Good point. Especially considering here in the US, we lump Hispanics all into one category - even though there are "white" and "black" Hispanics, including those that are a "mixed" (not mixed as in one parent is this and the other parent is that, but from years of continuous "race mixing" so to speak).

I would be curious to know what the case mix is though.


Good point as well and since I agree with you, I'll just piggyback off your post.:cool:

I agree that (obviously) not all white people are spoiled whiners. But I think that reverse discrimination is very very rare as compared to the amount of times that people think it goes on.

And of course that depends what your definition of reverse discrimination is. If a company's 90 percent white and they're looking to hire a minority, if they narrow their field of candidates down to the qualified ones and then pick the minority, is that reverse discrimination? I would say no. Some people would say yes.




Because somebody mentioned it, here's the "Unpacking the knapsack of white privilege" article, which I've posted a couple times before:

http://www.utoronto.ca/acc/events/peggy1.htm

If you've (a general you, not an AXJules you or a PM Mama you or whoever) read that and still don't feel like you've ever felt privileged simply by being white, then either (a) people don't think you're white or (b) you aren't paying enough attention.

I went to discussion tonight about issues at my old high school and one of the things we discussed was race. One of the women there said that she doesn't think that many white people can even imagine -- and I would tend to add don't even try to imagine -- what people of color in this country face. Way too many white people immediately go into defensive mode whenever a topic like racism is brought up, and that's not conducive to discussion.

Why can't we have a discussion about discrimination on this board that doesn't involve a discussion on reverse discrimination?

I think reverse discrimination is more likely to occur in civil service type jobs . . government jobs, teaching positions stuff like that . . . places that are not purely merit driven and are also heavily beauracratic and responsive to political pressures.

Thats just an opinion though I don't have data.

I love the "unpacking the knapsack"...we explored it in my cultures class last year, and it really opened my eyes to privileges I never realized I had because of my skin color. When I first started reading this post, I was going to go dig it out and post it - thanks for beating me to the punch Sugar and Spice.

The thing is, "white privilege" or "white skin privilege" isn't an issue of black and white. It's white vs. non-white.

The fairest member of a Latino family, who gets more attention from her aunts and uncles than her darker cousins benefits from "white skin privilege."

A white woman who can walk through a nice boutique without being scrutinized for possibly being a thief benefits from her "white privilege."

A mulatto or quadroon slave who was able to escape to the North by passing, or who worked in the house instead of the fields benefitted (in a perverse way, to be sure) from his/her "white skin privilege."

To be sure, all racial groups experience discrimination. For the majority group to deny that they receive privileges from being a member of that group is simply naive.

Re: Re: huh?
 

You are very correct. That's why I didn't say Black vs. White. That's not the question I asked. I am talking about white skin privilege, which is not about Black vs. White. It's about people who are racially classified as White and/or have more Eurocentric features, such as lighter skin, straighter hair, etc. etc. having inherent advantages and privileges in our society that others do not. My apologies for not specifying.

ah, I should have read your post first. you said it better than I.

Ummmm kind of off topic, but lighter skin isn't necessarily European based. In Asia (China and Japan, anyway), light skin has long been associated with upper class privilege, maybe even longer than in Europe. Like European culture (at least European culture before Coco Chanel made it cool to be darker), having light skin means that one doesn't work outside and thus, isn't tanned. I'm just a little tired to hear people say that it is based out of Europe.

How you dress your posture and the way you speak has an enormous impact on the way you are perceived . . .. maybe as much as your skin color.

Unless we are talking about a photo comparison of naked people.

Well, consider this one. It happened in about 1972.

There was this young hotshot television director who was directing 6 and 11 news is a top forty market TV station, trying to move up in market size -- and thus in salary. He was considered by most to be the hottest director in the market.

He heard about a directing job in a top ten market -again directing 6 and 11 PM News -- and applied, was asked to come for an interview, did so and did not get the job. It went to a woman associate director with no directing experience. The hiring manager, who was embarassed, told him that he was told he had to hire a woman.

Of course that manager wouldn't dare say that today, because he would be in court in a heartbeat.

Anyway, later that same year, another job opened at the same top ten market station, and the same director was again invited up for an interview, and again, didn't get the job. This time it went to a young black assistant director with no directing experience. Again, the hiring manager explained the situation. He was told to hire a black director.

Two jobs. Two interviews. Two minority members with NO directing experience hired.

I think that's reverse discrimination.

I thought so then when I didn't get either of the jobs, too.

Interestingly enough, the discrimination isn't what made me unhappy -- there had been enough plain anti-minority discrimination in my industry for years and I figured what goes around comes around. What ticked me off is that the hiring manager knew before he invited me for the interviews that he couldn't hire me, and wasted two days of my life.

Now, it may be possible that I was a "mediocre white male," but I don't think so, and neither did the other stations (including top ten markets) who hired me later to direct everything from news to live sports to talk shows. Or the folks who offered jobs in Los Angeles and San Francisco which I didn't accept. I ended up directing everything from a Papal Mass to NFL Football on NBC to the opening ceremonies for the US Olympic Opening Ceremony. I have eight EMMY Awards. I also taught diversity classes (as a Native American) for NBC and was a hiring manager for over twenty years -- fifteen of them at an NBC owned TV station. I taught TV production at the college level.

So, my point is that to say that only "mediocre white males" are the victims of reverse discrimination is an insult to a lot of people.

Fortunately, I don't insult easily. I only tell the story to make a point. Reverse discrimination is real.

Don't even ask me about trying to find a meaningful job past 50 years old...

I was simply referring to my own experiences. I'm sure that there are people who have legitimate claims, but the complaints about reverse discrimination AS FAR AS I HAVE BEEN CONCERNED (ie, college admissions, scholarships, etc) have been from white males who were far from qualified. That is all. Unless you attended high school, college, graduate school, or worked with me, the statement does not apply to you. :)

Seriously, I don't even think about it. I do remember it, though. However, my point is simply this -- it is dangerous to make blanket statements without either a pretty fair background or a pretty obvious and healthy disclaimer.

There is certainly some truth in what you say -- however the areas that you talk about are hardly the total of mainstream America.

In the end, a lot of very qualified white men (and women for that matter) were discriminated against. However, when compared to the number of minorities in the same position, it pales in comparison. Being a victim, it probably makes me stupid in that I don't have a big problem with Afirmative Action or even blatant quotas. Maybe it's some vague, blurry sense of fairness somewhere.

Someone else, I forget who, said he/she couldn't believe a hiring manager would waste their time hiring someone unqualified because then they would have to fire that person and hire someone else, as well as facing possible suits. Sorry, but it does happen. I was a hiring manager for over twenty years. To be blunt, top management doesn't really care in many cases what kind of burden they put on the middle managers, as long as the numbers look good on company reports. Efficient? No. Fair? No. Real? Yes.

In some ways, I think that's why HR Departments have sprung into more prominance in the past few years. They are the clearinghouse, and in some cases the buffer, between levels of management. Depending on how they are run, they can be a tool of top management, or a foil to them. In the best case, they are both.

Now, those are my opinions. But they have been built over forty years of business and college.

Re: Re: Re: huh?
 

So blacks vs everyone else?

And call it what you want but minorities do get a boost from getting in and if it's a zero sum game then the majority (whites, asians, middle easterners, indians, etc.) lose a bit.

-Rudey

Who cares really if you think about it...most of your jobs are going to be shipped overseas anyway.

-Rudey