the university has pointed out that even if Fisher received a point for race, she still wouldn’t have met the threshold for admissions. Yes, it is true that in the same year, the University of Texas made exceptions and admitted some students with lower grades and test scores than Fisher. Five of those students were black or Latino. Forty-two were white.
|
I heard that fact before too.I'm glad supreme court ruled against her in that case.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 5/10/2011
Posts: 4,200
|
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 11/17/2011
Posts: 52,363
|
Quote:
Originally posted by I Am Music
Funny thing is there is more whites on welfare than blacks 
And yes lgrt you better preach the gospel  |
exactly
I bet ppl think it was made for the blacks when it wasnt...it wasnt just a minority thing
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 4/28/2011
Posts: 26,425
|
A brilliant, well-written piece on Rachel (*witness in the trial)
Quote:
A predominantly white jury is not going to like Rachel Jeantel. Let's just be real here.
The 19-year-old Miami native is an easy target for obvious, yet shallow reasons. But let's not forget why she's actually on the stand in George Zimmerman's second degree murder trial. Rachel was the last person to speak to a living, breathing Trayvon Martin. The guilt, shame and sorrow she must feel is something most of us will never be able to comprehend. You could hear it in her voice, see it in her jittery body language. She is feeling the wrath of this highly publicized case.
Rachel was thrown head first into this murder story, unwillingly. And although she had repeatedly said she did not want to be a witness, did not even want to believe she was the last person Trayvon spoke to, Rachel took the stand for all the right reasons. She was asked to by the family of her deceased friend and feeling part of the burden for his death, she wanted to help.
Rachel was raw, emotional, aggressive and hostile, and she was unapologetically herself.
And if the 5 white jurors (excluding the 1 Latina) are like most white people I know, they are unfortunately not going to like Rachel. They won't understand her, especially not her defensive nature, and this will unfortunately work against her. Even though it shouldn't.
I can imagine George Zimmerman's defense is just hoping some of those 5 white jurors have some prejudices (as most people do), or hell, are even racist, because if they are, their tactic to make Rachel out to be less intelligent, rather than less credible than she actually is, might actually work.
Less intelligent and more confused.
Less intelligent because of the "language barrier" and more confused because of the lawyers' failure to understand who Rachel is, where she comes from, what kind of life she lives.
It seems the middle-aged white men on both sides of this case are totally unaware of what Rachel's life is like - a 19-year-old high school student of Haitian descent who knows nothing more than the few block radius she has grown up in. The cultural differences here are exponential.
But if the lawyers, and especially the jurors, were really listening, they would see that although she comes off aggressive, Rachel was consistent. Yes, the defense proved she had lied in the past, but she didn't deny it. On the contrary. She was very honest about it, and even led us to sympathize with her reasoning for it - she did not want to see Trayvon's body, she did not want to face Trayvon's mother and she wanted to wipe her hands of the situation because of the emotion and trauma. She was the last person Trayvon spoke to and she wanted everyone to understand what that means. This is in no way easy for her.
Rachel is the prosecution's key witness, but I am going to call her the misunderstood witness. She holds vital information that both the defense and prosecution need, but these middle-aged white men questioning her do not get it. Sadly both the prosecution and the defense [but more so the defense] have an extreme disconnect from her reality, like I said. The constant text messaging between her and Trayvon is normal for two high school kids who may like each other, the nonchalant use of racial slurs like "cracka" and "n*gga" are slang (as Rachel put it) and that doesn't mean it comes from a racist place.
Trayvon was just 17, his life consisted of text messaging, high school, PS3, girls and not much else. He had a lot of growing up to do, a lot of experiences to take in, so much more to learn, but sadly, he will never get a chance to do any of those things.
Rachel on the other hand will get to, but with her immaturity displayed on the stand for the whole world to see, she quickly became a joke. Maybe we were picturing Trayvon's alleged girlfriend to be a bit different, but nevertheless, Rachel still is the last person, aside from George Zimmerman, that Trayvon had any contact with while he was alive on this earth. Rachel's mumbling, hostility and that reference to the show First 48, among other things, threw us for a loophole, but let's remember, she is just a teen. This is what she knows. This is far from a Lifetime movie, this is her life. In the flesh, but still on our TVs.
I cried when she described the feeling of realizing she was the last person Trayvon spoke to, cringed at her blatant honesty, laughed when she spoke back to the attorneys and even had to turn my volume down throughout different phases of her testimony because of sheer discomfort.
Rachel was authentic, nervous and extremely herself. She did, after all, hear her friend, a minor, get killed in cold blood. And her involvement, from what we can tell, became dragged out beyond anything she ever wanted.
Her hostility is making more sense now.
Rachel's collision with Zimmerman's attorney Don West was uncomfortable to watch. They didn't get each other. I even thought at one point they were going to call in some type of translator. Yes, she mumbled, but the amount of times she was asked to repeat herself, speak up and slow down proved that they were indeed speaking different languages. But let's be honest. Rachel Jeantel's attitude is exactly what I would expect from someone from the hood who has no media training and who is fully entrenched in a hostile environment.
There's nothing wrong with it.
A few different times while watching this trial I've gotten caught up in the entertainment of it all, like a movie I don't want to miss the ending to. But this isn't a movie, and although Don West did kick off his opening argument with a "Knock-Knock" joke, it's not meant to be entertainment. And definitely not funny.
This is truly a life and death situation. Rachel was on the phone with Trayvon moments before he got murdered while walking home from a 7-11, back to "his Daddy's house," as Rachel so eloquently put it. Aside from George Zimmerman, Rachel was Trayvon's last communication on this earth.
This is real. Let's not forget that.
Read more: http://globalgrind.com/news/what-whi...#ixzz2XRjwTox6
|
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 4/10/2012
Posts: 14,915
|
There are only more whites on welfare because there are more whites in this country. When you break it down though, the ratio of blacks in America to the ones on welfare is more than whites in America to whites on welfare.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/6/2012
Posts: 20,242
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Toya
There are only more whites on welfare because there are more whites in this country. When you break it down though, the ratio of blacks in America to the ones on welfare is more than whites in America to whites on welfare.
|
Good point but it really irks me when you hear welfare people automatically assume black.
That just isn't the case.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/24/2008
Posts: 35,091
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Damien M
All the drama in this thread. |
sss
This is what happens when you put alot of...urban people together.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 4/28/2011
Posts: 26,425
|
Sinny...are you a guy?
I sorta imagine you as a female 
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/24/2008
Posts: 35,091
|
I am a God
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 9/18/2011
Posts: 18,295
|
Again, the blacks on welfare ratio comes (at least partially) from our race's history of generally being more economically disadvantaged than whites.
I'll repeat this again:
If some of these complainers want something to do about reducing welfare long term, start by get rid of the guns, the gangs, clean up these sketchy ass areas that are breeding grounds for criminal activity,and stop being biased in school funding and get more blacks on track to having degrees.If NONE of this gets done, the cycle won't get broken. Calling everyone with black skin punks and thugs ain't gonna do ****
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 9/18/2011
Posts: 18,295
|
These people are making the same Mistakes the people who did Emmett Till's case made. 
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 11/16/2010
Posts: 11,962
|
What if Black Americans retained equal rights from 1865? What would America be like today if all Black Americans retained true equal rights from the end of the Civil War to today?
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 9/18/2011
Posts: 18,295
|
I really don't know what would happen tbh.
Maybe we would be a bit better off
|
|
|
|
Banned
Member Since: 10/28/2011
Posts: 21,283
|
Thank you for that piece, TVX.
It's really unbelievable how the lawyers were treating Rachel.
The cards are so stacked against Trayvon's family, friends and case. Beyond upsetting tbh. 
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 4/10/2012
Posts: 14,915
|
I think if we had equal rights from 1865 things would still be the same as far as how people treat each other because slavery would have still happened and the psychological effects of that on everyone would still be an issue like it is today 150 years after it all happened. Imagine people back in 1865 dealing with the end of slavery + the slaves all of a sudden being equal to them in the eyes of the government though. It would have been insane lol.
Economically though we'd probably be better off as a whole.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 3/5/2011
Posts: 15,589
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Callisto.
sss
This is what happens when you put alot of...urban people together. |
All these pent-up emotions and frustration.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 9/18/2011
Posts: 18,295
|
If this is pertaining to that essay I wrote on the last page, I just had to.
These kinds of things VEX the living **** out of me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
