Media Outrage?

oletime · #1 03-11-2010, 03:44 PM

But its ok for tiger to tell racist stereotype jokes in a GQ interview.The old double standard again.

BeenThinkin · #2 03-11-2010, 04:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by oletime

But its ok for tiger to tell racist stereotype jokes in a GQ interview.The old double standard again.

I have a problem with there being something so wrong with this when we have "The United Negro College Fund" .... "Congressional Black Caucus" .... "NAACP" .... "The Organization of Black Airline Pilots Inc." etc, etc, etc. Isn't that a little one sided!

Okay, let's put the joke on those of you on this forum that are ministers or preachers..... "Do you know why preachers eat so much chicken?" .... "Ever since that rooster told off on Peter for denying the Lord we have been trying to eat them all up!"

Now I guess all of you are offended at Been Thinkin'

notofworks · #3 03-13-2010, 11:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BeenThinkin

I have a problem with there being something so wrong with this when we have "The United Negro College Fund" .... "Congressional Black Caucus" .... "NAACP" .... "The Organization of Black Airline Pilots Inc." etc, etc, etc. Isn't that a little one sided!

Okay, let's put the joke on those of you on this forum that are ministers or preachers..... "Do you know why preachers eat so much chicken?" .... "Ever since that rooster told off on Peter for denying the Lord we have been trying to eat them all up!"

Now I guess all of you are offended at Been Thinkin'

This is a "fingernails on the chalkboard" argument for me. There is only one reason these groups were ever formed. They needed them. As a marginalized demographic of society, that has long been rejected from the mainstream, these groups are naturally going to develop a system of commonality support. Of course they would!! And they should!

And in case one feels like there's no longer a need for these demographical commonality support systems, just consider that as recently as early this decade, major studies showed that, when applying for a job, African-Americans were EIGHT TIMES LESS LIKELY to be called for an interview than caucasians, when the resumes were identical.

We cannot afford to bury our heads in the sand and pretend as though Martin Luther King's dream has become a reality.

rgcraig · #4 03-13-2010, 12:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by notofworks

This is a "fingernails on the chalkboard" argument for me. There is only one reason these groups were ever formed. They needed them. As a marginalized demographic of society, that has long been rejected from the mainstream, these groups are naturally going to develop a system of commonality support. Of course they would!! And they should!

And in case one feels like there's no longer a need for these demographical commonality support systems, just consider that as recently as early this decade, major studies showed that, when applying for a job, African-Americans were EIGHT TIMES LESS LIKELY to be called for an interview than caucasians, when the resumes were identical.
We cannot afford to bury our heads in the sand and pretend as though Martin Luther King's dream has become a reality.

HUH?

By the resumes how did they know they were white or black? Something doesn't ring true to that statement.

notofworks · #5 03-13-2010, 12:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rgcraig

HUH?

By the resumes how did they know they were white or black? Something doesn't ring true to that statement.

It was a study done by, I believe, the University of Chicago early this decade. They sent out 10,000 resumes to Fortune 500 companies. 5,000 of the applications had traditional names (James, Robert, etc.) and 5,000 had colorful, creative names common in the black community (Shaquille, Laquesha, etc.)

Identical resumes were attached and the traditional sounding names were 8 times more likely to be called for an interview. I was familiarized with this study through a local Affirmative Action group that I participated in for a while.

Jermyn Davidson · #6 03-13-2010, 12:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by notofworks

It was a study done by, I believe, the University of Chicago early this decade. They sent out 10,000 resumes to Fortune 500 companies. 5,000 of the applications had traditional names (James, Robert, etc.) and 5,000 had colorful, creative names common in the black community (Shaquille, Laquesha, etc.)

Identical resumes were attached and the traditional sounding names were 8 times more likely to be called for an interview. I was familiarized with this study through a local Affirmative Action group that I participated in for a while.

I have heard of this study. No doubt in my mind of its truth.

Same is true when conducting business over the phone. Usually, one can tell the race and the general waistline of the person they are speaking with.

However, the study with the names is legitimate.

http://www.chicagobooth.edu/capideas...acialbias.html

notofworks · #7 03-13-2010, 01:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

I have heard of this study. No doubt in my mind of its truth.

Same is true when conducting business over the phone. Usually, one can tell the race and the general waistline of the person they are speaking with.

However, the study with the names is legitimate.

http://www.chicagobooth.edu/capideas...acialbias.html

Thanks for the link!!! I've cited the study before and would get hit with the "prove it" response. I looked for it once and couldn't find it! I'm gonna save the link.

Rgcraig, you doubted the study. Any observations?