What happens when the minority becomes the majority? - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Cynthetiq · 08-13-2008, 07:58 PM

Quote:

View: Minorities expected to be majority in 2050
Source: CNN
posted with the TFP thread generator

Minorities expected to be majority in 2050
Story Highlights

Census: By 2050, 54 percent will be other than non-Hispanic, single-race whites
Number of U.S, residents older than 65 expected to more than double
Hispanic population projected to make the largest gains
Census official says the timelines are not written in stone

(CNN) -- By 2050, minorities will be the majority in America, and the number of residents older than 65 will more than double, according to projections released Thursday by the U.S. Census Bureau.

Minorities, classified as those of any race other than non-Hispanic, single-race whites, currently constitute about a third of the U.S. population, according to Census figures. But by 2042, they are projected to become the majority, making up more than half the population. By 2050, 54 percent of the population will be minorities.

Minority children are projected to reach that milestone even sooner. By 2023, the bureau said, more than half of all children will be minorities.

"Part of it is a higher fertility rate for some of the minority groups, Hispanics in particular," said Dave Waddington, chief of the Census Bureau's population projection branch, which issued the report. "Those groups also tend to be more of the childbearing age. Non-Hispanic white people tend to be a little bit older."

The projections are based on Census 2000 results and assumptions about future childbearing, mortality rates and net international migration, the bureau said.

The group predicted to post the most dramatic gain is the Hispanic population. It is projected to nearly triple, from 46.7 million to 132.8 million, from 2008 through 2050, the bureau said. Its share of the total U.S. population is expected to double from 15 to 30 percent. "Thus, one in three U.S. residents would be Hispanic," the Census Bureau said in a news release.

The African-American population is projected to increase from 41.1 million to 65.7 million by 2050, going from 14 percent of the U.S. population to 15 percent. The Asian-American population is expected to increase from 15.5 million to 40.6 million, or from 5.1 percent to 9.2 percent of the population.

Among the remaining races, the bureau said, American Indians and Alaska natives are projected to increase from 3.9 million to 8.6 million, going from 1.6 percent to 2 percent of the U.S. population. Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islanders are expected to more than double, increasing from 1.1 to 2.6 million.

In addition, the number of U.S. residents identifying themselves as being of two or more races is projected to more than triple, increasing to 16.2 million from its current 5.2 million, the Census Bureau said.

Meanwhile, the non-Hispanic white population is not expected to post dramatic gains in the same period. By 2050, whites are expected to number 203.3 million, slightly increased from the 2008 number of 199.8 million. Whites will comprise 46 percent of the U.S. population by 2050, down from the current level of 66 percent, the bureau said, as the group is projected to lose population in the 2030s and 2040s.

By 2030, all baby boomers will be age 65 and older -- comprising nearly 20 percent of U.S. residents, or one in five Americans, the bureau said. By 2050, the 65-and-older age group will increase to 88.5 million, more than doubling its current number of 38.7 million. Meanwhile, the number of those age 85 and older is expected to more than triple, from 5.4 million in 2008 to 19 million by 2050.

Non-Hispanic whites make up most of the baby boomers, Waddington said. "They're in a higher mortality rate ... nonminority groups tend to be older and dying off faster" instead of reproducing at the rate projected for minorities.

Obviously, the projections will have "very strong policy implications," he said -- medical care for an increasingly elderly population, for instance, educational needs for increasing numbers of minority children and economic effects for the labor force.

"Who's going to do the jobs that are characteristically held right now by certain types of people?" Waddington said. "All those things are subject to change."

The United States is projected to reach the 400 million population milestone in 2039, according to bureau projections. By 2050, the population is expected to be 439 million. Of those, 235.7 million are expected to be minorities.

As U.S. cities and towns have increasingly become more diverse, Census officials knew the day of a majority minority would come, Waddington said. And "the aging one is sort of simple," he added. "That's demography 101."

Other highlights from the report released Thursday:

• By 2050, 62 percent of the nation's children will be minorities, up from 44 percent today. Of those, 39 percent are projected to be Hispanic, up from 22 percent in 2008, and 38 percent are projected to be white, down from 56 percent in 2008

• The percentage of the U.S. population between the ages of 18 and 64 -- the "working age" population -- is projected to decrease to 57 percent in 2050 from 63 percent in 2008.

• The working-age population will become more than 50 percent minority in 2039, and by 2050 will constitute 55 percent of the population.

• By 2050, the working-age population will be more than 30 percent Hispanic, up from 15 percent in 2008; 15 percent African-American, up from 13 percent in 2008; and 9.6 percent Asian, up from 5.3 percent in 2008.

Waddington said the timelines are not written in stone. "It's a projection. And things like the baby boom generation couldn't be predicted." Major changes in policy affecting families and children, or a major policy affecting immigration, could have an impact on the expectations, he said.

The nation's undocumented workers -- estimated at 12 million or more -- are included in the projections, Waddington said. Census data includes all U.S. residents, regardless of their legal status, he said.

What implications do you see this having in your lifetime? Why is it or is it not important?

I have never really understood the race relations and affirmative action. I really never understood how giving someone else a break for jobs or schooling because of race wasn't also racism. It may be positive action, but in my mind it was still racism. Any time you base anything on race, positive or negative, it is racism.

I don't really know what will happen or what to expect. I don't think that there will be a magic wand that gets waved as the numbers increase and the majority becomes the minority. I am not sure what the tipping point brings us. In some ways I also find this article to be a bit unsettling, fear mongering in some fashion to get the majority to start fucking and having babies so that you know there's at least a good fight being waged. The majority can fend off the minority for a little while longer.

For some reason I also think of the poor, does that mean that we'll have more poor because the minorities right now are the poor mostly from what I see as a stereotype in the inner city. Not many whites in the projects. At the same time, I also see lots of minorities that aren't poor. They are well to do or at least middle class.

jorgelito · 08-13-2008, 08:42 PM

Hard to say and way to early to tell. There are too many factors.

1. Status - are they illegal? If so then it will be an extreme impact on our economy and social welfare system

2. Age - I think the fact that there will be so many more retirees is more alarming. All the boomers will be retired by then, 20% of the population. Who is gonna foot the social security, medicare bill?

3. Distribution - where are all these minorities located? Where is the invasion taking place? In the southwest and south east? Which parts of America will be affected? Whre they are distributed will directly impact politics and economics.

4. Social unrest - could be some intense rivalry between groups going on especially if certain groups insist on non-assimilation. Plus competition for social resources too.

It also depends on how we as a country can cope. Do we start to see each other as fellow Americans and communicate in the same language or do we break up into disparate groups in competition with each other?

I predict the group that will suffer the most will be Asian-Americans. Despite having the highest income and education levels in the US, they are the most discriminated against. It's a long ways off though so who knows.

Grancey · 08-13-2008, 08:57 PM

By 2050 the middle class will no longer exist in this country. The population will consist of the few very rich, and the remainder will be the poor.

speshul-k · 08-18-2008, 02:50 PM

Same is supposed to happen here in Ireland. We are going to be in the minority.

ngdawg · 08-18-2008, 04:22 PM

I'll be dead, so it won't affect me directly.....

These are predictions, not, as it said, set in stone. I'm actually surprised whites are still the majority; based on where I live, they aren't. They are, however, still the political leaders and the ones with monetary influence (well, not me, but....).
And, like Cyn, I don't like affirmative action. It's time has past. Teaching that you don't have to work as hard because the color of your skin gives you a free pass is wrong and it's racist. It should have been done and over with decades ago.

jorgelito · 08-18-2008, 04:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by speshul-k

Same is supposed to happen here in Ireland. We are going to be in the minority.

Where are the non-Irish coming from?

Willravel · 08-18-2008, 04:30 PM

I'm a minority in my neighborhood, at work, with my friends... I don't care. They are who they are and that really has little or nothing to do with their skin color or where their ancestors came from.

uncle phil · 08-18-2008, 04:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ngdawg

I'll be dead, so it won't affect me directly...

right there with ya, dawg...

roachboy · 08-18-2008, 05:17 PM

what this might mean is a function of mobilizations, not numbers.
it's strange that this is a source of anxiety though.

i'm not sure this is an appropriate thread for an affirmative action debate---what i'll say at this point is that i entirely reject the "arguments" above against it. both share the assumption that somehow or another the history of the united states is not important in thinking about discrimination and what can and should be done about it. and both seem to be under the impression that somehow or another racism has gone away at the institutional level. i don't see any proof of that anywhere--not here, not in the 3-d world. i'm happy to run with this, but will leave it here for the moment.

dc_dux · 08-18-2008, 07:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

i'm not sure this is an appropriate thread for an affirmative action debate---what i'll say at this point is that i entirely reject the "arguments" above against it. both share the assumption that somehow or another the history of the united states is not important in thinking about discrimination and what can and should be done about it. and both seem to be under the impression that somehow or another racism has gone away at the institutional level. i don't see any proof of that anywhere--not here, not in the 3-d world. i'm happy to run with this, but will leave it here for the moment.

I will add my rejection.

To characterize affirmative action as 'teaching that you don't have to work as hard because the color of your skin gives you a free pass..." is, IMO, an appalling misrepresentation or misunderstanding of AA and does little to bridge the racial divides that still exist.

I'll leave it at that as well.
-----Added 18/8/2008 at 11 : 33 : 48-----
***

So in 40-50 years, whites will still be a plurality, just not a majority. Hopefully, the next few generations of Americans of all races will be increasingly more tolerant and accepting of others as each subsequent recent generations have...the playing fields will be more level....and our diversity will make us a better country.

abaya · 08-19-2008, 01:05 AM

Very briefly, I think it's a good thing that there will no longer be one group in majority (because there are multiple minorities, not just one--so dc_dux is right on about whites becoming a plurality). Due to various demographic circumstances, the time has (hopefully) come for a shift in power. American society will just keep right on evolving in its diversity, which is a good thing as I see it. One positive thing, for example, would be if everyone became bilingual--a long overdue necessity in the US. I look forward to ktsp's and my kids growing up in a world that is at ease with their genes being from 3 different populations, and in fact welcomes it.

And hey, it can be said that in American history (which is only a few hundred years old, anyway) this is the second time that the "minority" has become the "majority." What goes around, comes around...

Oh, and thirded on the affirmative action statements made earlier.

ObieX · 08-19-2008, 11:14 AM

High school kids will have to actually start paying attention in Spanish class.

ngdawg · 08-19-2008, 12:07 PM

Re: The pro-affirmative action who seem to think those of us against it are somehow racist or bigoted...
To play devil's advocate for a minute, suppose you want to go to a particular college and have to test in. Suppose you are of Arabic decent. There are 20 slots open. You take the test, know you got every part correct. Then you go see the counselor who hands you back your completed paperwork and a test with a 75 marked on it. "Sorry, but because of your heritage, we had to deduct 25 pts because there are white kids that need the breaks."
That's what affirmative action does-it twists things like test scores to give advantages to minorities, when they aren't really at a disadvantage any more based on race. Granted, school districts are still not equal across the country, but AA doesn't deal with where you come from, but how you look.
A story was in the news a couple years ago about a mother going up against a California school district because they put her son into and ESL class even though he
was 3rd generation American-born-their last name was Hispanic.
Programs like affirmative action are reverse discrimination and in this age of such diversity, is unneeded and outdated.
By the same token as the above article in the OP, would it be fair in the year 2050 to keep such programs but recipients be only white? Because that is what supporters of affirmative action are advocating.

abaya · 08-19-2008, 12:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ngdawg

when they aren't really at a disadvantage any more based on race.

What studies or statistics is this statement based on?

ngdawg · 08-19-2008, 01:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by abaya

What studies or statistics is this statement based on?

I love the "prove it" comebacks.....

The Civil Rights Act guaranteed that discrimination based on race was illegal. In the south, this discrimination had actually been legal.
To level the playing field once civil rights laws were enacted, affirmative action became established to give those who for so long had been held at disadvantage an advantage to get education and jobs.

That was over four decades ago-those who were ready for college, ready for a career benefited from AA. As a result, their children benefited. Now those children are in or approaching their forties. Why are there programs still paying for those benefits?

Google Affirmative Action and read the umpteen opinions. Good stuff.

Baraka_Guru · 08-19-2008, 01:06 PM

So AA needs fixing? Because systemic racism and racism in the workforce is still a major problem.

dc_dux · 08-19-2008, 01:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ngdawg

Programs like affirmative action are reverse discrimination and in this age of such diversity, is unneeded and outdated.
By the same token as the above article in the OP, would it be fair in the year 2050 to keep such programs but recipients be only white? Because that is what supporters of affirmative action are advocating.

More of the same misunderstanding or misrepresentation of affirmative action.

And rereading the thread, I dont see anywhere where the pro-affirmative action posters "seem to think those of us against it are somehow racist or bigoted..."

roachboy · 08-19-2008, 01:52 PM

but then, isn't the us just catching up==slowly==to where it was supposed to be directly after the american civil war?

unless you mean to imply that racism in america started in the 1950s, so everything's evened out now.

no wait, you weren't alive before world war 2 so it doesn't matter.
and history is what you watch on television.

Jinn · 08-19-2008, 02:03 PM

Quote:

Programs like affirmative action are reverse discrimination and in this age of such diversity, is unneeded and outdated.

This is easy to say when you're white. Systemic and *DOCUMENTED* discrimination still occurs against minorities, whether by race or sex, in the workplace, the education system, in government programs and even in things like grant programs.

I'm a little bit surprised that you don't see the wage discrimination as a woman, by the way. As a white male I'm about as un-discriminated-against as one can be. Women, however, seem to recognize the wage gap at least. If you'd like citations for that, I'm MORE than welcome to provide them. The "prove it" responses are legitimate, particularly when the sociological research is strongly against your position.

Crack · 08-19-2008, 02:08 PM

I, for one, am tired of the Hombre keeping me down!

abaya · 08-19-2008, 03:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jinn

The "prove it" responses are legitimate, particularly when the sociological research is strongly against your position.

Yeah, I don't mean to jump on ya, dawg... but Jinn is right. For my part, I lived and breathed this stuff throughout my graduate coursework in the social sciences (and in the field doing research), so it's kind of hard to just fuggeddaboudit in a casual discussion on the topic.

I'm also interested in the source of people's opinions in general, especially when they are so different from my own. Namely, what leads people, on a gut level, to believe that there is no longer a problem with race in this country? And how can people have such polar opposite views on a subject that has been so widely researched and documented?

mixedmedia · 08-19-2008, 03:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

I will add my rejection.

To characterize affirmative action as 'teaching that you don't have to work as hard because the color of your skin gives you a free pass..." is, IMO, an appalling misrepresentation or misunderstanding of AA and does little to bridge the racial divides that still exist.

I'll leave it at that as well.
-----Added 18/8/2008 at 11 : 33 : 48-----
***

So in 40-50 years, whites will still be a plurality, just not a majority. Hopefully, the next few generations of Americans of all races will be increasingly more tolerant and accepting of others as each subsequent recent generations have...the playing fields will be more level....and our diversity will make us a better country.

I concur with this tip to toe. And I am already a minority in my community, too. Bring it on.

dc_dux · 08-19-2008, 04:44 PM

I think some have a tendency, by intent or not, to confuse affirmative action with quotas. Quotas have been unconstitutional since the Bakke decision in the 70s. With guys like Ward Connerly (the force behind most anti-AA referendum), IMO, it is his intent to make the two interchangeable in the minds of voters.

Affirmative action is simply considering race (or gender) among many factors in hiring and admissions policies. And as long as institutional racism or discrimination still exists, as subtle as it may be now in many places, AA is still an effective and reasonable tool to provide some measure of relief.

ngdawg · 08-19-2008, 04:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Columbia Encyclopedia

Affirmative action, in the United States, programs to overcome the effects of past societal discrimination by allocating jobs and resources to members of specific groups, such as minorities and women. The policy was implemented by federal agencies enforcing the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and two executive orders, which provided that government contractors and educational institutions receiving federal funds develop such programs. The Equal Employment Opportunities Act (1972) set up a commission to enforce such plans. The establishment of racial quotas in the name of affirmative action brought charges of so-called reverse discrimination in the late 1970s. Although the U.S. Supreme Court accepted such an argument in Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978), it let existing programs stand and approved the use of quotas in 1979 in a case involving voluntary affirmative-action programs in unions and private businesses. In the 1980s, the federal government's role in affirmative action was considerably diluted. In three cases in 1989, the Supreme Court undercut court-approved affirmative action plans by giving greater standing to claims of reverse discrimination, voiding the use of minority set-asides where past discrimination against minority contractors was unproven, and restricting the use of statistics to prove discrimination, since statistics did not prove intent. The Civil Rights Act of 1991 reaffirmed a federal government's commitment to affirmative action, but a 1995 Supreme Court decision placed limits on the use of race in awarding government contracts; the affected government programs were revamped in the late 1990s to encompass any person who was socially disadvantaged. In the late 1990s, in a public backlash against perceived reverse discrimination, California and other states banned the use of race- and sex-based preferences in state and local programs. A 2003 Supreme Court decision concerning affirmative action in universities allowed educational institutions to consider race as a factor in admitting students as long as it was not used in a mechanical, formulaic manner. In Europe, the European Court of Justice has upheld (1997) the use in the public sector of affirmative-action programs for women, establishing a legal precedent for the nations of the European Unions

Source

Quote:

In its tumultuous 45-year history, affirmative action has been both praised and pilloried as an answer to racial inequality. The term "affirmative action" was first introduced by President Kennedy in 1961 as a method of redressing discrimination that had persisted in spite of civil rights laws and constitutional guarantees. It was developed and enforced for the first time by President Johnson. "This is the next and more profound stage of the battle for civil rights," Johnson asserted. "We seek… not just equality as a right and a theory, but equality as a fact and as a result."

A Temporary Measure to Level the Playing Field
Focusing in particular on education and jobs, affirmative action policies required that active measures be taken to ensure that blacks and other minorities enjoyed the same opportunities for promotions, salary increases, career advancement, school admissions, scholarships, and financial aid that had been the nearly exclusive province of whites. From the outset, affirmative action was envisioned as a temporary remedy that would end once there was a "level playing field" for all Americans.

Bakke and Reverse Discrimination
By the late '70s, however, flaws in the policy began to show up amid its good intentions. Reverse discrimination became an issue, epitomized by the famous Bakke case in 1978. Allan Bakke, a white male, had been rejected two years in a row by a medical school that had accepted less qualified minority applicants-the school had a separate admissions policy for minorities and reserved 16 out of 100 places for minority students. The Supreme Court outlawed inflexible quota systems in affirmative action programs, which in this case had unfairly discriminated against a white applicant. In the same ruling, however, the Court upheld the legality of affirmative action per se.

Remaining Article

These examples outline why it is outdated. There are already laws in place that guarantee your right to a job, a college, a home, a purchase regardless of race, heritage, gender or religion.
Are we all sitting around the campfire singing Kumbaya? No. It'd be nice, but we aren't. Affirmative Action isn't going to make it happen, either.
The US is no longer just black and white with whites holding their thumbs over blacks and pointing firehoses at them when they try to vote. Two full generations have passed since the passing of the civil rights bill and longer since Kennedy first coined the phrase "Affirmative Action".
When does it stop kicking in and being an excuse? If, like these reports predict, the white population declines to less than half, can those white kids wanting to get into a school declare AA?
When it first came about(and a lot of you weren't born when this was thick in the news and atmosphere), police academies gave extra points to people of color and gender when they took their tests, as did fire academies, colleges, etc. This meant that more qualified people didn't get "on the list"; perfect scores meant nothing if you were a white male because anyone else that wasn't got their extra 25 points added in. Quotas were the goal, not having the best. "Reverse discrimination" became a rampantly used term in these situations. And it was, with a purpose. It has no purpose now and for the most part, is a non-issue because of so many laws in place. The Supreme Court was very busy trying to decipher it all.
Even both presidential candidates are, in one form or another, saying affirmative action has passed its prime. They're both going back and forth with their opinions, with Obama saying it should be a class issue, no longer a race one and McCain favoring its end, but the gist is, it's old.
Yes, Jinn, I was the "victim" of gender wage discrepancy. So I did what I was supposed to do-I went to the the state's EOC and filed a discrimination suit.
The phrase itself conjures up unfairness because of its origins. Discrimination as it stands is illegal; there are other, fairer and more significant ways to "level the playing field". I like to think, after forty years, we should have progressed some. I could be wrong...

jorgelito · 08-19-2008, 05:11 PM

Actually, the true victims of affirmative action policies are Asian-Americans. Their acceptance numbers decrease considerably where there is affirmative actions. Whites are least affective.

I am 100% against affirmative action. It was an interesting idea but it needs serious reform. I feel sorry for black and so-called hispanics because of affirmative action, their qualifications are constantly called into question. I feel even sorrier for Asians who are rejected despite being way more than qualified.

Meritocracy is the way to go.

dc_dux · 08-19-2008, 05:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ngdawg

Source

Remaining Article

These examples outline why it is outdated. There are already laws in place that guarantee your right to a job, a college, a home, a purchase regardless of race, heritage, gender or religion....

The phrase itself conjures up unfairness because of its origins. Discrimination as it stands is illegal; there are other, fairer and more significant ways to "level the playing field". I like to think, after forty years, we should have progressed some. I could be wrong...

We have absolutely progressed...but to the point of equal treatment in admissions, hiring, etc? I dont think so.

Institutional racism or discrimination still exists, despite the law. There is compelling evidence of bias in standardized college admission testing...there is compelling evidence of bias or discrimination in lending practices (redlining)...there is compelling evidence of bias or discrimination in hiring based on personal prejudices of those making the hiring decisions (rather than bias or discrimination in corporate policies).

And, IMO, access to a "level playing field" has been set back to some degree in recent years by the Bush DoJ turning its back on enforcing the civil rights laws.

dawg....what other fairer and more significant ways to level the playing do you think might work better?

Cynthetiq · 08-19-2008, 05:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

dawg....what other fairer and more significant ways to level the playing do you think might work better?

“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race" - Chief Justice Roberts

Do all the white folk in this thread have some sort of guilt of some sorts? I ask because maybe you haven't had the pleasure of being discriminated against because of affirmative action.

I've lost out jobs, grants, promtions because a black person or a hispanic needed to be filled in the role. Asians? Oh there plenty of them and they aren't discriminated against, they have opportunity...

I had to work harder than the black guy or the white woman in order to achieve my results. I have documents and evidence that show vice presidents getting bonuses for hiring the right races. WTF is that??? Really a quota is good? Or using it as a deciding factor? No it's not.

dc_dux · 08-19-2008, 05:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq

I've lost out jobs, grants, promtions because a black person or a hispanic needed to be filled in the role.

Cynth..sounds more like a quota system than affirmative action policies.
-----Added 19/8/2008 at 09 : 56 : 39-----
We probably disagree on the meaning of racism

My definition is one racial group believing it is superior to others and using its "majority" position, through power, prejudice and discrimination, to maintain a position of dominance.

So, as the minority, blacks (hispanics, asians), by definition, aren't racists....some may be bigoted, intolerant and ignornant...but they have no power to subject their will on the "majority"

Cynthetiq · 08-19-2008, 06:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

Cynth..sounds more like a quota system than affirmative action policies.

Again, I believe "The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." Remove the ability for people to mistake affirmative action to mean quota for decision making and I agree, but to use it as a dealbreaker is just silly.

I'm not going to go as far and say that there's no racism at all in America, that's just silly.

I'll say that people want to live the way they want to. They tend to buy up and rent properties where they feel comfortable and near their families. This means that Germantown in Manhattan was once filled with Germans and the same with Little Italy. Now Germantown is part of a gentrified neighborhood. Little Italy? It's about to be swallowed up by Chinatown.

Even Long Island City which was no race or anything but industry is now being peddled to the Chinese and Koreans. Why? Proximity to Flushing where their families live and a critical mass of them seemed interested in the properties, so "let's market to them."

You have so many Gradution Commencements that are race oriented, shoudln't this be not allowed for the very reasons that it is discrimanatory to those that aren't of the race?

UCLA Commencement: Schedule

Quote:

Phi Beta Kappa Initiation

Dickson Court North
Thursday, June 12, 5:30 PM

Lavender Celebration

UCLAAnderson School, Korn Hall
Saturday, June 14, 12:30 PM

Samahang Pilipino Student Celebration

Royce Hall
Sunday, June 15, 2:00 PM

South Asian Middle Eastern Celebration

UCLAAnderson School, Korn Hall
Sunday, June 15, 2:00 PM

Asian Pacific Islander Student Celebration

Dickson Court North
Sunday, June 15, 3:00 PM

Military Science/Army ROTC Commissioning

Covel Commons, Grand Horizon Room
Sunday, June 15, 3:00 PM

Raza Student Celebration

Pauley Pavilion
Sunday, June 15, 4:00 PM

African Student Union Celebration

Royce Hall
Sunday, June 15, 5:00 PM

Human Complex Systems Society Celebration

Humanities A51
Sunday, June 15, 6:30 PM

UC Irvine Commencement

Quote:

Pilipino Graduation
Thursday, June 12
7 p.m.
Crystal Cove Auditorium
Black Baccalaureate
Friday, June 13
7:30 p.m.
Crystal Cove Auditorium
Reception on the Student Center Terrace
Vietnamese Graduation
Saturday, June 14
12 p.m.
Social Science Lecture Hall
Room 100
Raza Graduation
Saturday, June 14
6 p.m.
UCI Student Center
Emerald Bay A, B, C, D, E

ngdawg · 08-19-2008, 06:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

Cynth..sounds more like a quota system than affirmative action policies.
-----Added 19/8/2008 at 09 : 56 : 39-----
We probably disagree on the meaning of racism

My definition is a belief that one racial group believes it is superior to others and uses its "majority" position, through power, prejudice and discrimination, to maintain its position of dominance.

That's what Affirmative Action is/was in a nutshell. Quotas. Percentage of color/gender in the population of whatever institution there is. A company, school, police force, etc was not allowed to be al white males. Most times the quotas were based on the surrounding population.
What'd you think it was?

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

dawg....what other fairer and more significant ways to level the playing do you think might work better?

Education at the primary level. In this country, too many districts base their school system on the taxes that district brings in. Hence, poorer districts have substandard educational opportunities. There are states that distribute the taxes taken in rather than leave it to their localities. This needs to be across the country, not just a select few.
Do away totally with AA and stress the importance of doing well, not placing well.

Cynthetiq · 08-19-2008, 06:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

We probably disagree on the meaning of racism

My definition is one racial group believing it is superior to others and using its "majority" position, through power, prejudice and discrimination, to maintain a position of dominance.

So, as the minority, blacks (hispanics, asians), by definition, aren't racists....some may be bigoted, intolerant and ignornant...but they have no power to subject their will on the "majority"

I don't disagree.

I disagree on the discrimination portion. There should be no discrimination whatsoever.

ngdawg · 08-19-2008, 06:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

Cynth..sounds more like a quota system than affirmative action policies.
-----Added 19/8/2008 at 09 : 56 : 39-----
We probably disagree on the meaning of racism

My definition is one racial group believing it is superior to others and using its "majority" position, through power, prejudice and discrimination, to maintain a position of dominance.

So, as the minority, blacks (hispanics, asians), by definition, aren't racists....some may be bigoted, intolerant and ignornant...but they have no power to subject their will on the "majority"

Your definition of racism is almost what AA had become by the 1970's; a statement of "we know you are inferior so we'll give you X to make you a little more equal, but not. See how nice we are?"

dc_dux · 08-19-2008, 07:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ngdawg

Your definition of racism is almost what AA had become by the 1970's; a statement of "we know you are inferior so we'll give you X to make you a little more equal, but not. See how nice we are?"

I guess its a matter of interpretation.

I dont see AA as "giving X to anyone" bur rather as a recognition of discriminatory or biased policies and practices by those in positions of power and an attempt to remedy it until they playing field is level.,,and we arent there yet.

And I dont think its particularly "nice" that it is still needed.

ngdawg · 08-19-2008, 07:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

I guess its a matter of interpretation.

I dont see AA as "giving X to anyone" bur rather as a recognition of discriminatory or biased policies and practices by those in positions of power and an attempt to remedy it until they playing field is level.,,and we arent there yet.

And I dont think its particularly "nice" that it is still needed.

And that is the difference between what's seen now and what was going on 3-4 decades ago and why it there's no streamlined agreement on it.
What was going on, what Cyn experienced was the reality of AA application. And that is why as it was and all it stood for should not be continued. It's a divisionary application of something that shouldn't even have to be thought about and twenty years down the road may be even more so.

dc_dux · 08-19-2008, 07:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ngdawg

And that is the difference between what's seen now and what was going on 3-4 decades ago....

As I noted earlier, what is still seen now are things like institutional biases in standardized college admission tests, institutional biases in lending policies and practices, personal biases and prejudices adversely influencing corporate hiring practices, etc.

When they are eliminated, we will be closer to eliminating the need for AA policies (or something comparable by another name) to account for those biases that continue to favor those in positions of dominance.
-----Added 19/8/2008 at 11 : 36 : 21-----
Added:
Where we do agree is on the issue of financing the K-12 public education system.

Financing based primarily on local property taxes gives the kids from affluent communities a leg up by any measure or standard.

abaya · 08-20-2008, 12:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

Financing based primarily on local property taxes gives the kids from affluent communities a leg up by any measure or standard.

Yup, which comes back again to "white flight" combined with the practices of real estate agents, who often will be very careful about showing only certain neighborhoods to certain families, based on the color of their skin.

Yes, Cyn, certainly some groups do choose to be residentially segregated, but for many, it's not just "because we like it," but also due to social capital standing in the place of financial capital--for those who cannot afford to live in affluent, white neighborhoods (especially those with good schools), the alternative is to live in a place where you have access to social networks to get what you need. Real estate agents know this, and they are part of the institution which keeps residential segregation alive.

08-13-2008, 08:42 PM	#2 (permalink)
jorgelito All important elusive independent swing voter... Location: People's Republic of KKKalifornia	Hard to say and way to early to tell. There are too many factors. 1. Status - are they illegal? If so then it will be an extreme impact on our economy and social welfare system 2. Age - I think the fact that there will be so many more retirees is more alarming. All the boomers will be retired by then, 20% of the population. Who is gonna foot the social security, medicare bill? 3. Distribution - where are all these minorities located? Where is the invasion taking place? In the southwest and south east? Which parts of America will be affected? Whre they are distributed will directly impact politics and economics. 4. Social unrest - could be some intense rivalry between groups going on especially if certain groups insist on non-assimilation. Plus competition for social resources too. It also depends on how we as a country can cope. Do we start to see each other as fellow Americans and communicate in the same language or do we break up into disparate groups in competition with each other? I predict the group that will suffer the most will be Asian-Americans. Despite having the highest income and education levels in the US, they are the most discriminated against. It's a long ways off though so who knows. __________________ "The race is not always to the swift, nor battle to the strong, but to the one that endures to the end." "Demand more from yourself, more than anyone else could ever ask!" - My recruiter

08-13-2008, 08:57 PM	#3 (permalink)
Grancey Life's short, gotta hurry... Location: land of pit vipers	By 2050 the middle class will no longer exist in this country. The population will consist of the few very rich, and the remainder will be the poor. __________________ Quiet, mild-mannered souls might just turn out to be roaring lions of two-fisted cool.

08-18-2008, 05:17 PM	#9 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	what this might mean is a function of mobilizations, not numbers. it's strange that this is a source of anxiety though. i'm not sure this is an appropriate thread for an affirmative action debate---what i'll say at this point is that i entirely reject the "arguments" above against it. both share the assumption that somehow or another the history of the united states is not important in thinking about discrimination and what can and should be done about it. and both seem to be under the impression that somehow or another racism has gone away at the institutional level. i don't see any proof of that anywhere--not here, not in the 3-d world. i'm happy to run with this, but will leave it here for the moment. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

08-19-2008, 01:05 AM	#11 (permalink)
abaya Location: Iceland	Very briefly, I think it's a good thing that there will no longer be one group in majority (because there are multiple minorities, not just one--so dc_dux is right on about whites becoming a plurality). Due to various demographic circumstances, the time has (hopefully) come for a shift in power. American society will just keep right on evolving in its diversity, which is a good thing as I see it. One positive thing, for example, would be if everyone became bilingual--a long overdue necessity in the US. I look forward to ktsp's and my kids growing up in a world that is at ease with their genes being from 3 different populations, and in fact welcomes it. And hey, it can be said that in American history (which is only a few hundred years old, anyway) this is the second time that the "minority" has become the "majority." What goes around, comes around... Oh, and thirded on the affirmative action statements made earlier. __________________ And think not you can direct the course of Love; for Love, if it finds you worthy, directs your course. --Khalil Gibran

08-19-2008, 11:14 AM	#12 (permalink)
ObieX Pickles Location: Shirt and Pants (NJ)	High school kids will have to actually start paying attention in Spanish class. __________________ We Must Dissent.

08-18-2008, 02:50 PM	#4 (permalink)
speshul-k Insane	Same is supposed to happen here in Ireland. We are going to be in the minority.

08-18-2008, 04:22 PM	#5 (permalink)
ngdawg peekaboo Location: on the back, bitch	I'll be dead, so it won't affect me directly..... These are predictions, not, as it said, set in stone. I'm actually surprised whites are still the majority; based on where I live, they aren't. They are, however, still the political leaders and the ones with monetary influence (well, not me, but....). And, like Cyn, I don't like affirmative action. It's time has past. Teaching that you don't have to work as hard because the color of your skin gives you a free pass is wrong and it's racist. It should have been done and over with decades ago.

08-18-2008, 04:30 PM	#7 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	I'm a minority in my neighborhood, at work, with my friends... I don't care. They are who they are and that really has little or nothing to do with their skin color or where their ancestors came from.

08-19-2008, 12:07 PM	#13 (permalink)
ngdawg peekaboo Location: on the back, bitch	Re: The pro-affirmative action who seem to think those of us against it are somehow racist or bigoted... To play devil's advocate for a minute, suppose you want to go to a particular college and have to test in. Suppose you are of Arabic decent. There are 20 slots open. You take the test, know you got every part correct. Then you go see the counselor who hands you back your completed paperwork and a test with a 75 marked on it. "Sorry, but because of your heritage, we had to deduct 25 pts because there are white kids that need the breaks." That's what affirmative action does-it twists things like test scores to give advantages to minorities, when they aren't really at a disadvantage any more based on race. Granted, school districts are still not equal across the country, but AA doesn't deal with where you come from, but how you look. A story was in the news a couple years ago about a mother going up against a California school district because they put her son into and ESL class even though he was 3rd generation American-born-their last name was Hispanic. Programs like affirmative action are reverse discrimination and in this age of such diversity, is unneeded and outdated. By the same token as the above article in the OP, would it be fair in the year 2050 to keep such programs but recipients be only white? Because that is what supporters of affirmative action are advocating.

08-19-2008, 01:06 PM	#16 (permalink)
Baraka_Guru warrior bodhisattva Super Moderator Location: East-central Canada	So AA needs fixing? Because systemic racism and racism in the workforce is still a major problem. __________________ Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing? —Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön Humankind cannot bear very much reality. —From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

08-19-2008, 01:52 PM	#18 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	but then, isn't the us just catching up==slowly==to where it was supposed to be directly after the american civil war? unless you mean to imply that racism in america started in the 1950s, so everything's evened out now. no wait, you weren't alive before world war 2 so it doesn't matter. and history is what you watch on television. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

08-19-2008, 02:08 PM	#20 (permalink)
Crack Misanthropic Location: Ohio! yay!	I, for one, am tired of the Hombre keeping me down!

08-19-2008, 04:44 PM	#23 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	I think some have a tendency, by intent or not, to confuse affirmative action with quotas. Quotas have been unconstitutional since the Bakke decision in the 70s. With guys like Ward Connerly (the force behind most anti-AA referendum), IMO, it is his intent to make the two interchangeable in the minds of voters. Affirmative action is simply considering race (or gender) among many factors in hiring and admissions policies. And as long as institutional racism or discrimination still exists, as subtle as it may be now in many places, AA is still an effective and reasonable tool to provide some measure of relief. __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire Last edited by dc_dux; 08-19-2008 at 04:48 PM..

08-19-2008, 05:11 PM	#25 (permalink)
jorgelito All important elusive independent swing voter... Location: People's Republic of KKKalifornia	Actually, the true victims of affirmative action policies are Asian-Americans. Their acceptance numbers decrease considerably where there is affirmative actions. Whites are least affective. I am 100% against affirmative action. It was an interesting idea but it needs serious reform. I feel sorry for black and so-called hispanics because of affirmative action, their qualifications are constantly called into question. I feel even sorrier for Asians who are rejected despite being way more than qualified. Meritocracy is the way to go. __________________ "The race is not always to the swift, nor battle to the strong, but to the one that endures to the end." "Demand more from yourself, more than anyone else could ever ask!" - My recruiter