Is discrimination okay if against whites???

Post Reply New Topic

At the chemistry department I work for, there have been two hiring committees whose members stated that they would not hire “another old white man”. In both cases, they hired minority candidates from outside of our country without considering the white male candidates who applied. It did not matter their qualifications, the white male candidates were not given consideration. One of the hired was hand picked to basically be a research “assistant” for some of the faculty members. They tried to do the same with another job position, but that candidate violated their visa and had to go back home. He was working two jobs at the same time which is not allowed. It backfired on them better than I could have wished for.

Job discrimination against white men does indeed happen. I have experienced it first hand at my job. It is but one reason why I am moving on from higher education as soon as I can. I expect the same behavior in industry, but the pay is usually much better. Why can it not be about what you can do with your abilities rather than your skin color/sex/sexual orientation/religion/etc... I do not think I will ever fully understand the fallacy of the human race.

Yes, and it is called "Affirmative Action".

(See previous post by QuantumChemist.)

I truly wish Affirmative Action and that ilk could be rendered obsolete….by a tacit acknowledgment by all people—that one’s race has nothing whatsoever to do with one’s qualifications.

I feel Affirmative Action, paradoxically, helps minorities and hurts minorities.

Have you really never been adversely affected by Affirmative Action in housing, education, or employment?

I have; both as a man and as a white person.  Once, even as a partner in a "mixed" marriage.

So she is facing discrimination from one group (straight/white/males) and not from others? And she is not allowed to express those concerns?

I suppose that if she said that all straight white males were antagonistic to people with autism, that would be faulty stereotyping, that would be racism. But the fact is that straight (or closeted) white males hold the most power in our society, and they generally do the most damage. It doesn't mean they are all bad, it doesn't mean other groups are all saintly.

Here's a test: what emotions or connotations come up when you think of the term "Frat Boys" ?? If you have a negative response, are you racist, sexist, ageist, or somethingelsist?

I would argue that anything meant negatively, anything intentionally said or done to upset someone, no matter who or what they are, counts as discrimination. To me, any form of negative intention directed at someone for the purpose of that person's discomfort (or to make the offender feel big, even though that is pathetic) counts as discrimination. Sometimes I ask myself why we can't just see everyone for the one thing we all are underneath the labels and categories: Human.

Probably not the best answer but that's my opinion on the matter nonetheless.

A noble sentiment, to be sure; but inaccurate.

Discrimination is the favoring or disfavoring of at least one person against another based on anything other than their individual abilities and past performance.

For instance, if both Sue and Tom are equally proficient at managing projects, and I choose Sue as the new Project Manager because she looks good to me in a tight sweater, that is discrimination (of a sexist nature) against Tom.

Negativity, on the other hand, is just some people's way of dealing with the world.  In the above example, if I decided that either Sue or Tom would be equally bad as Project Manager, and chose to go outside the company to hire someone else, that would be negativity and not discrimination.

First of all, no it's NOT okay because two wrongs don't make a right. What you are talking about is called "Reversed racism." While it's okay to be angry, holding a hatred towards white people won't solve anything. In fact, that only makes the situation 10 times worse.

When people talk about reversed discrimination, I often think they mean they don't want inclusion so they are going to feel oppressed.

If you do apply for a job and you get hired but the work place happened to be filled with women, your boss is a woman, your work collogues are women, about 3 of you are men and then you start dealing with false assumptions and accusations and your small talk gets taken as you flirting or hitting on them, you telling your workers hi or good morning and asking how they are is taken as you doing sexual harassment and your boss is siding with these claims, you I would say you do have a case for a discrimination lawsuit on your gender because they created a hostile work environment. No doubt these situations have happened and can happen but then again that is when you have a lawsuit to file. One man was able to file a lawsuit when he got fired to be replaced by a woman and won because he was able to prove he was discriminated for his gender. If they wanted a woman on the team, they could have only done it for open positions and not replace their current employees with female or person of color. Here is the source:

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/ju ... d-n1282605

I always believed this is what inclusion is, not to replace your current employees to be inclusive. But I do get a feeling the right wing will use this story as proof and justification to keep being racist and whine about "reverse racism."

Not that I've ever noticed.

Well, then that's clearly wrong for them to have disregarded old white men out of hand.

One time a UK school failed its Ofsted inspection because there were too many white kids.

This country's gone mad.

sigh! we seem to go in circles on this forum. like one of ironpony's threads except on steroids.

the missing element which everybody on this thread (except Kraichie) has missed is the power differential. Social and institutional power remains in the hands of old white men in courtrooms, boardrooms and in committees and in senior management. Laws are made and acted upon to favor you if you belong to the majority community, minorities get the short end of the stick in terms of discrimination.

It should be about that, but things like Affirmative Action exist because institutions find it hard to think of a better solution. If we could trust people in general to develop better character and accept truth over self-image, hiring people based on ability would be more common. Since bad people can misrepresent themselves, institutions will create a rule to compensate.

Also, these institutions are about power, not ability. If they were concerned with doing the best, we would not have the environmental and social problems we have. Companies would not work so hard to hide if they produce carcinogens, for example--they would apologize, compensate, and do better. So in a system which devalues transparency you can't expect anything else. Civilization mutes instinct while promising sustainability. This is a fallacy, which is why you see the result you do.

Laws benefit a minority too. If government is property, law will benefit those with the most property--which are a minority group. The problem is most people expect the law to work for them and continually wonder why it doesn't. It's not supposed to.

When you were in the navy did you have to watch your back ? a lot of black naval officers do
https://thehill.com/changing-america/re ... r-of-black

It's hard to navigate life putting up with everyday micro-aggressions and covert/institutional disctimination but also keep eyes on the back your head for a somebody coming behind you and killing you for how you look