2009.07.04
Saturday's letters to the editor
Today's letter writers discuss Roanoke County's grading scale, affirmative action and more.
.....Advertisement.....
.....Advertisement.....
CHECK THIS OUT!
BREAKING NEWS
Upcoming Events
RSS feed 
a lot of people are misinformed about the rescue mission. thank our glorious God that Joy Sylvester-Johnson and family, etc, have the beautiful minds and hearts to make this place work. all it takes is a walk thru tour, see what really goes on, how pristine clean this place is and how wonderful the people are. But for the grace of God, go YOU. if homelessness is bothering you, think about what YOU would do in that situation.
Comment by pammala — July 4, 2009 @ 10:03 am
affirmative action has got to go...it seems that people spouting 'racist' these days are trying desperately to keep racism alive for their own benefit....it should not matter or even be considered in a truly non racist business, only the merits of the applicant should be considered, not color.
plus if people would quit bringing up their children on 'what happened to my great great grandfather', maybe racism will finally go away. if it didnt happen to you, get over it. my relatives were american indians who were the ones that really got the hose, but you dont see me going around all the time crying racism and look what you did to my ancestors.....ya gotta let it go
Comment by pammala — July 4, 2009 @ 10:12 am
Sadly, as long as people are the judges, total equality is an impossible dream. Nice touch only insulting Sotomayor when there were other judges in on that decision (and you just might not know all the facts). It is great to use Dr. King's words for your own purposes but it is disingenuous and frightening to pretend that there is no problem. There is no level playing field and all rational, educated and compassionate people know that. We have made progress and continue to do so, but the reality of racism is still in evidence and affecting us all. Schools are not equal therefore education is not equal. Housing, opportunities, resources and income levels are not equal therefore society is not equal. You cannot simply throw out Affirmative Action and Equal Employment Opportunity efforts because you oppose it or because you feel it is no longer needed. That is simply not the case. Any test that only some people can pass could be viewed as discriminatory and should NOT be allowed to be the main or sole mechanism for advancement. I can see that if you passed it, you might feel differently but if your town sees a problem, taking them to court was not the best solution. "Ricci" may have won, but methinks, "Ricci lost" in the long run.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — July 4, 2009 @ 10:49 am
I have to agree with Pammala. Discrimination will end sooner if people stop thinking of themselves as victims. That's why AA hurts everybody involved, most of all the people it was intended to help. Just because there has been discrimination in the past doesn't mean you can undo it with MORE discrimination.
Sandi, I don't understand how using Dr. King's own words is co-opting them. King didn't say you should judge only blacks by the content of their character rather than the color of their skin. His words apply to all races.
Comment by The Professor — July 4, 2009 @ 11:58 am
King said that no one should be judged by their color, or by any other irrelevant characteristic, but only by their character.
And, presumably, a job applicant should also be judged by their ability, since that is a characteristic relevant to the job.
But these people were not being judged on their ability to do the job. They were only being judged on their ability to pass a test.
Discrimination is real, and insidious, and an ongoing problem in society. Maybe The Professor is right, and nothing can end it but time while everybody just ignores the lingering effects of past discrimination until it slowly fades away. But how many people will continue to suffer until that distant future arrives?
"Reverse discrimination" is a buzz-word used by right-wing racists as an excuse to resist efforts to relieve the burdens on people who are still being discriminated against in the present. Being "blind to race" is meaningless if it requires us to be blind to racism.
Comment by Ed H — July 4, 2009 @ 4:10 pm
I love you Ed H! THANKS for the "nail on the head" post! People will stop thinking of themselves as victims, when they stop being victims is my guess and even a cursory paying of attention proves they are not wrong.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — July 4, 2009 @ 4:16 pm
"Any test that only some people can pass could be viewed as discriminatory and should NOT be allowed to be the main or sole mechanism for advancement"
Really? If everyone can pass it, what is the point of administering the test? A test most certainly should discriminate. It should discriminate between who is qualified and who is not, and to what degree each is qualified. Otherwise it is meaningless as hiring or promotional tool. It should not, however, discriminate based on things like race, gender, age, ethnicity, religious belief, etc.
Ed.H, that is some really nice oratory about reverse discrimination. However, you are absolutely and utterly naive if you think reverse discrimination is not just as real as 'traditional' (for lack of a better term) racial discrimination. Reverse discrimination happens quite frequently in agencies and businesses that receive funding or incentives contingent upon having the level of diversity in the workforce mirror societal demographics, particulary where promotions are concerned. In fact, there is significant social pressure to do this simply to avoid the appearance of discriminatory practices even when such incentive programs are not present. There are countless instances of more qualified, more experienced applicants being passed over in order to hire or promote someone else solely in the name of diversity.
Dr. King had it right. People should be judged on the content of their character, not the color of their skin. Society should look to hire and promote the best candidate regardless of race, gender, etc. To do otherwise weakens the work force and insures that we continue judge people based on race. The irony of it is, people are actually arguing that we should make decisions based on race in the name of not making decisions based on race.
Comment by C Ramsey — July 4, 2009 @ 5:53 pm
Ramsey, what I think Ed meant by "only some people" (and he can correct me if I'm wrong) is only one group of people. Tests should be difficult, but if only Hispanics are consistently able to pass it, and Whites and Blacks overwhelmingly are not able, then there is an issue.
In this case, does anyone know the facts behind these tests the Connecticut firefighters took? Do they have a verifiable history of results along racial lines, where a majority of Whites who take them pass them, but Blacks and/or Hispanics struggle most of the time? Has it been determined that the tests actually test for fire-fighting knowledge, or whatever knowledge is needed for the job the applicants are looking to be promoted to?
From what I understand, one of the White firefighters who passed the test worked his butt off for some months before the test, studying the material that was readily available to all of them. If the others didn't do that, then I don't have a lot of sympathy for them regardless of their race. If there is an identifiable prejudice in the tests, then fine; fix it. But I think that prejudice has to be shown, not simply inferred by the results, before one can make the decision that there is racial discrimination going on.
Comment by Rob Miles — July 5, 2009 @ 8:23 am
"Reverse discrimination" is a buzz-word used by right-wing racists as an excuse to resist efforts to relieve the burdens on people who are still being discriminated against in the present."
uh...yeh right
Comment by pammala — July 5, 2009 @ 9:45 am
I think the point Sandi and others are are missing is, whether people are victims or not is less important than how they see themselves. Asian Americans, too, have been victimized, but as a culture, they've chosen to ignore it and move forward. As a result, they dominate our universities far ahead of their proportion to the general population.
Comment by The Professor — July 5, 2009 @ 11:05 am
No, "The irony of it is," you BELIEVE "people are actually arguing that we should make decisions based on race in the name of not making decisions based on race." That is not at all what we are saying and unless you are as "absolutely and utterly naive" as you accuse us of being, you would see that. Yeah, I know being a qualified white man is rough in this world, but I predict you will do alright as there are still so many places where only you matter.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — July 5, 2009 @ 11:37 am
Reading the opinions of Justices Kennedy and Alito can't be recommended enough. Kennedy goes into the pains the city took to make sure the test was fair, up to date and pertinent. Kennedy also states the use of Minorities in the assessment for promotion process and how the city followed its charter. All candidates were allowed to obtain the course material from which 100 test questions were taken, 90 days prior to the test date. THE TEST WAS WRITTEN AT A READING LEVEL BELOW THE 10TH GRADE!
Alito goes into the back office politics between the mayors office and other political appointees. There was a coordinated effort by some in the city to throw the test results out based on race criteria alone. In effect, the city was promoting a quota system or no system for firefighter Lt. and Capt. position promotions.
To say the Supreme Court was "activist" over turning an action by NewHaven which a) went away from its established charter and b) did so based on racial outcome is both laughable and typical of the left.
Comment by BUD — July 5, 2009 @ 11:43 am
Excuse me BUD, but it is seldom "the left" screaming about activist judges so if you want to talk laughable... There is much in this whole scenario that needs to be examined but if anyone is hanging their hat on this as simply a "reverse discrimination" case I think that will be a big mistake that will set us back rather than move us forward. Like many of the other issues we go round about on this site, if you do not see a problem, nothing we say will change your mind and vice-versa. There is evidence to support that discrimination has gone on and still remains in many sectors of our little "melting pot". It is hard to find unanimity when a promotion goes to one person that some other person might think they did not totally "earn" or "deserve" and there are many factors that go into such a promotion that are somewhat intangible but none the less justifiable. It strikes me how often people cheering this verdict have pitched a fit when a court told a town or group that they had to do something they did not want to do on other issues so the lack of consistency for "state/locality rights" alone raises a flag.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — July 5, 2009 @ 12:17 pm
Excuse me Sandi, but I don't recall having ever met you. Why would you assume I am a white man? Some people actually believe content of character and ability matter, regardless of race.
Comment by C Ramsey — July 5, 2009 @ 2:43 pm
"I think the point Sandi and others are are missing is, whether people are victims or not is less important than how they see themselves."
Really? So as long as you can sell people on thinking they're not victims - whether or not that's actually the case - their victimization is somehow indemnified? As long as you don't feel a con artist scammed you out of your life savings (even though that might the case)..the important part is not to "feel" victimized? As long as you can convince a group that they're not really being discriminated against, you're free to go on discriminating against them?
No one's missing this point.
Comment by Kristen — July 5, 2009 @ 3:41 pm
C. Ramsey, thankfully no, we have never met. I sincerely apologize for assuming you are a white male. I should have said that you write and appear to think like a typical white male. I have seen minorities write as you do, but seldom with the consistency you show. My apologies for stereotyping, how racist of me. Guess we all have burdens to bear.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — July 5, 2009 @ 5:02 pm
Sandi, I don't know how seldom it is BUT today's editorial about not dallying on Sotomayor accuses the conservative bloc of activism in the Ricci case which was the source of my comment. Your remarks about the test
that only some people can pass and being the sole mechanism for determining promotions were way off base in the context of Ricci as neither are the case.
Comment by BUD — July 5, 2009 @ 7:08 pm
BUD, today's editorial about not dallying on Sotomayor is an important message simply because Ricci has no REAL relevance to her fitness for the court nor is it the 'cause celebre' that the Conservatives want it to be IMHO. My responses were not so much to the Ricci case specifically as to the issue of "Time to discard race in job decisions" in the LTE section, which is why I made the comments here. A case that makes it to the SCOTUS is never as cut and dried and free of baggage as many would like.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — July 5, 2009 @ 8:02 pm
"I should have said that you write and appear to think like a typical white male."
Comment by Sandi Saunders — July 5, 2009 @ 5:02 pm
Interesting statement, so it is OK to say you write like "a typical leftest female?"
Comment by Jim W. — July 6, 2009 @ 4:00 am
Kristen,
I'm sorry, but you've missed the point as well. Even if someone has been victimized, the important thing is for them is to not let themselves be stymied by the mentality that freezes them from proactively participating in their own advancement. Why does it seem like some want to invent sinister intentions in a common-sense truth?
Comment by The Professor — July 6, 2009 @ 7:45 am
Good question The Professor: "Why does it seem like some want to invent sinister intentions in a common-sense truth?" I am going out on a limb here and will answer: I dunno, maybe BECAUSE THE SINISTER INTENTIONS WERE THERE! "all men are created equal" as they held slaves like cattle and mules ring a bell?
Yes, Jim W. you, or anyone else may say that I "write like "a typical leftest female", because I certainly intend to. No good being a Liberal if you are too mealy mouthed to make that known now is there?
Comment by Sandi Saunders — July 6, 2009 @ 8:32 am
"Even if someone has been victimized, the important thing is for them is to not let themselves be stymied by the mentality that freezes them from proactively participating in their own advancement.'
Ok Professor, but the obligation goes two ways. If a group feels (rightly) that they've been institutional victims of discrimination, it's incumbent on both sides to try to both make amends and prevent it from continuing into the future.
Comment by Kristen — July 6, 2009 @ 9:00 am
We are talking about a past where all the participants on both sides are long dead. I'm sure if we go back far enough even us "typical white guys" have ancestors who were slaves. Would it not be more beneficial to concentrate all this effort and concern on where slavery is actually being practiced today, say like in Africa where it was invented????
Comment by Jim W. — July 9, 2009 @ 2:01 am
We are an odd bunch, we go to the past, parse, re-enact and revisit when it suits our purposes and we say look to the future and forget the past when that suits our purposes. The history is real, the discrimination and inhumane treatment was real, the racial tension, stereotyping, discrimination, and inequality STILL EXIST. We sure could forget the past a lot easier if it was the past!
Comment by Sandi Saunders — July 9, 2009 @ 8:28 am
"We are talking about a past where all the participants on both sides are long dead." Comment by Jim W.
Ever been to Twin Lakes State Park outside of Farmville? Before 1976, it was two parks, Goodwin Lake and Prince Edward Lake. Until the early 1960's Prince Edward Lake State Park was the ONLY state park that admitted blacks. Not all the people who were denied access to all the other state parks are long dead.
To think that all the prejudice and discrimination has been erased over the last four-and-a-half decades defies common sense. Yes, we have made incredible progress, but we haven't achieved anything close to a color-blind society where race and ethnicity don't matter.
Comment by Bill Bestpitch — July 9, 2009 @ 9:09 am