Jump to content

Racial Profiling - A debate

Guest $iLk

Recommended Posts

Isn't affirmative action when, in the case where 2 candidates are inseparable by qualifications. interview, experience etc and if one is from a racial minority he gets the job?

Difficult question, they have to use some kind of criteria to choose one over the other I suppose, but I'd be pissed off if it happened to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 130
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Good job Silk. That's the start. Now, if you were to do a SCIENTIFIC study, you would also amass a list of all hijackings that happened within that same time period. Not just the ones that made the papers, All of them. In every region of the country. You would then analyze the data, and come to a conclusion based on ALL of the DATA.

I'm not saying you're not capable of it, I'm not saying that your hypothesis wouldn't be borne out by the evidence, I'm just saying that what you have is anecdotal evidence, and as such, is questionable.

And again I reiterate, there are many different peoples in the middle east, with many different viewpoints. There is no way you can tell what someone is about to do or not do based solely on the fact that they are from the middle east.

I really think you guys should get to know people from the middle east. Get to know the different forms of the religion. Get to understand the histories of places like Iraq, Iran, Egypt. Get to understand the complexities of the cultures and their leaders. The men (and WOMAN) who are responsible for creating American foreign policy actually do have a fairly good understanding (for once!) of the area. And knowledge is a good thing.

I had a cab driver from Iran the other day. (I like talking to cab drivers, asking where they're from. You should try it, you get the most fascinating stories sometimes.) The reason why he had to leave? He owned a very successful architecture business with his partner, his partner always wanted him to sell his shares, he didn't want to. When the Shah was deposed, his partner saw his opportunity. Suddenly the police were around, asking about his christian wife. The cab driver lost everything and had to flee the country.

He gets here to Canada, and he can't get a job as an architect, he drives cab, and one day, he's sitting in his cab when suddenly he is dragged out of the window, and thrown to the ground. Two police officers are placing him under arrest. He asks why. They kick him in the head to silence him.

In court it turns out that the police thought he was a dealer of Hashish (apparently Hash dealers are often middle easterners) they had no evidence other than the fact that he was from the middle east, and they used an empty bottle of rye near the cab as an excuse to search him. The charges were dropped, and the police admonished.

Now, I hope this story makes it very clear why it is wrong to profile someone based on their race or ethnicity. I'll spell it out for you: If we allow the police to harass innocent people based on their race, then we have become no better that the police state that he ran away from.

I actually spent some time in Vancouver BC in a police training institute. It's a long story, but I was able to see, for a brief moment, how they train police officers to behave.

There was an exercise, two people run out of a bank that has just been reported robbed. One a black male, the other a blond female.

Instinctually, the officers told the black male to get to the ground and searched him. The officers found themselves dead in two seconds. The blond was one of the bank robbers. The officer asked if that's a real scenario, the trainer informed him that not only has it happened, but you don't want to find yourself DEAD based on a stupid assumption. That's what this training was about. They are instructed to frisk EVERYBODY coming out of a bank hold up. White, black, old, young, everyone. (So remember that. If you're ever a hostage in a bank holdup. Don't be offended, it's their job.) Cops (in this country) are trained to handle every situation the same, regardless of race. (Whether they actually do it, well, that, alas is a different story.) If you're a cop, and you have a racial bias, or are trained to have one, then it's something a criminal can exploit. And ultimately, you should do everything and anything in your power to make sure you don't end up dead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Affirmative action" sounds a bit like the policy of "Positive Discrimination" that was the vogue amongst left-wing local governments here a few years back.

"Positive Discrimination" was used more in the case of sex than race (women-only shortlists etc.) but there was a racial element too.

As a politician of the time remarked: "There is only one word worth noting in 'positive discrimination' and it isn't 'positive'!"

Back on topic - in the UK a few years back there was a murder of a young boy (Stephen Lawrence) in London by a gang of white youths. The police botched the investigation, and the inquiry into this reported back that the Metropolitan Police were guilty of "Institutional Racism", and that this was backed up by very clear statistics.

As a result of this finding, the police's policy of "stop and search" was halted, to appease the anger of the black community, since the "stop and searches" were almost always of black youths.

Once this happened, the stabbings and robberies that were being held in check by this policy began to increase again. Of course many of these crimes were against the self-same community, so in the end, no-one came out any better except the criminals.

Any police force is expected to perform two duties - crime investigation, and crime prevention. Racial profiling, whether an official policy or a personal bias, is very relevant to the prevention part, as it allows resources to be targetted effectively. However, it has no place whatsoever in the investigation part. Meaningness comments along the lines of "the police should be colour-blind" are ignoring this dual role. Once a crime is being investigated, then all suspects should be treated the same way. But to prevent crime, the police should use all the methods they possibly can, as this is the invisible part of their work that most people really feel the benefit of.

As part of my job, I often have to quantify soft benefits. Our offical police statistics have many figures of successful prosecutions for committed crimes. However, there are no statistics that tell you how bad your neighbourhood would be if the police were not there, because an experiment to establish this "baseline" fingure would probably not be very popular!

Apologies for the rant. I'll sit down now!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry if I wasn't able to document *every* hijacking or terrorist action by arabs that I saw. But the one thing I did notice - Arabs are the only ones I see that have a tendency to attack targets outside of their own countries.

Bin Laden's United Jihad against the crusaders or whatever it's called is 100% Muslim and carries out terrorist attacks frequently. The Palestinians carry out terrorist attacks weekly. Arab terrorist organizations by far outweigh any others in terms of ruthlessness.

If you'll look at the world's most wanted terrorists - how many are arab?

Every one I believe.

Of all hijackings that happen, I would say about 3/4 are carried out by Arabs. So yes - other races do carry out hijackings. But like I said before - If you count all Asians, the number goes up to about 9/10.

Another thing I consider - suicide hijackings. Since hijacking is usually stopped by refusal of Western powers to negotiate - there is little incentive to hijack a plane for any purpose other than a suicide run. Basically 99.999999% of suicide bombers are... Arab.

But you seem to be confused when I tell you that a majority of terrorists happen to be Arab.

I think you are confused because you believe that if people were to use racial profiling they would completely ignore anyone except Arabs.

That's not what I have said - and you have ignored it the last 2 or 3 times I've said it.

What I am saying is - Arabs would tend to arouse more suspicion because of the statistics. They would be watched MORE closely than everyone else. If they are clean - nothing happens to them. They aren't harassed - simply watched.

And damn it, if their feelings are hurt - I don't care if we hurt the feelings of 99 out of 100 arabs and the 100th happens to be a terrorist. Life is more important than someone's sensibilities.

You have to weigh the costs of freedom and liberty - because they aren't worth much if you are dead.

Freedom is not "free", you cannot expect us to continue the same stupid security measures we had in the past. Any arab wanting to enter this country *SHOULD* be heavily scrutinized. They have no RIGHT to come here. It's a priviledge. Foreigners *SHOULD* be subjected to heavier security. It's a different matter if they are actually CITIZENS of this country.

The way I see it - non-citizens have to abide by our laws and receive no benefits of being a citizen.

Are you telling me you wouldn't feel a little intimidated if you were flying and the airport security screener hung his face in the self guilt of liberalism and self hate because he doesn't want to be "racist and let a group of Arabs - all male - pass through the security checkpoint with only a cursory check and let them on the plane with you, where they all sat together and chatted in Arabic while peering around the airplane and bowing their heads and praying to Allah.

Hell maybe you are right. Maybe they are just going to visit their family and celebrate Ramadanadan or whatever.

Or maybe they are not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Originally posted by Paddy Gregory:

Isn't affirmative action when, in the case where 2 candidates are inseparable by qualifications. interview, experience etc and if one is from a racial minority he gets the job?

Difficult question, they have to use some kind of criteria to choose one over the other I suppose, but I'd be pissed off if it happened to me.

Actually, it's when two candidates are similar with paper qualifications. Oh, it also rears it's ugly head with lower standards for college admissions for minorities.

The liberals are against racial profiling. But the liberals apparantly are for racial profiling when it comes to jobs, schools, etc.

We can't use race to help profile criminals but we can use race to profile people for work purposes. Seems odd.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


If you'll look at the world's most wanted terrorists - how many are arab?

Every one I believe.

No, wrong. The United States' most wanted terrorists maybe, but certainly not the world's. I think you'll find the Real IRA figure much higher than Arab terrorists in the UK, as do the members of ETA in Spain, or the Sendora Luminosa (sp?) in Peru. Try not to confuse 'the USA' with 'the world'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree Aramike.

I've been re-reading over most of this thread, and I still can't get over how well I worded my 2nd post - which actually has already addressed most of your concerns Kush.

Nothing other than inconvenience is going to become of "profiled search" targets.

Like I said, if it hurts their feelings - boohoo. If we save even one life out of inconveniencing 1000 people, it's worth it. I have said that racial profiling in airports and "high-risk" areas is necessary. The line between discrimination and security is hazier on a local level. But at the same time, people scream racial profiling when there is none - just to get off the hook.

Police have to be attentive. In essence if someone "fits the profile" they *CANNOT* ignore that person for fear of offending them.

No one has a right to not be offended. The fact that I pulled up as many hijackings as I did - with the motives and actions of every Arab terrorist, lends credence that there *ARE* arabs who are willing to die in order to crash or bomb planes.

So when I see arabs in airports - it is a cause for concern and they should be monitored. Arabs in a grocery store... no problem. Arabs in our key government and military areas - cause for concern. Arabs on the highway or in school... no problem.

I'm not saying that Arabs should be scrutinized anywhere other than HIGH RISK areas. And also I haven't said that no one BUT arabs should be scrutinized.

You can send me off to collect data on every hijacking since the first bamboo raft in 3000BC, and if I showed you conclusive evidence that Arabs are a majority of all hijackings (I have shown that they are a majority of hijackings that made the news) you would then tell me that : "But just because they are Arab doesn't make them a terrorist." and I would pull out my hair and tell you for the 10th time that "I never said that, I said it seems more LIKELY that they COULD be."

Your mentality is that if I was an airport screener and saw an arab I would pull out my baton and Nazi jackboots and beat him in the airport and call him a terrorist and interrogate and torture him for hours.

My mentality is that if I was an airport screener and saw an Arab I would pay attention to him more closely than I would say an 8 year old girl.

Don't confuse the two. What's wrong with paying more attention to those MORE likely to commit a terrorist act?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good point Paddy, I'll try to keep that in mind

I am simply relating in my mind airports and terrorists in home country. I haven't forgotten about the IRA.

So what about my last post?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An interesting analogy:

I used to work in a medical diagnostic laboratory, we dealt with all kinds of nasty bits and pieces and we never knew which could possibly be dangerous, high risk etc. Therefore ALL samples were treated as being potentially harmful (Hepatitis, HIV etc) ie with the utmost precaution, as far as is possible in your bog-standard NHS lab. Any KNOWN infected materials were given exceptional treatment. What I'm saying is that if you set your default standards to deal with the worst possible scenario, you're in a better situation to protect youtself and nothing slips through. Treat EVERYONE with the same HIGH standards and you'll be OK.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My point against that is that there aren't enough resources to go around in order to make sure that flights still run on time.

You have to check everyone, but only *SOME* can be thoroughly checked. I'd rather it be the most likely rather than seeing 8 year old girls and their grandmothers patted down while groups of Arabs just swarm through without so much as a glance by the S.O.

Anyway I thought this was funny.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thing is $ilk, aiport security in the UK is run by the government, it is very efficient and does not cause undue delays. I think over in the US, you are so used to checking in and rushing through to the departure gate, you are spoilt. Any further delay is seen as an inconvenience. What price safety? What I find irrational is that if your standard airport security was as tight as your airport immigration, you'd be a lot better off. I nearly missed a connection coming into the US once because of the enormous queue at immigration. I didn't seen any profiling there. I was with a female colleague, both of us caucasian and we got exactly the same treatment as everyone else, regardless of their ethnic background.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All foreign nationals *should* be thoroughly checked. Our immigration policy is a joke however. The INS expands every year and consistently lowers their standards and failures can be seen all over the country.

Our government in the United States is a massive beuracracy of inefficiency. Don't look for our security federalization to do any good. It is our government watching the borders too and we see how well that turns out.

I may be wrong but we have MASSIVE amounts of air traffic compared to the UK and thus have to have some expediency.

Anyway for some comic relief:

Here is Boortz's list of demands for the airports since they got a big taxpayer funded bailout.



This is a tough question for a dedicated libertarian. Should the government use its police power to seize money from taxpayers and transfer that money ÔÇô partly as a gift and partly as a loan ÔÇô to the airlines to keep them afloat?

Its a tough question, and well deal with it on the air and in the Nuze. One thing  to the extent that the airline problems are due to government actions, the government owes the airlines some compensation.

But  lets face it. The airlines havent exactly been doing a lot to earn the undying love and gratitude of the American public. Lets just say, for the sake of argument, that the taxpayers of America do step forward and bail out the airline industry. How about a few things in return?

Non-refundable, non-transferrable tickets.

Come on, now. In any other area of our economy if a person purchases an item or a service and they find they canÔÇÖt use it later on they can either (a) get their money back, (
transfer the item or service to some other person or © set it aside to be used later without charge. But not with the airlines. Buy your ticket and find that you canÔÇÖt use it and itÔÇÖs ÔÇ£sorry, Charlie.ÔÇØ Make all airline tickets refundable up to 24 hours before departure, after that point theyÔÇÖre exchangeable. Make them transferable too.


Sorry, but itÔÇÖs a fact. Many airlines and airline officials have adopted a position of complete arrogance toward the flying public. Think about it, folks. When is the last time an airline employee actually went out of their way, above and beyond the normal call of duty, to satisfy a complaint or address a special request. Try to get a bulkhead or an exit seat. Sorry, theyÔÇÖre gone. I donÔÇÖt care if you make your reservations two years in advance, the bulkhead and exit seats are already gone. When you show up at the gate you overhear one of the precious frequent fliers ask for that seat and get an immediate ÔÇ£Yes sir! ThatÔÇÖs available.ÔÇØ OK ÔÇô if the taxpayers step the bulkhead seats go to the first person that asks for them. Ditto for exit seats, subject to an ability to actually open that door.

Screaming Babies

You want my money to bail you out? Then how about a separate section of the airplane --- far in the back --- for travelers with screaming babies. DonÔÇÖt mix them with the rest of the passengers who have probably been working hard and need a break. Also ÔÇô no children under ten years of age in first class.

Carry-on Luggage

Fine for the adults ÔÇô within reason. But NOT FOR CHILDREN. We donÔÇÖt care how much your child whines about wanting his or her own Big Bird or Buzz Lightyear rolling carry-on bag, the answer is NO. Just sit there and shut up until the flight is over.

Baggage claim

We understand why you would want to be careful about what bags get on your airplanes. When you take that bag off at the end of the flight itÔÇÖs no longer your worry, itÔÇÖs ours. Get the pilots and flight attendants to help you unload the airplane if you have to --- but get the damned bags to baggage claim NOW! Not tomorrow. Forty-five minutes is too long to wait. If you want us to stop packing everything we own into carry-on bags you need to find a way to reunite us with our luggage quickly.

Better snacks and food.

This sky-deli crap has to go. A terrorist could slip a hard-boiled egg or a broccoli spear in there. Just come down the aisle with a wagon full of Krystal cheeseburgers and a vat of chili and everything will be fine.

Fleshy Fliers

An absolute ban on men wearing tank tops or shorts on commercial airliners. If an overweight grotesquely hairy blubber-butt shows up in a tank top he shall be treated as a security risk and arrested. The airlines can solve this problem by having tyvek overalls on hand for these people to wear. On the back of the overalls will be printed the words ÔÇ£I came to the airport looking like a fat pig and all I got was these damn overalls.ÔÇØ

That damned Saturday night stay.

Where the hell did this nonsense come from? Why do you care whether or not we stay over a Saturday night? Do you get a commission from the hotels? When we want to come home, let us come home. DonÔÇÖt make us stay in a strange city away from our loved ones for an extra night if we donÔÇÖt want too.

Wide-open stand-by

If I have a ticket to fly from Phoenix to Cincinnati you should let me get on any airplane I want to so long as there is an empty seat and the aircraft isnÔÇÖt over gross. Hey, I paid for the ticket --- why should I have to sit six extra hours in the airport while a plane to my destination takes off with an empty seat just because my ticket is for a later flight. Either way, you get a butt in a seat and money for a ticket. Oh --- and no charge for changing either.

Just be honest.

Is my flight going to be on time? If I walk up to the gate and see a departure time of 8:30 on the sign ÔÇô and itÔÇÖs 8:15 and I can plainly see that thereÔÇÖs no plane at the gate, donÔÇÖt tell me the flight is going to be on time. It isnÔÇÖt going to be on time. ItÔÇÖs going to be late ÔÇô and there are people I need to call to let them know. No more of these ÔÇ£eat dog waste and die a horrible deathÔÇØ looks from the gate agents and obnoxious ÔÇ£It says 8:30, doesnÔÇÖt it?ÔÇØ responses when I ask how long the delay is going to be.

I donÔÇÖt WANT to pull my seatback up yet.

OK, I know why I have to put away my tray table and pull my seatback to its full upright and locked position on takeoff and landing. ItÔÇÖs so people can get out of the airplane in an emergency, right? And to keep people from being hurt when Captain Kangaroo lands a little rough. Fine. IÔÇÖll go along with it. But donÔÇÖt send the Gestapo down the aisle barking at me about my seat backs when weÔÇÖre headed for Atlanta and the airplane is over Birmingham. Tell us to pull our seat backs up when the gear goes down. That ought to do it.

Non-reclining seats

There is no more uncomfortable space on this planed which is designed for occupancy by a human being than those damned seats on airliners that wonÔÇÖt recline. These are the seats with an exit row right behind them. Anyone riding in these seats should get a voucher for a free first-class upgrade on a space available basis for their next flight.

Free headphones

Simple enough. Those people in the seats are paying taxes to bail your asses out of some pretty stupid financial decisions. Give them free headphones ÔÇô and an audio channel for The Best of Boortz.

Cell Phones

IÔÇÖm still not convinced that cell phones screw with the navigation system. DoesnÔÇÖt happen on my airplane. Let the passengers use the cell phones. They used them on those hijacked flights and we didnÔÇÖt see any navigation problems there, did we? Seems to me the navigation was rather good.

Class Warfare boarding.

Now I understand why you like to board the airplane from the rear forward. Great. But the entire purpose of this exercise is defeated if you give your precious Super-Platinum-Diamond-Gold Medal frequent flying passengers a head start on everyone else. I donÔÇÖt care how many frequent flier miles they have. IÔÇÖm paying for my ticket (and for your bailout) and they are on expense accounts. Go look at the way Southwest boards their airplanes. Do it that way.

Attractive Flight Attendants.

Two words. Singapore Air. Oh, and can we slim some of them down too? On a recent flight I had an aisle seat. I got the hell beat out of me every time the flight attendant walked by. Look, if they have to go up and down the aisles sideways like a huge crab they probably should be given a desk job somewhere --- with a very sturdy chair.

Frequent flier miles.

All frequent flier miles should be equal. Some grunt with just enough frequent flier miles probably worked a lot harder to earn those miles than some Super-Gold-Titanium Frequent Flier did ÔÇô and paid for the miles with his own money to boot. No black-out periods for just some of your customers. Treat them all the same.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


If you'll look at the world's most wanted terrorists - how many are arab?

No, wrong. The United States' most wanted terrorists maybe, but certainly not the world's. I think you'll find the Real IRA figure much higher than Arab terrorists in the UK,

True but the IRA aren't called terrorrists here anymore even though they are still up to their old tricks (heard about the bomb raid lately?). These guys are seen by the world as "Freedom Fighters". They use all the same terror techniques used by the Arabs bar plane hijackings and suicide bombings. Their motives are also almost the same....religion. Yet these guys are glamourised by Hollywood and they even get to be in the government. The day that happen's to Arabs I'd probably shave my head off.

The biggest problem I see with this "war" on terrorrism now is that it is only a war againts American terrorrists. I don't see Bush helping out Blair with this IRA problem do you? ETA is still running the show in Spain. All that was done was so called "weapons decomissioning" and look how far that went. Now that's not to say I don't want to see bin Laden getting hung in the gallows preferably on the moon but still you have to wonder if American lives are more precious than everyone else's?

At the end of the day there is only one important race on Earth and that is the human race. We'll just ignore the Greys,Klingons,Venusians and Victoria Beckham for now because those guys are from another planet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Patience Fendi. We are concentrating on one after another. Starting at the most dangerous and going down the list. We cannot strike everywhere simultaneously so have some faith.

The IRA started the decommisioning I believe because they didn't want to be associated with terrorists. But if they engage in terrorist activities they will come to justice.

First Osama and Mullah Mullah, then Sadaam. That should be over by Spring. Then we can move on to others, for as long as it takes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hope so $ilk hope so. The IRA has always been a terrorrist group though. Sinn Fein is their political wing.

Heh about the Singapore Airline stewardess, it can't be thatbad. They actually have nice sslim petite cute ladies. Trust me I know and I can't wait till christmas to go back to Malaysia.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Silk, I'm talking about something bigger. I'm talking about freedom. Freedom from threat of search and seizure. Freedom to live in a society that doesn't allow police officers or any figure of authority to needlessly hassle you because of your skin colour or ethnic background. These freedoms are obviously not important to you. And that's fine. Let's hope that you never ever have to experience life with those freedoms taken away from you.

And here's the last word on Affirmative action.

It goes like this.

Affirmative action means that if

a) there is a person who is discriminated against who has the best qualifications for the job, better than all other applicants, you should hire that person.

b)If there are two people of equal qualification, you should NOT NOT HIRE THE PERSON BECAUSE THEY BELONG TO A GROUP THAT HAS BEEN DISCRIMINATED AGAINST.

It's simple. I use it all the time. I do a lot of hiring. I'm in the process of hiring right now. Whenever I'm hiring, I just go after the person with the best qualifications, period. I don't give a damn what colour they are.

If I've got two people, both qualified, I literally do a mental coin toss. There's no other way to do it. You shouldn't use someone's skin colour or gender, or gender preference as a reason to not hire someone. You can't. You could get your ass sued. And personally, it's not a great way to chose an employee. The best way, (or the way I like to do it) what's their personality. Are they a team player. You can put Team Player on your application, but you really get a feel for it in the interview. I just hired a black guy over a lot of other applicants cause he looked like he had a can-do, team play attitude, and that's what I want around me. Period. I'd rather have that, then someone who is equally qualified, and a whiner, or disruptive.

That's what affirmative action is. That's how it works. If your white, and you want a job from me, show me your qualified, be courteous in the interview, and show that you've got a great demeanor and you're a team player. It won't necessarily get you the job, but it will go a long way.

As a matter of fact, it's easy when you have an applicant who has a clear ability advantage. It sucks when you have two people who are of the same qualifications. Two? Hell, try Twenty, or thirty, or sixty. And you know, when you tell them they don't have the job that they really wanted it. It sucks. And that's just between white applicants. If the white applicant looses out to a black guy, they never come to me and ask what they could have done better, they never chalk it up to bad luck, they immediately assume that the black guy got it cause I was afraid he'd sue my ass. It's a defense mechanism. Get over it.

Affirmative action has helped many many Americans, from Colin Powel, to Condoleezza Rice. Jackie Robinson benefited from Affirmative Action, so did Paul Robeson. Richard Wright, Oprah Winfrey, you name it. What black American's don't want is to be patronized. 'I was just hired cause I'm black.' I make sure everyone who works for me understands they are hired for the unique skills they provide. And together, we KICK BUTT!!!

The argument is dated. It's over. Don't discriminate when you hire.

I'll tell you the REAL problem.

Affirmative Incompetence.

At my wife's work there are two employees, both women, both of them are *****y (my wife's description) hard to work with, and have shown major, MAJOR incompetence. One's white, the other black. The white incompetent woman actually cost the company $35,000 recently and almost caused a major lawsuit to be filed. The black incompetent woman has never done anything THAT stupid. The white incompetent woman is now a stock holder and has become high up in the company. The black woman wants a promotion as well, and thinks that it's her skin colour that will hold her back.

If it were up to me, I'd have fired both their butts a long time ago.

But it's not up to me.

So, the question is, do you promote a black incompetent person because you also promoted a white person who's actually more incompetent than the black person? Hmmm.

[ 11-26-2001: Message edited by: Kush ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That affirmative action thing I find very unfair.

Just look at college grants and scholarships. They clearly label, define and for all purposes, discriminate other students because of their race, sex and religion.

I'm hispanic because the paperwork says so. You look at me, im blond, pale white (i'll never hear the end of that) and catholic (again, by paperwork, im really agnostic).

I go to pick up the listing of grants and scholarships and what do I see?

Grants and scholarships for Hispanics, Asians, Blacks, Christians (granted, only to study in christian schools), women and other minorities/ethnicities.

I never saw a grant or scholarship for a "White" person. I'm sure the shit would hit the fan if there was one... because its "discrimination" at that point. I even applied for one of them (although my GPA wasnt exactly a shining example)... the councelor in the school did not believe I was serious until I showed her my passport.

So I dont see how the average white protestant caucasian male will have the same chances at a scholarship than "others". Quite frankly, it was hard to find more than 3 or 4 scholarships for them in the list I was looking at.

I guess some are more equal than others...if they lobby enough for it and take advantage of political correctness to get it!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tac, I think it mostly exists to deal with an historic inequality in America.

It wasn't that long ago that black Americans were refused admittance to certain Universities. In my opinion, the scholarships are probably a way to deal with their own guilt at their previous shameful behavior.

If there wasn't that whole racial exclusion thing, then maybe scholarships wouldn't be necessary.

I know a black guy who's Dad studied in University here in Canada while the whole Little Rock thing was happening down there, and he thinks it's fair to offer incentives for black Americans to study at schools that at one time you'd risk your life to even enter. Otherwise, you're just not going. So a University will offer scholarships. If you're poor and white, it sucks, but hey, don't blame the black kids, blame the psychotic white segregationists who would rather shoot at black students than study with them back in the sixties.

But what makes my friends Dad FURIOUS is the idea that you could graduate with lower marks than just because you're black.

There's some idiotic policy floating around up here that if you were Native or Black you could graduate Law school with lower marks. To him that's highly insulting. He busted his butt to get where he is today, nobody gave him a break. And as a black person, he doesn't want to hire a lawyer that doesn't know what the hell they're doing. No matter what colour the person is.

Yes Luke, there is a dark side. It's called Tokenism. Tokenism sucks. Not Affirmative Action.

To me, if you hire somebody who belongs to a group that has been discriminated against, you must have the same expectations of them that you have of anyone on your staff. And so far, I have yet to be let down. And if someone does let me down, I'm not going to say, 'Well, look who I hired, I should have known better.' We're all human, human's fail sometimes. Hire someone else, move on.

[ 11-27-2001: Message edited by: Kush ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Originally posted by $iLk:

I may be wrong but we have MASSIVE amounts of air traffic compared to the UK and thus have to have some expediency.

I remembered being told that Heathrow was the world's busiest airport, but it turns out it is not (see The world's busiest airports). Although if you add together the figures for Heathrow and Gatwick (24 in the list) then the combined London airports go to the top.



Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wasn't neccessarily referring to a single American airport. I mean the shear amount of traffic and airports in the US. What one airport does, affets several others - so if one airport can't get it's flights out on time, it could cost, after all airports are affected, millions of dollars per hour.

So we kind of need to have expediency. But you can blame that on the dumbass airports anyway cause they run their profit margin so close to the line anyway.

Anyway, my final say on racial profiling - It's good for high-risk areas. If Islamic fundamentalists are crashing planes into buildings. I would suggest we concentrate on anyone of a similar appearance in our searches. After all, the profile is Arab Male, 21-35. When a cop yells "Officer down, suspect Black male, 21 years old" police don't start stopping old ladies to search and question.

For our airports, fair or not, like I said - feelings don't matter when put next to lives. I don't suggest racial profiling as a POLICY in our streets, but I think police need to take into consideration race as a factor. But racial profiling in our airports is a MUST.

Racial profiling simply means, when someone fits the profile, you assign someone to keep an eye on them for suspicious behavior and when it's their time to get searched, you (without telling them) conduct a more thorough search.

I'm not saying whip out Nazi Jack boots and a club and a Gestapo hat and racial profile them into airport concentration camps.

So the only discomfort they have to go through is perhaps feeling like they are searched harder because they are Arab and wondering why the little girl got to walk through without any trouble.

And I don't care if we bust one out of a thousand. Because saving one life would be worth it.

No freedoms are affected - you assume we will pin any arab against the wall and strip search them. You forget that EVERYONE gets searched at an airport. I simply say that we give a cursory check to really old people and really young kids. And get them out of the way to make time for a pat-down of anyone suspicious.

Racial profiling would not be an "official" policy. Just like the military saying they won't hit you in boot camp. "officially" they won't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


You forget that EVERYONE gets searched at an airport. I simply say that we give a cursory check to really old people and really young kids. And get them out of the way to make time for a pat-down of anyone suspicious.

So what you're actually talking about is AGE profiling. Race is (almost) irrelevant.

Let's not forget, the second worst act of terrorism to occur on American soil was by a white, caucasian male and veteran of the Gulf War.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So let's say I'm a terrorist from the middle east. I want to send a plane into the white house. And I know that all airports have racial profiling.

No problem.

I find a muslim guy who sympathizes with me who has blonde hair and blue eyes. (Yes, they exist.)

Change his name to John Smith. I give him two feet of piano wire.

I find a couple of black muslim guys who were born and raised in America who sympathizes with me. Get them into flight training.

Get them onto a plane that leaves washington early in the morning, it's done. While you're wasting your time searching through the bags of some poor American citizen, treating him like a defacto terrorist because his name is Abdulah and his skin colour is darker than yours, I've hit the white house.

It's not an effective way to go.

The effective way to go is to infiltrate the terrorist cells and shut them down.

The people who do this for a living know this already. They're working on it. It takes time. In the mean time, try and treat other American citizens with respect, allowing them the same freedoms you enjoy.

I can't spell it out any clearer than that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in

Sign In Now

  • Create New...