TTI Forums

So I got this message from my college I used to go to. It was labeled high priority.

** High Priority **

Colleagues,

In 2002, we reiterated that diversity was a major priority with the
University of Louisville. Acceptance of all people regardless of race,
ethnicity, gender, age, socio-economic status, national origin, sexual
orientation, disability and religion is critical to our success in
becoming a premier metropolitan research university.

I hope you will join me Monday, March 17, at our first Celebration of
Diversity event at 3 p.m. in Bigelow Hall, Miller Information Technology
Center.

The event will feature the first President’s Diversity Vision Award
presentation. The award is designed to honor programs, departments or
units engaged in diversity initiatives which have served to promote the
development of an inclusive, diverse campus community.

Keynote speaker for the event will be UofL student Patrick Henry Hughes
and his father, Patrick John Hughes. The Hughes family recently was
featured on the television program “Extreme Makeover: Home
Edition.”

A reception will follow.

I encourage all students, faculty and staff to join us for this
important event, and I look forward to seeing you there.

Jim Ramsey
President

What diversity has to do with racism?

Its a focus on diversity. What you don't see in this message is what colleges actually do now days. They actually require a certain amount of black students, women, etc. They look at people's skin color and make sure there are lots of each color, instead of looking at their mind. Every poster you see around campus has all different races on them.

They say that one's race shouldn't matter... then why do they focus so much on it? It should be negligible, not focused on.

They say that one's race shouldn't matter... then why do they focus so much on it? It should be negligible, not focused on.

Because the country is still full of racist sexist bigots. Laws and policies like this hurt the innocent but its the only way to keep the others in check.

Raaz Satik wrote:

They say that one's race shouldn't matter... then why do they focus so much on it? It should be negligible, not focused on.

Because the country is still full of racist sexist bigots. Laws and policies like this hurt the innocent but its the only way to keep the others in check.

Individuals should be free to be racist.

If an employer wishes to only employ white or black or <insert here> people, it's his individual moral right to do so. He is the one who should be choosing whom to deal with.

"Keeping others in check" is a policy of government telling the individual what to think. Consider: accepting this idea means that an employer has a right to fire his worker, but only so until he fires him with a right intention. The moment employer is shown to have fired the worker for the wrong reason, the government steps in and punishes him.

This is not a job of a government. No government should ever attempt to control and punish thoughts.

The governments job is to protect rights. However, there is no such thing as a right not to be treated based on your race. Individuals must remain free to think. This includes a right to come to wrong conclusion and thoughts, such as racist thoughts. Being irrational is not a crime; initiating physical force is.

Oleksandr wrote: Individuals should be free to be racist.

If an employer wishes to only employ white or black or <insert here> people, it's his individual moral right to do so. He is the one who should be choosing whom to deal with.

"Keeping others in check" is a policy of government telling the individual what to think. Consider: accepting this idea means that an employer has a right to fire his worker, but only so until he fires him with a right intention. The moment employer is shown to have fired the worker for the wrong reason, the government steps in and punishes him.

This is not a job of a government. No government should ever attempt to control and punish thoughts.

The governments job is to protect rights. However, there is no such thing as a right not to be treated based on your race. Individuals must remain free to think. This includes a right to come to wrong conclusion and thoughts, such as racist thoughts. Being irrational is not a crime; initiating physical force is.

Exactly! I only wish this was a message in mainstream media.

Oleksandr wrote:Individuals should be free to be racist.

If an employer wishes to only employ white or black or <insert here> people, it's his individual moral right to do so. He is the one who should be choosing whom to deal with.

"Keeping others in check" is a policy of government telling the individual what to think. Consider: accepting this idea means that an employer has a right to fire his worker, but only so until he fires him with a right intention. The moment employer is shown to have fired the worker for the wrong reason, the government steps in and punishes him.

This is not a job of a government. No government should ever attempt to control and punish thoughts.

The governments job is to protect rights. However, there is no such thing as a right not to be treated based on your race. Individuals must remain free to think. This includes a right to come to wrong conclusion and thoughts, such as racist thoughts. Being irrational is not a crime; initiating physical force is.

I believe the question was "why do they do it?", not "should they do it?" but you do make some interesting points.

I've been thinking about this a little more, a lot actually.

The idea of racism offends me, but I agree the goverment shouldn't be creating laws purely to keep people in check.

So why would an employer only wish to employ race/sex/caste ABC and not XYZ? Probably because he believes ABC is better than XYZ. Why would he believe that? Probably because the US and many other countries have a history of racism dating back to slavery, where slaves were not equal to their masters. Slavery obviously involves the use of force to violate another persons rights and freedom. So while Racism today might not involve the violation of individual rights, isn't there an argument that many of the founding forces of racism were a violation of individual rights?

Incidently, the University of Louisville isn't a private organization. It's funded with public money and as such under Oleks argument it isn't free to be racist if it so choose's.

Raaz Satik wrote:Why would he believe that? Probably because the US and many other countries have a history of racism dating back to slavery, where slaves were not equal to their masters. Slavery obviously involves the use of force to violate another persons rights and freedom. So while Racism today might not involve the violation of individual rights, isn't there an argument that many of the founding forces of racism were a violation of individual rights?

No. At best that would be historical correlation and not enough to condemn an individual b/c he has chosen to agree with an idea that used to be related to some ideas. An individual can't be and shouldn't be responsible for this.


Also US wasn't racist. South states had a history of racism. US had a civil war over this issue, and Northern states won, thus Capitalism won, and racism was mainly ended.

Slavery and racism aren't actually logical linked. For example, Africans had slavery among themselves way before Europeans ever arrived. And it was Africans themselves who were often selling those slaves. So "racism" as an idea is not even the leading cause for slavery. After all, Nazis were very racist but didn't have any slaves at all.

Also, racism wasn't a creation of last 3 centuries. It existed literally since the beginning of human time. Racism comes from tribes, where one tribes doesn't consider another tribe to have rights b/c they are another tribe. Example: native americans.

Consider that US was the first country to remove slavery and racism through Capitalism (which is only the system that upholds individual rights, thus racism isn't compatible, while all other political systems don't recongize individual rights fully, thus racism stays there much longer). All other countries, including Europe and Africa never let go the idea of nationalism or tribalism.

Oleksandr wrote:Consider that US was the first country to remove slavery and racism through Capitalism (which is only the system that upholds individual rights, thus racism isn't compatible, while all other political systems don't recongize individual rights fully, thus racism stays there much longer). All other countries, including Europe and Africa never let go the idea of nationalism or tribalism.

I believe England courts ruled against slavery in England in 1772, and in 1807 even ruled against the global slave trade!

Raaz Satik wrote:I believe England courts ruled against slavery in England in 1772, and in 1807 even ruled against the global slave trade!

True that England was a decent semi-capitalist country on decline back then. Though, I don't think England faired better in racist views due to influence of socialism and nationalism in the century that followed after 1800s.

From what I've actually seen in London and surrounding areas, racism against blacks and other minorities rivals that of the most backwoods, redneck US town. I've seen open hostilities back and forth, based solely on the color of skin. True, its not governmentally supported like it was in the US back in the 40's and 50's (no "Colored vs. White bathrooms), but its just as violent and illogical.

Now with colleges and workplaces, I hate affirmative action...with a passion. While they have percentages of required minority students, there is no required percentage of white students/employees. There was a story lately here in Sacramento about a software company ran by men of mostly East Indian decent who only hired other East Indian employees. There was no law in place that forbid them to do so (I'm not saying there should be) but the fact that laws work the other way is flawed.

I agree, publicly/governmentally funded college shouldn't discriminate based on race...so don't make it part of the process. Its alot harder to tell if someone is black, white, Native American, etc just based of test scores and other purely statistical data like GPA's. True, names and locations students are coming from can be an indicator...so just strip that out...have an independent validation committee that only sees the statistical data from test scores and such with no other racially identifiable data.

Then again, I also think that colleges shouldn't view volunteer work as a "extremely positive" factor when evaluating potential applicants. To me, a student who spent his time working and making his own way has done more than some kid who spent a few weekends picking up trash or holding someone's hand in a nursing home. I wrote a formal letter of complaint to Sacramento State University when they denied my application because I refused to fill out the volunteer activities section.

But back to the racism topic....

Its hard to move beyond racism when the laws only serve one side of the issue. We have the government telling people that we're all equal and that color doesn't matter...yet driving around Sacramento I've seen ads for the Black Expo 2008...at school we see Black History month....Native American History Week...etc. I'm all for personally celebrating your heritage, good for you, but don't sit there and segregate yourself with special events and then wonder why irrational people treat you differently.

Its hard to logically defend screaming out to the world that you're proud of the color of your skin and heritage...forming laws and marches to protect just your skin color...making sure colleges and work places HAVE to have certain percentage of your ethnic type in their workforce.....and then getting violently angry when you're treated a certain way because of the color of your skin.

They only want the color of their skin to be taken into account when it benefits them...but when it doesn't benefit them they scream injustice and that it shouldn't matter...just like the kid on the playground who changes the rules of kickball when it benefits him...but cries about it being unfair when the rules don't support his side.

I'm with Oleks on this one, I feel that a college or employer should be able to decide who they hire or admit.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-8qMbP8ArZM

This is Penn and Teller on diversity in schools. These two are always great.

Interestingly, in a recent interview of Penn, he said that he agrees with all of Ayn Rand's ideas... makes sense from his videos I have seen.

Oleksandr wrote: Also US wasn't racist. South states had a history of racism. US had a civil war over this issue, and Northern states won, thus Capitalism won, and racism was mainly ended.

If memory serves, Slavery was always a relatively large issue in the United States, argued over since the very inception of the union predating the American Revolutionary (Civil!) War. I believe I remember there not only being a rather large compromise as well as an agreement not to bring up the issue for a number of years.

Slavery, however, is an issue entirely different from Racism. Both used to be very clearly linked, but only because the easiest slaves to capture happened to all be in one area, and therefore (at the time) all one color. Racism evolved, in a way, from the way we used to practice slavery.

Look at our postmodern slavery still active today, and you'll find it is still the 'weakest' people being enslaved - particularly in the case of sexual slavery - with nothing more than sheer physical force and violence.

Racism is still incredibly rampant, and while it is not quite so physically violent as it used to be (or perhaps it is, I can't trust either side of that arguement) but take a look at modern-day media. We celebrate and taunt the racial differences between our cultures. This, I believe, is actually for the societal best, and is the only way to truly eradicate it. Make it into a joke so greatly that eventually, there remains no offense whatsoever to the 'offended party' and the cultural mindset will reach a variety of equillibrium.

I don't believe I'll live long enough to see the end of slavery - though I wish I would. I don't want to live long enough to see the end of racism; I am horrified of what the great 'We' will pick next.

*edited parenthetical phrases for clarity.

Aryana Orinogu wrote:Slavery, however, is an issue entirely different from Racism.

Agree.

Aryana Orinogu wrote:Both used to be very clearly linked, but only because the easiest slaves to capture happened to all be in one area, and therefore (at the time) all one color. Racism evolved, in a way, from the way we used to practice slavery.

Mostly we didn't have to capture them. The stronger African tribes would go to war with weaker tribes and exact tribute in the form of slaves which they would then sell to Europeans/Americans. Slavery died out in Europe with very little fuss because there was no real demand for massive unskilled labor forces like there was in the US and Brazil. Conversely, the enormous plantations in the southern US and Brazil could not operate without the use of slave labour, (their raw materials sold for very low prices and the only way to assure profits was to utilize slave labor which was a high initial cost but next to no upkeep, and was also a renewable resource).

Aryana Orinogu wrote:Look at our postmodern slavery still active today, and you'll find it is still the 'weakest' people being enslaved - particularly in the case of sexual slavery - with nothing more than sheer physical force and violence.

Whenever someone says "postmodern" I cringe. It's like saying "postpresent", so what does that mean? You're looking into the future? Any initiation of force against another is immoral, but strong people achieving success to a greater degree than those weaker is not, (whether its the construction worker who can do more physical labor and thus gets a higher wage than his peers, or the inventor who by dint of his intellectual strengths can realize incredible wealth). You don't exactly state that it should be otherwise here, I just wanted to make that distinction, and I hope you agree. Coersion in any form is evil.

Aryana Orinogu wrote:Racism is still incredibly rampant, and while it is not quite so physically violent as it used to be (or perhaps it is, I can't trust either side of that arguement) but take a look at modern-day media. We celebrate and taunt the racial differences between our cultures. This, I believe, is actually for the societal best, and is the only way to truly eradicate it. Make it into a joke so greatly that eventually, there remains no offense whatsoever to the 'offended party' and the cultural mindset will reach a variety of equillibrium.

I don't believe I'll live long enough to see the end of slavery - though I wish I would. I don't want to live long enough to see the end of racism; I am horrified of what the great 'We' will pick next.

Strongly disagree. Racism is worse today than it was during the 60s. The fact that it has taken the form of socialistic values is much more dangerous and insipid than the outright violence and hate during the years of the "civil rights movement". During the 60s the focus was on dealing with others based on their ideas and values, not on the color of their skin. That was the prevalent movement and driving force behind the social changes experienced then. Now the focus is back on race! The government forces business owners, (mostly of large businesses, but small businesses to a lesser degree as well) to make decisions based on an applicant's race or sex and not their actual job qualifications. If one bucks this trend then he is labled a racist and can be open to lawsuits! Previously, the government allowed racism to exist. Now they encourage it. Sounds like progress to me!

There is no "Societal best". Altruism in any form is immoral. The greatest good is accomplished when individuals accomplish their own goals for their own reasons. Racially-based humor is a big part of the problem, not a means of effecting a solution. (If it's ok to joke about it, that means nothing is wrong with it, right?) The solution to the problem in your last sentence is to stop Collectivist thinking altogether and focus on individuals. An individualist by definition cannot be racist.

Petyr Baelich wrote: (If it's ok to joke about it, that means nothing is wrong with it, right?)

I generally find joking about it a sign that something is wrong--especially if the joke is true! If it is culturally true, then the joker is not at fault, it is usually many of the individuals who make up that culture that are at fault.

I'm using this definition of culture.

An example is the danish cartoons depicting Muhammad. There was no fault in the cartoonist because they were indeed making a broad statement about a culture that was generally true!