Are Straight White Males Not Part of Diversity? Forum

[bees]

i am a diverse.

this should be written over the picture of an lolcat, no?

[PDaddy]

Jesus Christ was not a white male. How does anyone educated still believe that?

It was supposed to be a joke, I'm sorry if it was unclear or wasn't very funny. If you look at the artistic depictions of Jesus that people make, they usually represent him as "one of them". White Europeans paint a white Jesus, South Americans paint a Hispanic Jesus, and so forth. I think that this represents a broader cultural phenomena. People want their savior to look like them because they want him to be "one of them" culturally. America was founded by white males out of a tradition that was dominated by white males. To gain independence, they had to fight a war against other white males. The point being that being a white male makes obtaining positions of social power (being a lawyer, for example) much easier. You're the heir to the throne of our culture.

I am a white male, raised as such, so this is only a guess. But, I imagine the LSAT and the study of law in general become more difficult if you learned Ebonics growing up or were raised in analogous circumstances.

Not true. Whites made Jesus white b/c they wanted to propagate white superiority to Africans, and to slaves. The missionaries taught Christianity to Africans so they could rob the Africans of their material goods, namely the salt and gold that was abundant in Sub-Saharan Africa. They traded their guns for these goods and African slaves. While the slaves built the Colonies and the Carribean Islands, Continental Africans were at war with each other with the guns the Eurpopeans traded to them. Africa has been war-torn ever since. The image of a white Jesus helped that happen.

People of color made Jesus a man of color b/c the bible said he had eyes of "fire", hair like lamb's "wool" and feet of "brass". Jesus was a Hebrew who came from a region of the Earth where the people had color in their skin. They wanted to A) tell the truth and B) offset the myth started by whites. He could not have been a white male.

[Jay-Electronica]

MEs are really diverse though. A lot of Iranians do look Italian or Hispanic so they wouldn't be hassled, but a dark-skinned Arab would probably run into more trouble. Jesus likely had dark skin as well.

Jesus was Iranian

Jesus was a semite, but I don't think Iranians are considered semites. Iranians are descended from Aryans.

He was a SHEMite

[Borhas]

MEs are really diverse though. A lot of Iranians do look Italian or Hispanic so they wouldn't be hassled, but a dark-skinned Arab would probably run into more trouble. Jesus likely had dark skin as well.

Jesus was Iranian

Jesus was a semite, but I don't think Iranians are considered semites. Iranians are descended from Aryans.

I was joking... (same type of joke the original comment was making)

I fail... oh well

[Oblomov]

My point being that as the rest of the many groups make up the 59%, 41% is the majority, unless white females make up 42%, which would be my only guess for a runner up. Though you're right...defining "solid" and "overwhelming," is entirely subjective.

No, that's not a majority, it's a plurality. But at some schools I suspect white females are the plurality.

[Drake014]

Actually, that's not even close to what affirmative action does. Its not some minor soft factor that serves as a bump between similar candidates. It is a game changing factor for most people. I would have no problem with that sort of AA, and I'm sure a lot of other people woudl be fine with it too. If two people have similar credentials and merits, but one had to overcome significant odds in order to get to where they are, then okay. But when the color of your skin equals 5-6 LSAT points or equals essentially a 20-30% boost in law school grades for the purpose of OCI, then that's a little extreme. I'm not opposed to AA, just the extreme nature of it as it currently exists.

Again... there isn't affirmative action. There isn't in the law school application process (its illegal in virtually every state). There isn't in firm hiring. You see a minority with lower numbers and you assume they are there because of affirmative action. You actually have no desire to look past that, so that's all you see.

I know of several whites who got into Berkeley and other T14 law schools who have lower than the median numbers. They aren't there because of affirmative action. Law schools are beginning to look at other factors (besides the LSAT), because they're starting to become aware that other factors make up good students. For instance, they are looking at lower socioeconomic status, overcoming challenges, and "bringing diversity." Low and behold, looking at these other factors benefit minorities more because minorities fit these other factors more than whites. Funny how that works out.

Edit: Why is it that when a criteria benefits white males more, its fair but when it benefits a different group more, it must be affirmative action?

[dp73816]

Jesus Christ was not a white male. How does anyone educated still believe that?

It was supposed to be a joke, I'm sorry if it was unclear or wasn't very funny. If you look at the artistic depictions of Jesus that people make, they usually represent him as "one of them". White Europeans paint a white Jesus, South Americans paint a Hispanic Jesus, and so forth. I think that this represents a broader cultural phenomena. People want their savior to look like them because they want him to be "one of them" culturally. America was founded by white males out of a tradition that was dominated by white males. To gain independence, they had to fight a war against other white males. The point being that being a white male makes obtaining positions of social power (being a lawyer, for example) much easier. You're the heir to the throne of our culture.

I am a white male, raised as such, so this is only a guess. But, I imagine the LSAT and the study of law in general become more difficult if you learned Ebonics growing up or were raised in analogous circumstances.

Not true. Whites made Jesus white b/c they wanted to propagate white superiority to Africans, and to slaves. The missionaries taught Christianity to Africans so they could rob the Africans of their material goods, namely the salt and gold that was abundant in Sub-Saharan Africa. They traded their guns for these goods and African slaves. While the slaves built the Colonies and the Carribean Islands, Continental Africans were at war with each other with the guns the Eurpopeans traded to them. Africa has been war-torn ever since. The image of a white Jesus helped that happen.

People of color made Jesus a man of color b/c the bible said he had eyes of "fire", hair like lamb's "wool" and feet of "brass". Jesus was a Hebrew who came from a region of the Earth where the people had color in their skin. They wanted to A) tell the truth and B) offset the myth started by whites. He could not have been a white male.

...Jesus has been white in northern europe (the area which started the slave trade) since the middle ages - stained glass windows from that time depict him as Caucasian. I really do doubt that such a conspiracy existed, since slaves were treated the same as indentured servants in the colonies until Bacon's Rebellion (which started the subsequent racial prejudice), and the slave trade was in place long before that...

[PDaddy]

You're wrong; our generation does not look beyond race. Maybe our generation doesn't need AA, b ut it needs to be aware of diversity issues. Your words: "maybe not entirely" are on-point. When we get to "entirely", that's when enough will be enough.

[KibblesAndVick]

Jesus Christ was not a white male. How does anyone educated still believe that?

It was supposed to be a joke, I'm sorry if it was unclear or wasn't very funny. If you look at the artistic depictions of Jesus that people make, they usually represent him as "one of them". White Europeans paint a white Jesus, South Americans paint a Hispanic Jesus, and so forth. I think that this represents a broader cultural phenomena. People want their savior to look like them because they want him to be "one of them" culturally. America was founded by white males out of a tradition that was dominated by white males. To gain independence, they had to fight a war against other white males. The point being that being a white male makes obtaining positions of social power (being a lawyer, for example) much easier. You're the heir to the throne of our culture.

I am a white male, raised as such, so this is only a guess. But, I imagine the LSAT and the study of law in general become more difficult if you learned Ebonics growing up or were raised in analogous circumstances.

Not true. Whites made Jesus white b/c they wanted to propagate white superiority to Africans, and to slaves. The missionaries taught Christianity to Africans so they could rob the Africans of their material goods, namely the salt and gold that was abundant in Sub-Saharan Africa. They traded their guns for these goods and African slaves. While the slaves built the Colonies and the Carribean Islands, Continental Africans were at war with each other with the guns the Eurpopeans traded to them. Africa has been war-torn ever since. The image of a white Jesus helped that happen.

People of color made Jesus a man of color b/c the bible said he had eyes of "fire", hair like lamb's "wool" and feet of "brass". Jesus was a Hebrew who came from a region of the Earth where the people had color in their skin. They wanted to A) tell the truth and B) offset the myth started by whites. He could not have been a white male.

I fully understand that the historical figure was not a white male. The point I'm trying to make it about how religion, and more specifically the way that people create a cultural identity out of their religion, influences their decisions. People of color wanted to "tell the truth" with a non-white Jesus. Why did they want this? Are they obsessed with historical accuracy, or do you think it might reflect something about the way they view themselves and their identity? A lot of WASPS are not going to bow down and worship their lord and savior if he has dark skin. A lot of Blacks view the submission to a white lord and savior as part of larger social problems.

I'm not sure to what extent we actually disagree, haha.

[PDaddy]

Jesus Christ was not a white male. How does anyone educated still believe that?

It was supposed to be a joke, I'm sorry if it was unclear or wasn't very funny. If you look at the artistic depictions of Jesus that people make, they usually represent him as "one of them". White Europeans paint a white Jesus, South Americans paint a Hispanic Jesus, and so forth. I think that this represents a broader cultural phenomena. People want their savior to look like them because they want him to be "one of them" culturally. America was founded by white males out of a tradition that was dominated by white males. To gain independence, they had to fight a war against other white males. The point being that being a white male makes obtaining positions of social power (being a lawyer, for example) much easier. You're the heir to the throne of our culture.

I am a white male, raised as such, so this is only a guess. But, I imagine the LSAT and the study of law in general become more difficult if you learned Ebonics growing up or were raised in analogous circumstances.

Not true. Whites made Jesus white b/c they wanted to propagate white superiority to Africans, and to slaves. The missionaries taught Christianity to Africans so they could rob the Africans of their material goods, namely the salt and gold that was abundant in Sub-Saharan Africa. They traded their guns for these goods and African slaves. While the slaves built the Colonies and the Carribean Islands, Continental Africans were at war with each other with the guns the Eurpopeans traded to them. Africa has been war-torn ever since. The image of a white Jesus helped that happen.

People of color made Jesus a man of color b/c the bible said he had eyes of "fire", hair like lamb's "wool" and feet of "brass". Jesus was a Hebrew who came from a region of the Earth where the people had color in their skin. They wanted to A) tell the truth and B) offset the myth started by whites. He could not have been a white male.

...Jesus has been white in northern europe (the area which started the slave trade) since the middle ages - stained glass windows from that time depict him as Caucasian. I really do doubt that such a conspiracy existed, since slaves were treated the same as indentured servants in the colonies until Bacon's Rebellion (which started the subsequent racial prejudice), and the slave trade was in place long before that...

You can "doubt it" all you want. If I doubt that Kobe Bryant is one of the most dominant basketball players ever to live, that won't change the fact. My statements are historically documented. That conspiracy was exactly what happened. Google some of my words and you'll find historians from all backgrounds saying the same thing. Do you even know about the salt trade? Most people don't know that salt was once worth its weight in gold.

http://library.thinkquest.org/13406/sh/

http://www.africaeconomicanalysis.org/a ... vehtm.html

[jdhonest]

.

[nyknicks]

You can't let a girl feel good about herself, it will backfire on you. Compliment her, but it has to be backhanded.

[Pearalegal]

My point being that as the rest of the many groups make up the 59%, 41% is the majority, unless white females make up 42%, which would be my only guess for a runner up. Though you're right...defining "solid" and "overwhelming," is entirely subjective.

No, that's not a majority, it's a plurality. But at some schools I suspect white females are the plurality.

Wow... Just wow... 41% is a majority? Now I've heard it all.

Ok, FINE, white males are the subset of a group with the highest number or whatever the technical definition of a plurality is. Sorry I didn't stick to the right official term, I figured we all knew what I meant.

[TigerBeer]

MEs are really diverse though. A lot of Iranians do look Italian or Hispanic so they wouldn't be hassled, but a dark-skinned Arab would probably run into more trouble. Jesus likely had dark skin as well.

Jesus was Iranian

Jesus was a semite, but I don't think Iranians are considered semites. Iranians are descended from Aryans.

I was joking... (same type of joke the original comment was making)

I fail... oh well

Maybe it's me who's been failing at detecting these tongue in cheek comments

[romothesavior]

Actually, that's not even close to what affirmative action does. Its not some minor soft factor that serves as a bump between similar candidates. It is a game changing factor for most people. I would have no problem with that sort of AA, and I'm sure a lot of other people woudl be fine with it too. If two people have similar credentials and merits, but one had to overcome significant odds in order to get to where they are, then okay. But when the color of your skin equals 5-6 LSAT points or equals essentially a 20-30% boost in law school grades for the purpose of OCI, then that's a little extreme. I'm not opposed to AA, just the extreme nature of it as it currently exists.

Again... there isn't affirmative action. There isn't in the law school application process (its illegal in virtually every state). There isn't in firm hiring. You see a minority with lower numbers and you assume they are there because of affirmative action. You actually have no desire to look past that, so that's all you see.

I know of several whites who got into Berkeley and other T14 law schools who have lower than the median numbers. They aren't there because of affirmative action. Law schools are beginning to look at other factors (besides the LSAT), because they're starting to become aware that other factors make up good students. For instance, they are looking at lower socioeconomic status, overcoming challenges, and "bringing diversity." Low and behold, looking at these other factors benefit minorities more because more minorities fit these other factors more than whites. Funny how that works out.

Call it what you want, but what you described is affirmative action in a mask. When a school essentially sets an LSAT/GPA combo for URMs and admits anyone above that line, you can call that affirmative action. I'm not gonna comment on the merits of such a system, but at least be honest and call it what it is. They usually are NOT doing a case by case, in depth analysis of each candidate. Applications for URMs are just as numbers driven as the process for non-URMs. They aren't getting in because they are bringing a lower socioeconomic status or because they are people that "overcame adversity." The vast majority of the time, URMs are getting in because they are black or latino and met a certain cutoff for GPA and LSAT.

[Drake014]

You're wrong; our generation does not look beyond race. Maybe our generation doesn't need AA, b ut it needs to be aware of diversity issues. Your words: "maybe not entirely" are on-point. When we get to "entirely", that's when enough will be enough.

Affirmative action is an outdated approach. It covers up fundamental problems. I've asked recruiters what the most important thing is among candidates. Their answers result in pretty much "I want someone like me." Its not that they're racist, but human nature results in us wanting to be around people like ourselves. People who have our interests or who we're "comfortable" around won't end up with diversity.

[Drake014]

The OP should just blow a guy.

If he blows a guy, then he's gay, and according to the OP, 160k 1L summer jobs, clerkships and scholarships will start to rain down on his pretty little gay and diverse head.

Not to mention, most people will have more respect for a guy who blows another guy instead of a guy who whines about not getting chances in life because he lacks melanin c and likes to put his penis in vaginas.

Just blow a guy, OP, and solve all of your law related woes.

Clearly you haven't read what I've said. Otherwise you'd know I was a black male and already qualify as "diverse"

[romothesavior]

My point being that as the rest of the many groups make up the 59%, 41% is the majority, unless white females make up 42%, which would be my only guess for a runner up. Though you're right...defining "solid" and "overwhelming," is entirely subjective.

No, that's not a majority, it's a plurality. But at some schools I suspect white females are the plurality.

Wow... Just wow... 41% is a majority? Now I've heard it all.

Ok, FINE, white males are the subset of a group with the highest number or whatever the technical definition of a plurality is. Sorry I didn't stick to the right official term, I figured we all knew what I meant.

You can roll your eyes at me if you want, but I was just as confused as he was. Most high school social studies students could tell you the difference between a majority and a plurality, so I thought you meant at least 50%+1 as well.

[Joga Bonito]

Simply because I enjoy beating a dead horse; here's another one of Martin Luther King's quotes that i dug up supporting affirmative action.

MLK, in his 1963 classic Why We Can't Wait, said:

"Whenever this issue of compensatory or preferential treatment for the Negro is raised, some of our friends recoil in horror. The Negro should be granted equality, they agree, but he should ask for nothing more. On the surface, this appears reasonable, but it is not realistic. For it is obvious that if a man enters the starting line of a race three hundred years after another man, the first would have to perform some incredible feat in order to catch up."

[Drake014]

You can roll your eyes at me if you want, but I was just as confused as he was. Most high school social studies students could tell you the difference between a majority and a plurality, so I thought you meant at least 50%+1 as well.

BULLSHIT

[dp73816]

[/quote]...Jesus has been white in northern europe (the area which started the slave trade) since the middle ages - stained glass windows from that time depict him as Caucasian. I really do doubt that such a conspiracy existed, since slaves were treated the same as indentured servants in the colonies until Bacon's Rebellion (which started the subsequent racial prejudice), and the slave trade was in place long before that...[/quote]

[/quote]You can "doubt it" all you want. If I doubt that Kobe Bryant is one of the most dominant basketball players ever to live, that won't change the fact. My statements are historically documented. That conspiracy was exactly what happened. Google some of my words and you'll find historians from all backgrounds saying the same thing. Do you even know about the salt trade? Most people don't know that salt was once worth its weight in gold.[/quote]

Thats great that you can copy and paste from google and all...and yes, I know plenty about the salt, slave, and just about every other trade in the 17th and 18th centuries - I wrote my thesis on pre-revolutionary colonial conditions and their ensuing ideologies...but anyways, like I said, I doubt that such subversive motives were entirely the driving force; like most things, the truth most likely lies somewhere in the middle.

[romothesavior]

You're wrong; our generation does not look beyond race. Maybe our generation doesn't need AA, b ut it needs to be aware of diversity issues. Your words: "maybe not entirely" are on-point. When we get to "entirely", that's when enough will be enough.

Affirmative action is an outdated approach. It covers up fundamental problems. I've asked recruiters what the most important thing is among candidates. Their answers result in pretty much "I want someone like me." Its not that they're racist, but human nature results in us wanting to be around people like ourselves. People who have our interests or who we're "comfortable" around won't end up with diversity.

A person being black does not make them "unlike me." They might have my interests, a similar personality, etc. I think you are reading "racial likeness" into this, when all the recruiters are saying is "people we can get along with and work with."

[Pearalegal]

You can roll your eyes at me if you want, but I was just as confused as he was. Most high school social studies students could tell you the difference between a majority and a plurality, so I thought you meant at least 50%+1 as well.

Then apologies for causing confusion. I still figured everyone knew what I was talking about. T

hough I have to agree with Drake...if someone not properly using majority and plurality in casual conversation causes you to use the phrase, "now I've heard everything..."

Then you're going to have a lot more of those moments.

[romothesavior]

You can roll your eyes at me if you want, but I was just as confused as he was. Most high school social studies students could tell you the difference between a majority and a plurality, so I thought you meant at least 50%+1 as well.

BULLSHIT

Haha okay, maybe that's an exaggeration. But I would think most college students would be able to tell you.

[Jay-Electronica]

Simply because I enjoy beating a dead horse; here's another one of Martin Luther King's quotes that i dug up supporting affirmative action.

MLK, in his 1963 classic Why We Can't Wait, said:

"Whenever this issue of compensatory or preferential treatment for the Negro is raised, some of our friends recoil in horror. The Negro should be granted equality, they agree, but he should ask for nothing more. On the surface, this appears reasonable, but it is not realistic. For it is obvious that if a man enters the starting line of a race three hundred years after another man, the first would have to perform some incredible feat in order to catch up."

And this is the video demonstration of what he means: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SFG_Vv1F ... r_embedded#

Jorge Bonito, once again <3