NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/misc/educatio/5553

Internet Message Format | 1992-12-25 | 6.7 KB

Xref: sparky misc.education:5553 soc.culture.african.american:13253
Newsgroups: misc.education,soc.culture.african.american
Path: sparky!uunet!think.com!enterpoop.mit.edu!bloom-picayune.mit.edu!athena.mit.edu!solman
From: [e-mail] (Jason W Solinsky)
Subject: Re: What A White Person Learned in College About AfAm Culture
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (News system)
Nntp-Posting-Host: m37-318-2.mit.edu
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 25 Dec 1992 23:45:10 GMT
Lines: 110

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Greg Gross) writes:

|> 1) I'd love to see the surveys you've taken showing that only a "tiny
|> minority of Americans discriminate against blacks onthe basis of racial
|> hatred."  Presuming that those questioned would answer such questions
|> honestly in the first place.

I'd like to know how it is that at least three people in this discussion have
determined that large numbers of whites discriminate on the basis of racial
hatred. There is no way to do a proper survey because a majority of people who
discriminate on the basis of racial hatred will justify it. I made that
observation based on the many thousands of people I have met as you.

|>    Because people can't hang signs on their businesses anymore saying "No
|> Dogs or Negroes Allowed," you think this malaise has been eradicated from
|> American life? You have no clue, Jason...
|>
|> 2) "You cannot possibly know what causes people to be biased toward you.."
|> But you, of course, can, right, Jason? It's all about affirmative action,
|> right Jason? there couldn't *possibly* be anything else at work here,
|> right, Jason?"
|>   Check, please....as in reality check.

Here is a reality check, the words I used were "AA is one of the primary
contributors ..." That wording not only suggests that there are other forces
at work, but suggests that AA isn't even doing a majority of the damage.

Just because it is not the sole cause of racial discrimination does not mean
we should not strive to eliminate it. This would be like not controlling
air polution because there are other things which hurt our environment.

|> > How is it that you have acquired this fantastic knowledge of why other people
|> > discriminate? Few are the whites that have not failed to get a job or an awar
|> > or an admission from an institution which practices AA.
|>
|> 3) The answer to your question, Jason, is Life, my life, and the
|> knowledge of the people around me. Most of the whites with whom I
|> interact on a frequent, regular or daily basis have not been denied
|> *anything* in life because of affirmative action. Most of those fols are
|> my age or younger.
|>   But here you are, telling that few whites have *not* been denied
|> something due to affirmative action. Maybe you'd care to tell me what you
|> base *that* assertion on, other than a near-religious belief.

It would help if before replying to my posts you read them first. What I said
is printed above. "Few are the whites thjat have not failed to get a job or an
award or an admission from an institution which practices AA." I would have a
difficult time believing that one twentieth of these were actually hurt by AA,
but ALL have sufficient reason to hate it. Just as ohall blames his personal
inability to secure a job on his race, these people feel slighted.

|> > Crime enforcement is an interesting area. An urban law enforcement official
|> > is likely to be more effective and less likely to be hurt if he or she is
|> > strongly biased against blacks. This has occured to officers of all colors.
|> >
|> > In San Antonio, there exists a similar situation with respect to hispanics.
|> >
|> > It is not wrong to allow one's survival instincts to take over. In the case
|> > where action related to this bias results in harm to an inocent bystander,
|> > clearly the officers involved should be relieved and face sever penalties,
|> > but the circumstances that created the bias, justify it. To say that officers
|> > should be forbidden to develop such a bias, is to express an extreme disregua
|> > to the safety of many. As long as errant police officers continue to be punis
|> > this situation can not have an effect on black prosperity, and should not be
|> > changed.
|>
|> After reading the above, I know this will be the last time you and I
|> communicate about *ANYTHING.*
|>
|> The racism imbedded in those words stands on its own. Will only tell you
|> this, in the (probably vain) hope that you can grasp it:
|>   When those whom *all* of us are compelled to trust with the safety of
|>   our lives and property feel entitled to automatically exercise their
|>   biases against any citizen solely on the basis of their race, not only
|>   will law and order *not* have been served, not only will justice *not*
|>   be done, but officer safety itself will be *jeoparadized* like never
|>   before.
|>
|> To suggest that officers who wrongfully and unlawfully use force on an
|> innocent person to the point of doing them grievous harm or taking their
|> life should not be punished because the officer(s) were somehow entitled
|> to be especially wary of blacks or Latinos is ridiculous to the point of
|> nauseating.
|>
|> That the speaker is someone with a reasonable level of education is even
|> more incredible than that.

You completely misread what I wrote above. I absolutely deplore the use of
force on the basis of race. I think that any police officer doing so should
be punished severely. What I support is using a personal bias when on patrol.
Take this example, last year a black MIT student who fell asleep in a public
part of the institute was awaken by campus police officers. This student wrote
a letter to the tech complaining that he would not have been awoken if he were
not black. I would not dispute that statement. The reality is, however, that
at MIT, a person who has fallen asleep is MUCH more likely not to belong if
he/she is black. The officers would have acted similarly if the person smelled
or reeked of alcohol.

Officers are notorious for stopping blacks driving expensive cars, and there are
thousands of similar situations that officers are exposed each day. What I argue
is that officers should exercise those biases and they should not be condemed for
it. It has been shown that Black officers do the same thing (against blacks).
I included one important condition for this to be acceptable:

"As long as errant police officers continue to be punished this situation can
not have an effect on black prosperity, and should not be changed."

You somehow managed to skip over that.

Jason W. Solinsky