2 2
winsor

Equal Rights, Equal Responsibilities. No More, No Less

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, winsor said:

It is instructive to define your terms, since people will routinely use vastly different meanings in a discussion, and 'racism' means different things to different people.  Let us allow for the awareness of different races, nationalities, tribal identities and cultures without implying bias.  One can be aware of the differences between, say, Lithuanian and Hmong without favoring one over the other oh the basis of anything but individual ability, integrity and what have you.

One can say that.

On the other hand, one can also say “No-one should ever mention race when discussing injustice, it’s just injustice.... and by the way, don’t you just hate it when black people are nasty to other black people?”

And when one does that, one is clearly being racist, despite one’s feeble protestations to the contrary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's only the point of view of someone who used to have easier or exclusive access to something. The tallest guy might have been selling play-by-play commentary based on his ability to see -- would elevating the others then be a loss to him, even though it really just elevated the others?

Your perceived superiority or superior access is generally at the expense of someone who is being cut off at the legs.

Wendy P.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, winsor said:

It is instructive to define your terms, since people will routinely use vastly different meanings in a discussion, and 'racism' means different things to different people. 

OK.  Then let's go with what it actually means - prejudice against a racial or ethnic group based on their membership in that group.

Quote

In the long run, graduating people who got a pass on grades and knowledge tends to backfire.  As an example, United Airlines decided to achieve 'diversity' by hiring any female pilots they could find with 1,200 hours, and they then had all too many First Officers that could never upgrade to Captain.  This was a great disservice to the women who had every bit as much skill and dedication as their male counterparts (if not more), and I shouldn't have had to stick up for pilots who were absolutely superb - and had achieved success in spite of being stunning.

I agree.  We should be doing what MIT did.  In 1985 they started a program to attract more women, since the school was running about 75% male classes.  They did not change their standards one bit.  What they DID do was start women's weekends over the summer, do outreach to high schools across the country, and tout their successful female graduates.    It worked - MIT is now close to 50/50.

Then in 1994 female professors complained that they were not given the same opportunities as men - the space given to them for labs was smaller, there were far fewer of them.  In 1999 the president of the institute studied this, and found it was true.  There were some systematic problems related to women's opportunities at MIT.  Again they went to work to fix them.  They were not as successful - there is still an imbalance and women faculty now spend a lot of time in working groups on the issue instead of on their research/teaching, which is somewhat counterproductive.  But it's getting better.

None of that would have happened if the response had been "there's no problem.  Nothing to fix.  We treat everyone equally, end of story."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, markharju said:

 

realequity.jpg

I guess that's the difference between us.  I'd rather lift the short guy up; you see that as cutting the tall guy down.  It's not - even if you lose some priviledge relative to other people.  Again, MIT solved the problem - and no one was "cut in half."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, billvon said:

I guess that's the difference between us.  I'd rather lift the short guy up; you see that as cutting the tall guy down.  It's not - even if you lose some privilege relative to other people.  Again, MIT solved the problem - and no one was "cut in half."

Unfortunately, some people see the concept of 'lifting the short guy up' as getting cut down  themselves
That is, to give someone else the same opportunity is to deny them that opportunity.

To make them compete on equal terms with one of 'those people' is not what they want.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

2 2