Hate Speech, or Academic Criticism

[JackLuis]

According to WTVD, Duke University Professor Jerry Hough responded to a New York Times editorial titled “How Racism Doomed Baltimore” by suggesting that the author’s attitude was what was “wrong” with the black community.

“I am a professor at Duke University,” he admitted. “Every Asian student has a very simple old American first name that symbolizes their desire for integration. Virtually every black has a strange new name that symbolizes their lack of desire for integration.”

“I am strongly against the obsession with ‘sensitivity.’ The more we have emphasized sensitivity in recent years, the worse race relations have become,” he continued. “In my opinion, the time has come to stop talking incessantly about race relations in general terms as the President and activists have advocated, but talk about how the Asians and Poles got ahead–and to copy their approach. I don’t see why that is insensitive or racist.”

Does he have a point worth a discussion?

 

[phrodeau]

Most people don't name themselves. It's usually the parents.

And how about all those Founding Fathers with Jewish first names, like Benjamin, Thomas, Samuel, Nathan or John?

 

[MrRandyWatson]

It's not the name. It's what people perceive as their opportunities and what they do with them.

I graduated from law school with a close friend of mine. Her name? Latoya. Yet I saw Julia and Chris fail. Give people real opportunities and push them to take them, and the next thing you know, we'll have no trouble with a CEO named DeSean.

 

[Aglaopheme]

The guy is a tool, and was rightfully suspended. Someone should speak with him a lot more about race relations if he thinks "the blacks" can just copy the "Poles" approach and all is well.

“[T]he blacks get symbolic recognition in an utterly incompetent mayor who handled this so badly from beginning to end that her resignation would be demanded if she were white,” he wrote. “The blacks get awful editorials like this that tell them to feel sorry for themselves.”

Hough noted that “the Asians” faced discrimination throughout U.S. history: “They didn’t feel sorry for themselves, but worked doubly hard.”

Hough added that blacks made the problem worse by refusing to date white people.

 

[MrRandyWatson]

Hough added that blacks made the problem worse by refusing to date white people.

It's not just them. Plenty of whites, Asians, you name it refuse to date outside their race. But evidently when a black person does it, it's racism, but when a white person does it, it's preference.

 

[Aglaopheme]

Preference or privilege?

It's that age old problem- When you do it it's wrong, lazy, a problem. When I do it it's my right, I earned it, etc.

 

[RjThoughts]

The guy is a tool, and was rightfully suspended. Someone should speak with him a lot more about race relations if he thinks "the blacks" can just copy the "Poles" approach and all is well.

“[T]he blacks get symbolic recognition in an utterly incompetent mayor who handled this so badly from beginning to end that her resignation would be demanded if she were white,” he wrote. “The blacks get awful editorials like this that tell them to feel sorry for themselves.”

Hough noted that “the Asians” faced discrimination throughout U.S. history: “They didn’t feel sorry for themselves, but worked doubly hard.”

Hough added that blacks made the problem worse by refusing to date white people.

My mother's grandparents emigrated from what's now Poland. The city of Schenectady, where General Electric and American Locomotive, hired many immigrants and those newly-minted citizens from steel mills and coal mines to work in the factories. It was lawful to discriminate against Poles and Italians, because of their "perceived" laziness, incompetence, and well, lack of intelligence.

Growing up in the early 70s, I saw the same thing against blacks and Latinos, but not so outwardly.

This professor is not too smart.

 

[Boxlicker101]

My mother's grandparents emigrated from what's now Poland. The city of Schenectady, where General Electric and American Locomotive, hired many immigrants and those newly-minted citizens from steel mills and coal mines to work in the factories. It was lawful to discriminate against Poles and Italians, because of their "perceived" laziness, incompetence, and well, lack of intelligence.

Growing up in the early 70s, I saw the same thing against blacks and Latinos, but not so outwardly.

This professor is not too smart.

But if you're talking about the second half of the 19th century in the North, the Irish, including some of my father's ancestors, probably had it worse than anybody.

 

[RjThoughts]

But if you're talking about the second half of the 19th century in the North, the Irish, including some of my father's ancestors, probably had it worse than anybody.

Blatant Irish discrimination, yes. Right now, though, the subtle discrimination and racism that exists is far worse, because then you knew who was an asshole!

 

[Boxlicker101]

Blatant Irish discrimination, yes. Right now, though, the subtle discrimination and racism that exists is far worse, because then you knew who was an asshole!

A lot of this "subtle discrimination" is referred to as Affirmative Action or leveling the playing field. Basically, it goes something like: "We know you poor, ignorant darkies can't compete with whites or Asians, so we will make employers give you special considerations or, if you prefer, money for doing nothing. Just make sure you vote for us Liberals to keep this happening. Those nasty Conservatives will expect you to compete with everybody else and to support yourselves and your families."

 

[RjThoughts]

A lot of this "subtle discrimination" is referred to as Affirmative Action or leveling the playing field. Basically, it goes something like: "We know you poor, ignorant darkies can't compete with whites or Asians, so we will make employers give you special considerations or, if you prefer, money for doing nothing. Just make sure you vote for us Liberals to keep this happening. Those nasty Conservatives will expect you to compete with everybody else and to support yourselves and your families."

No, no, no! If you have a problem with Affirmative Action, do you have one with "Legacy" and "Nepotism"?

 

[Boxlicker101]

No, no, no! If you have a problem with Affirmative Action, do you have one with "Legacy" and "Nepotism"?

I don't like any of them very much, but I don't consider them to be very comparable.

 

[RjThoughts]

I don't like any of them very much, but I don't consider them to be very comparable.

But they are. Far more have entered colleges and universities with poor academics due to legacy - GW Bush because of dad, granddad - than have through AA.

And how many undeserving and less equipped employees have been placed in higher positions, or even received jobs, due to "Who they knew"?

 

[Boxlicker101]

But they are. Far more have entered colleges and universities with poor academics due to legacy - GW Bush because of dad, granddad - than have through AA.

And how many undeserving and less equipped employees have been placed in higher positions, or even received jobs, due to "Who they knew"?

I don't believe your first paragraph. In any event, Legacy would only apply to private universities and, even then, the offspring of alumni need to demonstrate competence.

Outright nepotism is mainly practiced in family-owned businesses, and the family could be of any race or ethnicity. For others, networking is very important but, even there, the person one knows has to be willing to put in a good recommendation for any benefit to be received. The beneficiary of the networking could be of any race or ethnicity.

 

[RjThoughts]

I don't believe your first paragraph. In any event, Legacy would only apply to private universities and, even then, the offspring of alumni need to demonstrate competence.

Outright nepotism is mainly practiced in family-owned businesses, and the family could be of any race or ethnicity. For others, networking is very important but, even there, the person one knows has to be willing to put in a good recommendation for any benefit to be received. The beneficiary of the networking could be of any race or ethnicity.

Of course, I forgot to add that, especially in 7 of the 8 Ivy League schools: Cornell is New York's land grant college, and therefore, offers preferences to NY state applicants.

As for employment, it goes on in even franchised restaurants, at banks - Hell my dad worked at a non-family owned bank where half of the second layer of upper management were related to one Senior vice President.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

The State hadda interesting minority program that worked like this: They recruited blacks and put them on a fast track conveyor belt to the top. That is, the black recruit came in the door, spent 4 months as a worker, got promoted to supervisor, then to administrator, on up to the top where they got a non-career service berth as special aide to the district chief. That job was tied to the budget and almost always expired at the end of the fiscal year. The black lost her high pay job, and all the blacks below her advanced up.

On paper it looked marvelous.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Of course, I forgot to add that, especially in 7 of the 8 Ivy League schools: Cornell is New York's land grant college, and therefore, offers preferences to NY state applicants.

As for employment, it goes on in even franchised restaurants, at banks - Hell my dad worked at a non-family owned bank where half of the second layer of upper management were related to one Senior vice President.

Franchised restaurants tend to be owned by individuals or families and, if they hire their sons or daughters to flip burgers, who cares. I find it hard to believe that bank you mentioned wasn't owned, either as a partnership or a closely held corp. by the family of that VP.

 

[Aglaopheme]

But if you're talking about the second half of the 19th century in the North, the Irish, including some of my father's ancestors, probably had it worse than anybody.

Wait just a moment here. Let's pause for a second. I agree with you. I am also of Irish decent. Now flash forward to present day. You have a problem with policies that address people that "have it worse"? Racism was bad when it was waged against your ancestors now it's not worth taking action to try and assure it's not happening? Affirmative Action was born out of and exists because of actual discriminatory policies. Started by JFK in 1961. Discrimination based on gender was only added in 1967.

But you know, I'm sure it is much more comfortable for you to think it started with Jessie Jackson or someone else you'd like to project your issues upon.

 

[phrodeau]

Wait just a moment here. Let's pause for a second. I agree with you. I am also of Irish decent. Now flash forward to present day. You have a problem with policies that address people that "have it worse"? Racism was bad when it was waged against your ancestors now it's not worth taking action to try and assure it's not happening? Affirmative Action was born out of and exists because of actual discriminatory policies. Started by JFK in 1961. Discrimination based on gender was only added in 1967.

But you know, I'm sure it is much more comfortable for you to think it started with Jessie Jackson or someone else you'd like to project your issues upon.

Well yes, he feels no motivation to improve things for other people's children.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Wait just a moment here. Let's pause for a second. I agree with you. I am also of Irish decent. Now flash forward to present day. You have a problem with policies that address people that "have it worse"? Racism was bad when it was waged against your ancestors now it's not worth taking action to try and assure it's not happening? Affirmative Action was born out of and exists because of actual discriminatory policies. Started by JFK in 1961. Discrimination based on gender was only added in 1967.

But you know, I'm sure it is much more comfortable for you to think it started with Jessie Jackson or someone else you'd like to project your issues upon.

First, discrimination on the basis of gender was outlawed in 1964 as part of the landmark legislation of that year.

My post that you cited was in response to one about discrimination against Poles and Italians in the 19th Century. I merely pointed out that Irish had it worse than either of those ethnicities.

The problem with Affirmative Action is that it is discrimination in itself. Benefits should accrue to people based on the abilities of those people as individuals, with irrelevant factors such as race given no consideration.

 

[Sean Renaud]

First, discrimination on the basis of gender was outlawed in 1964 as part of the landmark legislation of that year.

My post that you cited was in response to one about discrimination against Poles and Italians in the 19th Century. I merely pointed out that Irish had it worse than either of those ethnicities.

The problem with Affirmative Action is that it is discrimination in itself. Benefits should accrue to people based on the abilities of those people as individuals, with irrelevant factors such as race given no consideration.

The thing is discrimination on the basis of gender is illegal on paper, pretty sure based on race is as well. It is however exceedingly difficult to actually prove. Let's start with the fact that you have to be able to prove that Jamal or Jane are demonstrably better qualified than Mike for whatever position. Most positions (especially ones you'd be promoted to instead hired as a a grunt.) have so many skills that go into it that you're already screwed there. Also the overwhelming majority of us simply don't have the resources to spend however long in court and not at work. So it's a law sure. . .but it's not one that's particularly well enforced.

Yes AA is discrimination in and of itself. However it seems to be a necessary evil if we want to get the playing field leveled out. And as I keep saying these riots popping up all over are about more than just police brutality and murders. They are about an entire range of issues. And as stated above by several people being the boss's friend or in many cases just someone that the boss can look at and relate too are often much better than being good at your job. If hiring and promotions were handled by someone out of the store with the people named Applicant 1, Applicant 2, Applicant 3 so on and so forth and then their abilities in each field ranked ideally by yet another out of store person (or better yet group) then your system might be feasible but as it stands, nope not really.

 

[InterestedInColumbus]

Back to original point

I looked up his letter and his comments following the letter. He makes two factual assertions I just don't buy: Blacks all have non Anglo names and Asians intermarry with whites at a much higher rate than blacks. I would expect an academician to cite sources for such factual assertions. In my personal experience as a white man who lives in a predominantly white neighborhood but sent his kids through a large urban school system, most of my kids' black friends had Anglo names and I know of quite a few black/white interracial couples. That is my anecdotal experience. I know it is not scientifically researched. The professor dropped outrageously broad generalizations without sources. Yes, I realize it is a letter to an editor, but those often include sources to support factual assertions. I find the professor's letter unworthy of genuine discussion beyond speculation about his motivations.

Race relations and politics are far more complicated than "blacks have crazy names", "blacks don't work hard" and "blacks choose not to integrate". Sure does sound ignorant to the point of racism when his comments are simplified to that (and I don't believe that simplification is unfair). So, if a Duke polisci professor feels comfortable espousing that in the New York Times, are we really shocked the black community feels that racism is alive and well?

The discussion about affirmative action is an interesting one. However, I increasingly find the race argument a distraction from a discussion of income inequality and transformation of our society into economic classes with little social mobility. Racism exacerbates that problem for blacks, but the plight of poor whites is as desperate.

 

[Aglaopheme]

First, discrimination on the basis of gender was outlawed in 1964 as part of the landmark legislation of that year.

My post that you cited was in response to one about discrimination against Poles and Italians in the 19th Century. I merely pointed out that Irish had it worse than either of those ethnicities.

The problem with Affirmative Action is that it is discrimination in itself. Benefits should accrue to people based on the abilities of those people as individuals, with irrelevant factors such as race given no consideration.

Sorry, but you're referring to the Civil Rights Act. I, as stated, was referencing affirmative action.

Again you fall back on your comforting narrative (read projection) that so many use today if you adress race related issues, you're a racist. Those of us that know racism actual exists just aren't buying it.

 

[MrRandyWatson]

First, discrimination on the basis of gender was outlawed in 1964 as part of the landmark legislation of that year.

First point - a legislator actually added "gender" as a category to the law. The reason? He expected that addition to sink the bill. It didn't.

Second point - laws are only as good as the people who enforce them, and people who are shitwads tend to be shitwads independent of what the law says. Furthermore, since discrimination is exceedingly hard to prove, the shitwads win more often than not.

 

[Boxlicker101]

The thing is discrimination on the basis of gender is illegal on paper, pretty sure based on race is as well. It is however exceedingly difficult to actually prove. Let's start with the fact that you have to be able to prove that Jamal or Jane are demonstrably better qualified than Mike for whatever position. Most positions (especially ones you'd be promoted to instead hired as a a grunt.) have so many skills that go into it that you're already screwed there. Also the overwhelming majority of us simply don't have the resources to spend however long in court and not at work. So it's a law sure. . .but it's not one that's particularly well enforced.

Yes AA is discrimination in and of itself. However it seems to be a necessary evil if we want to get the playing field leveled out. And as I keep saying these riots popping up all over are about more than just police brutality and murders. They are about an entire range of issues. And as stated above by several people being the boss's friend or in many cases just someone that the boss can look at and relate too are often much better than being good at your job. If hiring and promotions were handled by someone out of the store with the people named Applicant 1, Applicant 2, Applicant 3 so on and so forth and then their abilities in each field ranked ideally by yet another out of store person (or better yet group) then your system might be feasible but as it stands, nope not really.

As a white male, I would have a hard time establishing myself as a victim of discrimination, although it has happened. A woman or a black person, however, need only file a complaint with a gov. agency to have his or her case pursued by them. The way things are now, the employer would almost have to prove such discrimination did not exist in order to prevail.

Your idea of having people hired and promoted anonymously would work out fine, in my estimation. I would have benefitted from it, because I was never any good at being interviewed and usually made a negative impression on the people hiring.