HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: Terry.Parks@launchpad.unc.edu (Terry Parks)
Subject: Re: Affirmative Action should be Dead
Organization: UNC Office of Information Technology
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 01:47:30 GMT

>>>    Until a few weeks ago, there were zero black head football coaches in
>>>college football,

>>How many are there suppose to be? What is your quota?

>   Well Terry, you are definetely out of your league here.  There is no quota,
>no one ever said there was,

If there is no quota, then how do you know that there are too few black head
football coaches? Fewer than what? What is your quota?


>>>As one Athletic Director said, "I can't see a Black coach
>>>relating to our Alumni".

>>I thought Spike Lee was a filmmaker, not an athletic director.

>    What?  Spike Lee did not say this.  I am trying to understand the
>humor/relevance of this statement!?!

You're right, Lee was the one who said, "I can't see a white reporter relating
to a black person being interviewed". 

>>Could you name the school involved?

>    Now come on Terry, just how naive are you?

Well, I hope I'm not so naive to believe any old anonymous remark.

>This was said anonymously and reported by Dr. Harry Edwards

(Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha)


>Sorry Terry, I think Dr. Edwards knows more on the subject than you!

Oh ya, well I just got an anonymous call from a renowned expert telling
me that Edwards made the whole thing up.

>>>How many
>>>Black federal judges were appointed during the Reagan/bush era?

>>How many were there suppose to be? What is your quota here?
>>Does the name Clarence Thomas ring any bells?

>    There is no quota (didn't I say that before)

Then how do you know that there wern't too many Blak judge appointments?


>>>How many Black women are stars in Hollywood?

>>How many are there suppose to be? What is your quota?

>    There is no quota (how many times do I have to say this!).  No one is
>yelling about quotas.

Then how come you're telling us there's not enough? How many must there
be for there not to be not enough? What is your quota?


>It just isn't Black women either, Hispanic and Asian-
>American women find it hard to get work in Hollywood also.

The truth, the truth is that there are far more unemployed Caucasian
actors than Blaks, etc. Engaging in racial bias to help Caucasians
rather than other than Caucasians would benefit more people.


>Terry loves to
>speak in absolute numbers by saying:  "If there are 90 whites and 10 Blacks
>and 10 whites and 9 Blacks get laid off, then the whites are hurting more then
>the Blacks."

Excuse me but I'm not the one saying that an unemployed Caucasian is
better or worse off than an unemployed Blak or any other racist ideas.

--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  laUNChpad.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
Newsgroups: alt.discrimination
From: dowdy@tochtli.biochem.nwu.edu (Dowdy Jackson)
Subject: alt.discrimination = alt.caucasian whining
Originator: dowdy@tochtli.biochem.nwu.edu
Organization: Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 01:42:37 GMT

What's with all of the ...OH!!! These bad black people are getting the jobs
or positions in colleges I wanted.... The fact is that whites are STILL
discriminating against blacks. I know you don't beleive it but its true!
I know that as a white person you probably wouldn't know this to be true.
    I really don't care what you think because it won't change the fact that
whites hate blacks and blacks hate whites because of the horrid way in
which they are treated by whites. Fact is that I, as an African American
will continue to help my people attain their goals while you as a Caucasian
American will do what you can to help your people hold onto whatever they stole
in the past. Fine ! But this will lead to conflicts which will result in the
lose of life on both sides. The only solution is that whites must learn to
share. This is something that you should have learned in kindergarden but
I guess most of you were absent that day. 
    I know that I am tired of hearing whites bitch and moan about how
they are the victims of discrimination while they are 3 to 5 times more
likely to be hired over an equally qualified black applicant. Whites
are STILL the majority at ALL of the historically white colleges/university.
Whites STILL dominate the media both print and television. So STOP YOUR
WHINING!!!!!!! 
Xref: sparky alt.discrimination:5545 soc.culture.african.american:13714
Newsgroups: alt.discrimination,soc.culture.african.american
Subject: East St. Louis/Belleville
From: <KRB104@psuvm.psu.edu>
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 07:33:54 EST
Organization: Penn State University

  For those of you like Terry Parks and others who claim that discrimination
does not occur in today's USA,  I hope you watched "60 minutes" last night.
For those of you who didn't, I will give a quick recap.  East St. Louis and
Belleville, MO are adjacent to one another, the former is 98% Black, the latter
93% white.  East St. Louis is the murder capital of the USA and has an extremly
high number of its inhabitants on the social welfare rolls.  Belleville is an
upscale white community.  There was a "crime wave" in Belleville where there
was "robbing, mugging and raping".  Of course the Belleville police department
blamed the Black inhabitants of ESL.  To make a long story short, the Bell.
pd began randomly stopping any Black motorists driving through their town.
There were anectodal stories from Blacks who were stopped in Bell. but there
was some empirical evidence.   A reporter found that for a group of four
officers, 75% of their traffic citations were to Black motorists, and most of
them were for non-moving violations (that is important because that would indi-
cate that they were stopped for no probable cause).  The police chief denied
that there was any conspiracy against Blacks in one sentence and in the next
said that it would be probable cause to stop two Black males in a car in the
area, and that his people applaud such actions (which they did).  In a town
which is only 7% Black, wouldn't it be strange for any one officer to give 75%
of his tickets to Blacks, let alone FOUR officers?
   I, as a Black male, and obviously white america's biggest fear, was totally
appalled by the report,  but not shocked.  For those of you who say that the
playing field is equal, there was the story of Black Texaco executive who
works in Bell. who has been stopped three times on his way to work for no
reason (once he was cited for driving without insurance and once for having
an expired license, two things a police officer can see from his car (scarcasm
heavy here), and both charges were thrown out because they simply weren't true)
How would you feel if you were an honest citizen going to work and having to
 fear being stopped by the police simply because of your race?
   It was appalling to hear the town's people reactions.  Now for those of you
who didn't see the story, the big crime wave that I mentioned above, well
it was the work of ONE black man, quite a reason to stop every Black male
driving through.  Another bit of information, in the over 150 years of the
town, there have been exactly ZERO black people who were employees of the city.
This includes garbage men and other "nonskilled" positions.  Under court order,
the company did hire the first Black employee, a person in the sanitation
department.  It was a sick story and I am curious what others thought of it.
For those of you who say there isn't discrimination in the country, WAKE UP!!!
Newsgroups: alt.discrimination
From: hillyard@msc.cornell.edu
Subject: Re: RE: Larue is not a racist
Originator: hillyard@tiger.msc.cornell.edu
Reply-To: hillyard@msc.cornell.edu
Organization: Cornell-Materials-Science-Center
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 17:47:03 GMT

From article <93012.064008KRB104@psuvm.psu.edu>, by <KRB104@psuvm.psu.edu>:
[...]
> 
>        I wish people would get off the media's perceptions of the inner city.
>  Myth #1:  All inner city youths possess $100 basketball shoes.  Truth:  I play
>  hoops on a lot of inner city courts, and the expensive sneakers are far from
>  the norm.

I don't think they are the 'norm' in 99% of the country (I've never played 
where they were), and I think its the same way with $200 rackets.

[...]
>  then to worry about "Air Jordans".  Do you have any statistical evidence of
>  inner city inhabitants being a major market for these sneakers or are you
>  speaking from what you hear in the media?

Sure its propagated by the media.  But what makes me likely to believe it is
that companies like Nike are so sensitive in this area.  When a Jesse Jackson
says Nike should have more blacks because they are a big percentage of the
business, and Nike almost panics; rather than just stating that its not true,
I'll tend to believe it is indeed the case.  [Noting, of course, that it may
not be the inner city (rather than the more well off) blacks that are doing 
the buying.  Either way its big bucks spent that could be spent on a racket 
if it was prefered.]

>  When was the last time you went
>  on an inner city basketball court and looked at the sneakers on the players.
>  I play in a lot of basketball leagues, and the people that I see with those
>  expensive sneakers are middle to upper class white yuppies.  They absolutely
>  love them, in my experiences.
>    Stop believing everything the media tells you about Black people, the
>  majority of it is simply not true or exaggerated.

You mean like all blacks live in poverty in the inner city--rather than the
fact that the majority of blacks are middle class.

I just have a problem with the hypothesis 'blacks don't play tennis or hockey
because they can't afford to'.  I don't think it pans out.

SEH
Newsgroups: alt.discrimination
From: sethb@panix.com (Seth Breidbart)
Subject: Re: alt.discrimination = alt.caucasian whining
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 06:27:18 GMT
Organization: Society for the Promulgation of Cruelty to the Clueless

In article <1993Jan7.014237.6674@news.acns.nwu.edu> dowdy@tochtli.biochem.nwu.edu (Dowdy Jackson) writes:
>What's with all of the ...OH!!! These bad black people are getting the jobs
>or positions in colleges I wanted.... The fact is that whites are STILL
>discriminating against blacks. I know you don't beleive it but its true!

I believe that SOME whites are discriminating against blacks.  I also
believe that SOME blacks are discriminating against whites.  I
furthermore believe that BOTH groups should stop this discrimination.

>    I know that I am tired of hearing whites bitch and moan about how
>they are the victims of discrimination while they are 3 to 5 times more
>likely to be hired over an equally qualified black applicant.

Where do you get this statistic from?

> Whites
>are STILL the majority at ALL of the historically white colleges/university.
>Whites STILL dominate the media both print and television.

Whites are STILL the HUGE MAJORITY of the ENTIRE POPULATION of these
United States; therefore it is only to be expected that whites are a
majority of most groups.

Seth
From: johnhall@microsoft.com (John Hall)
Subject: Re: Institutional racism in education
Date: 04 Jan 93 17:13:51 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation
Distribution: usa

In article Terry.Parks@launchpad.unc.edu (Terry Parks) writes:
| >The *overriding* objection to AA is merit.  
| 
| The objection to such as AA (at least my objection) is its racism and
| sexism basis (two institutions which I object to).

Why, when making an arbitrary non-objective decision on who to retain
(since merit has been dismissed) would proportional representation
be racist?

| The seniority issue is only brought up by the pro-racism side ... 

Excuse me, but you brought up seniority.


-- 
-------------------------
My comments are my own.  They are independent and unrelated to the
views of my company , relatives or elected representatives.

Newsgroups: alt.discrimination,talk.politics.misc
From: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Subject: Re: Affirmative Action should be Dead
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 00:00:31 GMT

In article <1993Jan4.180254.11278@kadsma.kodak.com> pajerek@telstar.kodak.com (Don Pajerek) writes:
>In article <93004.073728KRB104@psuvm.psu.edu> <KRB104@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:

>>   Affirmative Action does not, repeat, DOES NOT mandate hiring of people on
>>the basis of race.  Terry, please go and read the language in the statutes.
>>Only Compnies that have a history of discriminatory hiring are covered under
>>AA and it does not mandate that they hire a person of a specific race, but
>>that they have a representative sample of people in the pool of people that
>>they are to hire.  Companies and idiots like yourself have taken that to mean
>>that quotas are necessary.

>No. Companies have concluded that, in practical terms, AA legislation
>mandated quotas because it exposed the employer to lawsuits if the
>'representative sample' was not present in the employee population
>(not just in the hiring pool, but in the set of those actually hired).

>Recent legislation (the 1991 civil rights act) now requires that
>employers be prepared to justify every hire that deviates from the
>representative sample in terms of overwhelming business necessity.
>It used to be that the plaintiff had to demonstrate that a violation
>had taken place; now the defendant must prove that there has been
>no violation, a definite shift of the burden of proof.

No, it didn't.  This is good conservative propaganda, but it's a lie.
It used to be exactly the way it is now.  The Supreme Court changed this
in 1989?, and the new Civil Rights Act changed it back.

>So, even though quotas were not explicitly mandated, companies decided
>that the best way to avoid a lawsuit was via the implementation of quotas.

-- 
David M. Nieporent   | Is it too early to start making predictions for 1993?
niepornt@phoenix.    | Probably, but that never stopped me before.
   princeton.edu     | ALE: Baltimore ALW: Chicago NLE: Montreal NLW: Atlanta
Baltimore Orioles 93 | AL MVP: Cal Ripken  AL Cy Young: Mike Mussina
Newsgroups: alt.discrimination,soc.culture.african.american,misc.education
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Subject: Re: Institutional racism in education
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 07:14:43 GMT

In article <1993Jan6.021152.22432@samba.oit.unc.edu> Terry.Parks@launchpad.unc.edu (Terry Parks) writes:
>>>I thought the party line was that whites are 3 to 5 times more likely to
>>>be hired than blacks. It would better serve the pro-racism forces to
>>>get their propaganda in sync.
>
>>Get your common sense "in sync."  The two statements aren't mutually
>>exclusive.  For any one position, a white is more likely to be hired.
>
>Could you name any of these mythical positions which give racial preference
>to Caucasians? I hear about their existence all the time but no one
>can ever point one out. I often do hear about racial preferences being
>given but always against Caucasians.

Do I say there's a racial preference?  I say the white is more likely
to be hired.  Check unemployment rates.

>>For any one worker, a black is more likely to be *recently* hired.
>>
>>Take the example of a company that didn't hire any blacks until 1970,
>>and then started hiring blacks that year, but is still less likely to
>>hire a black than a white.  If it lays off workers by seniority, blacks
>>are more likely to be laid off than whites, even though whites are
>>more likely to be hired than blacks. 
>
>Let's see now, Company A has a 1970 workforce of 100 Caucasians and for
>each succeeding year hires 7 Caucasians and 1 Blak. In 1993, this
>workforce of 284 is reduced by 24. In this layoff based on seniority,
>21 Caucasians and 3 Blaks are laid off. Seven times as many Caucasians
>were laid off than Blaks.

Yes, but 13% of the black workers and 8% of the white workers were laid off.  
Or, in other words, the blacks were more likely to be laid off.  Which was
precisely the point.

And if 20% of the local population is black, then the whites were 75%
more likely to be hired.  And then when the layoffs occurred,
the blacks were more than 60% more likely to be fired.  Hence,
an example of a case where whites were more likely to be hired and
blacks more likely to be fired.  And not an implausible one.

>Stick to the usual pro-racism red herrings, few people will buy this
>notion that Blaks are never getting hired and yet always getting laid
>off (from jobs they don't have because they are never hired).

Terry, I've seen you intentionally mischaracterize arguments before,
so I have little hope of making you see the light, because you're
either being malicious, or dense.

But anybody else reading the post can tell the difference between
the population of workers at large and the population of employed
workers.  And the difference between probabilities and raw numbers.
-- 
ted frank                     | thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu 
standard disclaimers          | void where prohibited
the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
never shout movie in a crowded firestation
Newsgroups: alt.discrimination,soc.culture.african.american,misc.education
From: Terry.Parks@launchpad.unc.edu (Terry Parks)
Subject: Re: Institutional racism in education
Organization: UNC Office of Information Technology
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 01:57:46 GMT

>| >For any one position, a white is more likely to be hired.
 
>| Could you name any of these mythical positions which give racial 
>| preference to Caucasians? 

>Since whites outnumber blacks by 7 to 1, absolutely no 'racial
>preference' is required for the original statement to be true.

By definition, a person cannot be given preference because of their
race without there being racial preference. With no racial preference,
by definition a "white" is not more likely to be hired.

>Terry, your presence on these forums strengthens all arguements
>for AA by illustrating just how irrational and bigoted some
>whites can be.

And such a racist remark as this shows who the AA supporters are.

--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  laUNChpad.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
Newsgroups: alt.discrimination,talk.politics.misc
From: Terry.Parks@launchpad.unc.edu (Terry Parks)
Subject: Re: Affirmative Action should be Dead
Organization: UNC Office of Information Technology
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 02:31:18 GMT

>>> The doors of opportunity are still closed
>>> for Blacks in many areas and many professions.

>>Could you name any of these mythical areas and professions? There are
>>(unfortunately) many race based opportunities but all of them are
>>denied Caucasians and not Blaks.

>    Until a few weeks ago, there were zero black head football coaches in
>college football,

How many are there suppose to be? What is your quota?


>As one Athletic Director said, "I can't see a Black coach
>relating to our Alumni".

I thought Spike Lee was a filmmaker, not an athletic director.

>That sounds like a pretty closed door. 

Could you name the school involved?

>How many
>Black federal judges were appointed during the Reagan/bush era?

How many were there suppose to be? What is your quota here?
Does the name Clarence Thomas ring any bells?

>I watch the
>Nightly news on the networks, I see a lot of Black faces!

I'm not surprised you keep count.

>How many Black women are stars in Hollywood?

How many are there suppose to be? What is your quota?

>how many white owned Fortune 500 companies have Black CEO's?

How many are there suppose to be? Quota?

>Are you saying
>that there are no qualified Blacks to head a Fortune 500 company?

Are you saying that there arn't 500 qualified Caucasians?
While the facts run counter to the pro-racism propaganda,
many, many, many Caucasians arn't football coaches, film stars, or
company owners.

--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  laUNChpad.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
Newsgroups: alt.discrimination
From: hillyard@msc.cornell.edu
Subject: Re: Discrimination against whites is rampant
Originator: hillyard@tiger.msc.cornell.edu
Reply-To: hillyard@msc.cornell.edu
Organization: Cornell-Materials-Science-Center
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 18:37:35 GMT

From article <1icioiINN3rr@debussy.crhc.uiuc.edu>, by guillory@crhc.uiuc.edu (Stanford Guillory):
[...]
> 
> The fact is that there is only one sport in which blacks are predominant, pro
> basketball. In the two most lucrative sports, the individual sports of tennis
> and golf, blacks are conspicuously absent.

I won't comment on golf, I think you're correct, but I don't think this is 
the case in tennis.  Tennis is mainly played in the US, Europe and Australia.
What is the percentage of blacks in the total population of these three areas?
Five percent?  I'm pretty sure there are on the order of 5 black players in 
the top 100.  Just because blacks aren't 50% of the players, as in the NFL
(which you don't list as predominant for some reason), doesn't mean they are
conspicuously absent.

SEH
Newsgroups: alt.discrimination,talk.politics.misc
From: pajerek@telstar.kodak.com (Don Pajerek)
Subject: Re: Affirmative Action should be Dead
Reply-To: pajerek@telstar.kodak.com (Don Pajerek)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corp. - Telstar
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 18:02:54 GMT

In article <93004.073728KRB104@psuvm.psu.edu> <KRB104@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:

>   Affirmative Action does not, repeat, DOES NOT mandate hiring of people on
>the basis of race.  Terry, please go and read the language in the statutes.
>Only Compnies that have a history of discriminatory hiring are covered under
>AA and it does not mandate that they hire a person of a specific race, but that
>they have a representative sample of people in the pool of people that they are
>to hire.  Companies and idiots like yourself have taken that to mean that
>quotas are necessary.


No. Companies have concluded that, in practical terms, AA legislation
mandated quotas because it exposed the employer to lawsuits if the
'representative sample' was not present in the employee population
(not just in the hiring pool, but in the set of those actually hired).

Recent legislation (the 1991 civil rights act) now requires that
employers be prepared to justify every hire that deviates from the
representative sample in terms of overwhelming business necessity.
It used to be that the plaintiff had to demonstrate that a violation
had taken place; now the defendant must prove that there has been
no violation, a definite shift of the burden of proof.

So, even though quotas were not explicitly mandated, companies decided
that the best way to avoid a lawsuit was via the implementation of
quotas.


Don Pajerek

Standard disclaimers apply.
Xref: sparky alt.discrimination:5494 alt.politics.correct:6071 alt.president.clinton:1334 talk.politics.misc:66193