Tulsa city council adds sexual orientation as a protected class

[Red Arrow]

Today, I agree with you. In the past, when blatant discrimination was rampant, it was a necessary evil. Thankfully, we white men don't get preferential treatment by default anymore, so it's not needed.

Having been the recipient of reverse discrimination, I disagree that it was even legitimate in the past (1971).  I expect you and I will just have to disagree on this.

When entry and grading standards were lowered for minorities at the University of Delaware (and many others) where I got my Bachelors degree in engineering, it only lowered the value of my degree. That is one of the purposes of Junior/Community Colleges, to prepare students for the rigors of a full 4 year degree.

[Red Arrow]

You know what they say about big feet...

They fit clown shoes?

[custosnox]

Having been the recipient of reverse discrimination, I disagree that it was even legitimate in the past (1971).  I expect you and I will just have to disagree on this.

When entry and grading standards were lowered for minorities at the University of Delaware (and many others) where I got my Bachelors degree in engineering, it only lowered the value of my degree. That is one of the purposes of Junior/Community Colleges, to prepare students for the rigors of a full 4 year degree.

That always irritates the hell out of me.  How is it reverse discrimination?  Wouldn't it be, by deffinition, discrimination?  And by calling it reverse discrimination, you imply a discrimination just by using the term?

[Red Arrow]

That always irritates the hell out of me.  How is it reverse discrimination?  Wouldn't it be, by deffinition, discrimination?  And by calling it reverse discrimination, you imply a discrimination just by using the term?

Actually I think you are correct. The fact that it was against white guys seems to imply some legitimacy (See Nathan's comments).  Since the "original?" discrimination was typically against blacks, the discrimination against whites was termed "reverse".   Gotta love semantics.

I still lost my summer job and about $1700 when that was close to a year's tuition, living in the dorm and eating in the "dining hall".  It was not insignificant. Out of state tuition ( I lived in PA until 1971), room & board was about $2000/yr.  Tuition at TU then was about $35/credit hour.  I took short course for 3 credits over the winter break in Jan 72 for $105.

Before you say how you would like to get a 4 year degree for less than $10,000., remember the salaries of the time.  Minimum wage was $1.65/hr.

Edit: added (See Nathan's comments)

[nathanm]

I expect you and I will just have to disagree on this.

Probably. Let me fully explain myself, though.

Black people in this country were at a significant disadvantage in both employment and college admissions immediately after the civil rights movement thanks to the hundreds of years of oppression by racists in our country. Something had to be done to bring them to parity. Since lots of schools and businesses simply refused to admit or employ black people, what other options were there?

It sucks being on the other side, I'm sure, but you managed to turn out OK regardless, partly thanks to the unseen breaks you got for having the right color skin and mostly due to your own hard work, I'm sure.

To use a different example, for many years after women first entered the workforce in large numbers they were drastically underpaid compared to their male counterparts of a similar skill level. Forcing employers to pay more equitably logically had to have had an effect on the typical male's salary, since more of the salary money was being allocated to women. I have a hard time with the idea that equal pay for equal work is discriminatory against men, even though it obviously has to reduce their pay (or, more likely, reduce their raises) somewhat.

FWIW, women are to this day paid less than men for most jobs, even accounting for the difference in compensation attributable to women taking months or years off when they have a child.

[custosnox]

Probably. Let me fully explain myself, though.

Black people in this country were at a significant disadvantage in both employment and college admissions immediately after the civil rights movement thanks to the hundreds of years of oppression by racists in our country. Something had to be done to bring them to parity. Since lots of schools and businesses simply refused to admit or employ black people, what other options were there?

It sucks being on the other side, I'm sure, but you managed to turn out OK regardless, partly thanks to the unseen breaks you got for having the right color skin and mostly due to your own hard work, I'm sure.

To use a different example, for many years after women first entered the workforce in large numbers they were drastically underpaid compared to their male counterparts of a similar skill level. Forcing employers to pay more equitably logically had to have had an effect on the typical male's salary, since more of the salary money was being allocated to women. I have a hard time with the idea that equal pay for equal work is discriminatory against men, even though it obviously has to reduce their pay (or, more likely, reduce their raises) somewhat.

FWIW, women are to this day paid less than men for most jobs, even accounting for the difference in compensation attributable to women taking months or years off when they have a child.

At one point in time, yes, something needed to be done.  But, it seems that affirmative action has caused a lot more of RA's "reverse" racism.  You see this more on the streets than in the work force, but it is in the work force.  What you see in the streets though is a more outspoken version of it where you can see that so many think that they are owed something because of the color of their skin.  It is a mindset that seems to have been ingrained in the mind of so many, and I think it is in large part because for so long (and still do, just not as much) they recieved more because of they are this or that race. 

[Red Arrow]

Nathan,

Using your legitimacy of putting black people ahead of whites in hiring practices, maybe we should have paid women more than we paid men for the same job to make up for years of inequity.

And just for good measure,  we should have fired white guys to make room for more blacks.

More later, I have some projects to get done this afternoon.

[nathanm]

And just for good measure,  we should have fired white guys to make room for more blacks.

Or we could have just put 'em all on welfare. 

It surprises me that you have a problem with making up for hundreds of years of blatant oppression by leveling the playing field a little. Next, you're going to tell me that the blacks in South Africa should have just sit down and shut up.

[Red Arrow]

Or we could have just put 'em all on welfare. 

It surprises me that you have a problem with making up for hundreds of years of blatant oppression by leveling the playing field a little. Next, you're going to tell me that the blacks in South Africa should have just sit down and shut up.

You have some wrong impressions of me.

I was and am for equal opportunity.  Equal success depends on the individual. Leveling the playing field is OK.  Stacking it in favor of the formerly oppressed is just as wrong as the original oppression. Your liberal bias and white guilt will probably not accept that. (Plus, I think you are too young to have been there.)  In the 60s I could sympathize with Dr. MLK.  Protest fine, violence no.  I had a difficult time understanding the blacks in Watts burning their (probably rented) homes and then complaining they had no place to live. I'm sure many of those places were dumps.  There were definitely things wrong in the 60s.  I remember traveling from (near) Philly to Fl to visit my grandparents. I couldn't understand why the "colored" had to use separate restrooms.

I remember that minorities (mostly blacks) had to be promoted to positions they may not be qualified for just to fill quotas.  There were certainly well educated blacks but in many cases the former officially sanctioned discrimination did not provide the skills required to fill advanced jobs.  Those people were being set up to fail.  What is the good in that?  I agree with Custosnox that to some extend the entitlement attitude was an unintended result of the Affirmative Action type legislation.  Let's see,  there are very few Black Airline pilots.  Let's put some in the left (Captain) seat to fill a quota.  Want to fly that plane as a passenger?   A few years later, a black pilot works his way through the system with legally mandated equal opportunity.  I would be perfectly willing to be a passenger on that plane.

My summer job was admittedly a no skill job, other than to show up and do what I was told.  With all the pro Union bias around here I am surprised that anything other than seniority and first come first serve would rule on who got the job.

My grandfather (on my father's side) came here from Poland around 1917.  My dad's mother was born in the US of Polish parents. Being Polish then was about as popular as other immigrants in other times.  Grandpop had some family members that preceded  him but otherwise came here without speaking English and having only the shirt on his back.  (OK, also pants and shoes etc.) Granted you couldn't tell he was Polish from across the street but as soon as he talked (even as a 90+ year old) you could tell he wasn't born in the USA.  Signing his name on an job application was a dead giveaway. My grandfather worked in the coal mines for a while  and then decided that was not what he wanted to do. He took correspondence courses to be a machinist and learned English in the process.  I have a book he used which is part Polish and part English. My dad spoke Polish before he spoke English.  Then my grandparents realized that if their kids were to have a chance in the future they would need to speak English. I even had an instructor in the US Navy electronics school in 1972 say he never met a smart "Polack".  I aced his course. Remember "Polack" jokes? My mother's side of the family came here from the British Isles in the late 1800s.

Where I am going with this is that you cannot turn around centuries of oppression in 10 years.  40 years later (2 generations) we are getting closer.  The feeling of entitlement went beyond minorities but that's probably another thread.

Minorities (again, mostly blacks in this case) needed to be given equal opportunity.  I don't believe giving them an artificial advantage was actually a good thing to do, even for the blacks.   I freely admit that I have no White Guilt.  I was not responsible (nor were my parents or grandparents) for the oppression of the blacks.  There were plenty that were though.  Nathan, were your forefathers slave owners?  Feeling guilty?

South Africa was another bad deal for blacks.  As I understand it though, the White Brits actually did the early significant settlements.  Then they needed workers for the plantations etc.  The blacks were nearby  (much as Mexicans are for us) and filled the need.  The oppression of Apartheid is no more excusable than our history of slavery and and Jim Crow laws.  Could they have turned their country around without violence?  I don't know.  I still have a difficult time calling Mandella a hero due to his Communist leanings. Confiscation of white owned property there and in other countries in Africa has met with mixed/limited economic success.  I am just recalling what I have read in the past and don't have specific documents to cite as proof.  

Long story short.... Equal opportunity, yes.  Discrimination, NO!

[nathanm]

Long story short.... Equal opportunity, yes.  Discrimination, NO!

I think you've got me wrong, too. I wouldn't support putting unqualified people in any position, regardless of skin color, past oppression, or anything else. What I do think was OK was preferentially hiring black people for positions they were qualified for to balance things out. As I said earlier, it was a necessary and temporary measure to make up for the fact that up to that point black people generally couldn't get out of the mail room or janitorial positions, no matter what qualifications they had. Ideally, the discrimination wouldn't have been there in the first place, so no remedies would have been necessary, but that's not how it happened.

You're right, though, I wasn't there.

FWIW, it's not guilt, it's recognition of injustice. Sometimes, remedies necessarily impose a temporary hardship on the formerly privileged. And quotas were a far better way of going about it than just giving them money in an attempt to make up for the fact they weren't hired because of the color of their skin, to my mind. That would have led to a real sense of entitlement.

[Red Arrow]

As I said earlier, it was a necessary and temporary measure to make up for the fact that up to that point black people generally couldn't get out of the mail room or janitorial positions, no matter what qualifications they had. Ideally, the discrimination wouldn't have been there in the first place, so no remedies would have been necessary, but that's not how it happened.

You're right, though, I wasn't there.

FWIW, it's not guilt, it's recognition of injustice. Sometimes, remedies necessarily impose a temporary hardship on the formerly privileged. And quotas were a far better way of going about it than just giving them money in an attempt to make up for the fact they weren't hired because of the color of their skin, to my mind. That would have led to a real sense of entitlement.

I understand your position, I just disagree with it.  (Except that I do agree that just giving money would have led to a real sense of entitlement.)

[Red Arrow]

As I said earlier, it was a necessary and temporary measure

I forgot to ask earlier, how long is temporary?

I don't remember hearing how the fire fighters in Connecticut did in their lawsuit about the testing and promotion.

[custosnox]

I don't remember hearing how the fire fighters in Connecticut did in their lawsuit about the testing and promotion.

If I remember correctly, the firefighters won.  I just can't remember what the actual end result was.  Might have to hit google in a bit lol

[nathanm]

I forgot to ask earlier, how long is temporary?

As long as it takes to balance out the conditions that led to the need. Somewhere between 5 and 20 years depending. As I recall the way we did it in this country is that companies getting federal money had to use the quota system until they demonstrated it was no longer needed.

If there are particular companies or institutions that still discriminate against minorities, they ought to remain under the quota until they get it through their thick skulls that that's not OK in this day and age.

So basically, it should be (and was) done on a case by case basis.

[custosnox]

As long as it takes to balance out the conditions that led to the need. Somewhere between 5 and 20 years depending. As I recall the way we did it in this country is that companies getting federal money had to use the quota system until they demonstrated it was no longer needed.

If there are particular companies or institutions that still discriminate against minorities, they ought to remain under the quota until they get it through their thick skulls that that's not OK in this day and age.

So basically, it should be (and was) done on a case by case basis.

And who decides if a company should remain under the quota system?  After all, if it coud be proven, then it would be enforced via lawsuit.