A Study On Racism In The Job Force In America.

[shyboy]

Now I have to start off by saying that I do not condone racism in anyway, shape or form. I thought though that some of you all could take a look at this study. According to this study, white convicts are just as likely to be hired as a black person without a record in America. I posted this in the Critics of Objectivism section because I figured that the study is biased and could be just trying to okay the use of reverse racism.

My question is, after reviewing this study what do you think of it? Do you think it's legitimate? If so, are some of the black's problems with America legitimate? And how can we change that, their views? This study only confirms their belief that the world is out to get them, what should someone say to them?

The study was for entry level positions, but, it's true, I guess(long read).

http://www.nyc.gov/html/cchr/pdf/race_report_web.pdf

http://www.dmiblog.com/archives/2007/09/wh...kely_to_be.html

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m135...08/ai_n15681393

Edited February 26, 2008 by shyboy

[adrock3215]

I would say it's probably a legitimate study. Racism exists; the question is what should be done about it. If the answer involves subordinating property rights to "non-discrimination" policy than I am opposed to it. You can't legislate morality, it needs to be dealt with through other mediums. Primarily, we could begin to rid ourselves of racism by completely disregarding W.E.B. Dubois, all of his thoughts and writings, and his NAACP and its lineage such as Lou Farrakhan, Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, and Barack Obama's minister. Once all of these things are thrown into the trashcan, we can go back and read Booker T. Washington's Up From Slavery, which correctly prescribed how to eliminate racism over a hundred years ago, and two years before Dubois created the professional career of "Race Merchant" when he authored Souls of Black Folk.

Edited February 27, 2008 by adrock3215

[DavidOdden]

Do you think it's legitimate? If so, are some of the black's problems with America legitimate? And how can we change that, their views? This study only confirms their belief that the world is out to get them, what should someone say to them?

Before looking at the particular studies (which I'll do), I can say based on observation of similar studies that there is a major difference between showing that blacks as a collective have a problem and that blacks have a problem with America. If blacks statistically take more drugs, father more babies out of wedlock, sell drugs more, shoot other people more, per capita, then before asking what's the problem with America, the first question should be, what is the problem? Why? How about dropping the assumption that every problem faced by blacks is because whites are all racist.

[shyboy]

Before looking at the particular studies (which I'll do), I can say based on observation of similar studies that there is a major difference between showing that blacks as a collective have a problem and that blacks have a problem with America. If blacks statistically take more drugs, father more babies out of wedlock, sell drugs more, shoot other people more, per capita, then before asking what's the problem with America, the first question should be, what is the problem? Why? How about dropping the assumption that every problem faced by blacks is because whites are all racist.

I know the basic stand on this, people are individuals, and everybody should just treat each other that way. Which is very logical to me and makes sense. I realize that the racism goes both ways. I believe if they would of did a study on black employers they would of found the exact same findings only reversed.

The argument is though from the multiculturalist/racist point of view, is that all of the things that you have mentioned are symptoms of being oppressed people for so long and that black people are actually justified for hating white people because of that. They even feel that they should be owed something because of the years of government inforced racism and slavery. In turn, they view white people's hate as not being justified at all.

Edited February 27, 2008 by shyboy

[DavidOdden]

The argument is though from the multiculturalist/racist point of view, is that all of the things that you have mentioned are symptoms of being oppressed people for so long and that black people are actually justified for hating white people because of that.

There is that general approach to life that says "My ancestors were oppressed, so the only thing that I can do is act like an idiot and teach my children to act likewise". Hip hop, for example, isn't just "apparently influenced" by the myth of white oppression, it is clearly and overtly about setting up an openly criminal sub-culture that is outside of our society while still being in more or less the same location. Afrocentrism is a related though less perverse form of black-against-black racism. The era of violating the rights of black men is past, although not all of the victims are dead. Clearly, past history doesn't justify modern behavior, but it can form a rationalization for racism by blacks. My person solution would be to make Rand's essay Racism required reading in all high schools.

[adrock3215]

My person solution would be to make Rand's essay Racism required reading in all high schools.

Would that requirement be enforcable through public or private schools, or perhaps through only a school you yourself own and operate?

Just kidding. BUT, if there were to be some sort of required reading established, I would choose Booker T. Washington's slave narrative Up From Slavery over Rand's writing. Washington is one of the greatest self-made (come on, the guy even gave himself his own name) men in American history. A few notables:

- "No greater injury can be done to any youth than to let him feel that because he belongs to this or that race he will be advanced in life regardless of his own merits or efforts."

- "No man whose vision is bounded by colour can come into contact with what is highest and best in the world."

- "Character, not circumstances, makes the man."

- "Few things can help an individual more than to place responsibility on him, and to let him know that you trust him. "

- "No race can prosper till it learns that there is as much dignity in tilling a field as in writing a poem."

- "The opportunity to earn a dollar in a factory is worth infinitely more than the opportunity to spend a dollar at an opera-house."

[Thales]

I would say it's probably a legitimate study. Racism exists; the question is what should be done about it. If the answer involves subordinating property rights to "non-discrimination" policy than I am opposed to it. You can't legislate morality, it needs to be dealt with through other mediums. Primarily, we could begin to rid ourselves of racism by completely disregarding W.E.B. Dubois, all of his thoughts and writings, and his NAACP and its lineage such as Lou Farrakhan, Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, and Barack Obama's minister. Once all of these things are thrown into the trashcan, we can go back and read Booker T. Washington's Up From Slavery, which correctly prescribed how to eliminate racism over a hundred years ago, and two years before Dubois created the professional career of "Race Merchant" when he authored Souls of Black Folk.

Sure, and I'd say especially Ayn Rand, even though you make a point that Booker T should be preferred. Ayn Rand provides an entire integrated philosophy that will obliterate racism if accepted. It's a philosophy that doesn't have that as its goal, but it would be a beneficial side effect. So, just be supporting the philosophy you're working toward the ending of racism. And, to be sure, Ayn Rand was self made too, right down to her name.

Frankly, multiculturalists today are fanning the flames of racism, they're pushing it. This means that intellectuals in universities and high schools are pushing it. We’re not fighting ignorance here, we’re fighting “intellectuals” who are proactively in course after course, day after day, pushing racist dogma. It doesn't help the cause when you have that sort of thing going on in institutions of learning from K12 through university. Not to mention the way the media regularly pounds the issue down our throats. I'm not sure which is being pushed more today, environmentalism or multiculturalism.

[adrock3215]

Sure, and I'd say especially Ayn Rand, even though you make a point that Booker T should be preferred. Ayn Rand provides an entire integrated philosophy that will obliterate racism if accepted. It's a philosophy that doesn't have that as its goal, but it would be a beneficial side effect. So, just be supporting the philosophy you're working toward the ending of racism. And, to be sure, Ayn Rand was self made too, right down to her name.

I agree. Rand provides the only philosophical framework which, if accepted, would eradicate the majority of the problems associated with racism. I just think that if Washington would have triumped over DuBois, we would not be having the same problems we currently have. Washington was not a philosopher, but he was an intellectual force who had much influence over all races and persons until the Progressive Era gained steam and pushed him into the background and DuBois into the spotlight. As DuBois claims in one of the first few paragraphs of Souls of Black Folk: "The problem of the 20th century is the color line." Little did he know that it was his efforts which made his contention true. Or perhaps he knew it, but he was a "race merchant" entrepreneur who simply needed a career, and saw an opportunity to capitalize on preaching victimization as identification.

I'm not sure which is being pushed more today, environmentalism or multiculturalism.

I would say that they are both a package deal; both ideas usually come from the same mouths. As you said, the mouths belong to ivory-tower intellectuals who, at root, share a hatred of the Western World and capitalism. I am currently taking a course on American Literature; on the first day the professor framed the entire course as a treatise on slavery, racism and discrimination, with the pretext that the Civil War is a never-ending war still occuring in America today. Every single piece of literature we are reading for the entire course is somehow related to racism/slavery, and is presented in such a manner as to support the thesis underlying the course. We can be assured racism will diminish when professors like this are unemployed.

Edited February 28, 2008 by adrock3215

[shyboy]

I know this whole black and white issue is rather silly to you all here on this forum. It seems to me though that you all are focusing more on black's racism towards whites more than a white person's racism towards blacks. Their are many instances of white racism. Let me give you some examples; For one thing I've noticed that most whites react to their own people's plight much faster than they do to the plight of others...Kosovo and the World Wars are some good examples of this. While blacks and other plights get ignored. You can look at Rwanda & Darfur, for recent examples. There are also the disproportionate amounts of blacks compared to whites in prisons. Police brutality to my knowledge doesn't happen to white people either. I realize that what I've said so far in my post has come off as a bit of a whine but aren't they true? and shouldn't those issues be addressed?

People are individuals and evil is evil and I have empathy for suffering people no matter what their color.

But I myself have read some Dubois(A self made person aswell I might add) and to be completely honest, to me, blacks are more important because it seems that our lives have been worth less than the average white life as long as blacks have been in contact with whites. I know that, that thought is wrong according to objectivist ethics but isn't that true? That thought has been lingering over my head ever since I've discovered Rand

I'm black, so I guess that is why this is such a big issue to me, there are not too many black objectivists, lol.

Edited February 29, 2008 by shyboy

[shyboy]

I know this whole black and white issue is rather silly to you all here on this forum. It seems to me though that you all are focusing more on black's racism towards whites more than a white person's racism towards blacks. Their are many instances of white racism. Let me give you some examples; For one thing I've noticed that most whites react to their own people's plight much faster than they do to the plight of others...Kosovo and the World Wars are some good examples of this. While blacks and other plights get ignored. You can look at Rwanda & Darfur, for recent examples. There are also the disproportionate amounts of blacks compared to whites in prisons. Police brutality to my knowledge doesn't happen to white people either. I realize that what I've said so far in my post has come off as a bit of a whine but aren't they true? and shouldn't those issues be addressed?

People are individuals and evil is evil and I have empathy for suffering people no matter what their color.

But I myself have read some Dubois(A self made person aswell I might add) and to be completely honest, to me, blacks are more important because it seems that our lives have been worth less than the average white life as long as blacks have been in contact with whites. I know that, that thought is wrong according to objectivist ethics but isn't that true? That thought has been lingering over my head ever since I've discovered Rand

I'm black, so I guess that is why this is such a big issue to me, there are not too many black objectivists, lol.

Believe it or not I just realized how racist this post was. We live in the US, and Rwanda & Darfur has nothing to do with the U.S.. As far as the disproportionate amount of blacks in jail are concerned, maybe it is some of the blacks fault they got in jail and not because the cops are racist. Maybe if that "don't taze me bro" guy was african american they would of called that police brutality. Maybe they should stop calling white on black crimes hate crimes. If I want to help I can help but I can't force other people to do the same. I guess this is logical too.

[DavidOdden]

I know this whole black and white issue is rather silly to you all here on this forum.

I don't think it's silly, I think it's fundamentally wrong. It makes as much sense to say that blacks are inferior, collectively, as it does to say that whites are all devils or superior. The thing is, as a white man, there's not a whole lot I can do except smack white racists when I see them and sick McWhorter on black whiners when I see them.

While blacks and other plights get ignored. You can look at Rwanda & Darfur, for recent examples.

That's not really a thing about blacks, that's about Africa. Or, more accurately, non-Europe. To start, are you referring to the fact that Clinton sent troops to the Balkans, and we have not sent troops into Africa since Somalia? We did not send troops into Swaziland to depose the despotic king who rules that country; we did not send troops into Zimbabwe to stop the horrifying dictatorship of post-liberation Mugabeland which is resulting is vast death and destruction. We did not send troops to Angola to depose the communist dictatorship, to Congo to depose baby Kabila or his dad, we did not nuke Nairobi after the recent "elections" and ensuing bipartisan genocide, we allowed the "slavery as a matter of course" government of Mauritania to exist, we have not cleaned up the hell-hole named Nigeria, nor did we clean up the dictatorships of Amin and his predecessors and successors, nor have we helped to squelch the lunatic Lord's Army in Uganda; and we have not overthrown the dictatorships of Ghana or Liberia, and so on and so on.

The problems of Africa are self-inflicted, and well beyond the reach of a rational US national policy. I don't see that there is any significance to the fact that most white folks (and I might add black folks) do not know who Milton Obote, John Garang, Faure Eyadema, Charles Taylor, Abdusalam Abubakar or Jean-Bedel Bokassa are. That's not racism. We also are not, collectively, aware of what is happening in Belarus, what the deal with Kurds and Turks is, what's up with Chechens, Turkmens, Kazakhs and so on. This is not a racial issue, it's a significance issue. If you can name a dozen significant African corporations, I'll eat my hat. Generally speaking, it would not actually have an obvious effect on people's lives if the CAR, Turkmenistan or Tanzania suddenly disappeared from the planet. It would really piss me off if Tanzania disappeared, but I think I'm probably in a minority, interest-wise.

There are also the disproportionate amounts of blacks compared to whites in prisons.

So why is that? I have two suggestions. First, there's the cultural thing, that there is way too much gang violence and related activities among blacks (theft, robbery), and it doesn't seem to be utterly unacceptable. Second, there are certain forms of high-profit business which happen to be illegal that blacks seem to engage in.

I realize that what I've said so far in my post has come off as a bit of a whine but aren't they true? and shouldn't those issues be addressed?

What exactly do you think are the three most significant specific problems facing blacks in America? I just want to distill out the essence; like, is it the 80 year old racist coot down the block who's afraid of blacks, or is it the teacher who praises the black student for actually showing up to class (vastly lowered expectations), or the rationalist nut-job who digs deeply into the cranial capacity literature and sees proof of the physical basis for the problems of blacks? What are the special problems of blacks that are different from everybody else's problems? I mean, you can't solve the problem if you can't name it.

Mostly, though, I think your concern should be with the things that are a problem for you. There's no denying that many people are idiots, and that people tend to be afraid of the unknown

[DarkWaters]

It seems to me though that you all are focusing more on black's racism towards whites more than a white person's racism towards blacks.

This might be true, but probably because racism is much less obvious to the average person on the street when a member of a minority group discriminates against the members of a majority group, for example, a black person discriminating against a white person.

However, racism is undeniably evil no matter who is discriminating against whom. White on black, black on white, asian on white, white on asian, white on latino; it is all disgustingly bad. The races of of the individuals who are being racist and of the individuals who are being subject to racism is entirely inconsequential to the fact that racism is evil. To address racism as evil covers racism in all of its forms.

Anyway, you did indicate later in your post that you "have empathy for suffering people no matter what their color" so you probably know this. However, I could not tell from your initial comment "you all are focusing more on black's racism towards whites more than a white person's racism towards blacks", which still suggests to me that you are still grouping people by race in your value judgment on this issue.

White-on-black racism probably still exists today and it was certainly a serious problem in the South during the civil rights era. However, in my opinion the greater issue is reverse-racism. Consider how often the "race card" was needlessly played during various highly visible current events: the tax evasion charges against Wesley Snipes, Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney slapping a security guard for asking to see her badge, the Barry Bonds steroids accusations, the Tawana Brawley incident with Al Sharpton, the Duke Rape case, et. cetera. For more information, I recommend reading many of the articles by Walter E. Williams and Thomas Sowell on Racism.

The underlying problem here is a wide acceptance of the idea that not giving minorities special treatment is racism. The flaw in this is obvious. Racism is judging people by their race. To give minorities special treatment is to judge people by their race. You cannot combat racism by accepting its underlying premise. The idea is ludicrous.

An individual's race is not essential at all to who he is as a person. Instead, we should evaluate individuals by their character and by their personal philosophy.

[Thales]

Believe it or not I just realized how racist this post was. We live in the US, and Rwanda & Darfur has nothing to do with the U.S.. As far as the disproportionate amount of blacks in jail are concerned, maybe it is some of the blacks fault they got in jail and not because the cops are racist. Maybe if that "don't taze me bro" guy was african american they would of called that police brutality. Maybe they should stop calling white on black crimes hate crimes. If I want to help I can help but I can't force other people to do the same. I guess this is logical too.

Dark Waters and David Odden have responded to some of your points. However, one point you make I'd like to respond to is the idea of the worth of people. Keep in mind that through out history there have been lots of people of all races that have been treated like dirt. I guarantee, you wouldn't have wanted to be a European peasant in the Dark Ages, and many American Indians were savage toward each other and enslaved and even ate each other (the movie Apocalypto shows this graphically). Australian Aborigines practiced cannibalism.

Really, the real breaking point in history, the point when things turned around, was when people realized that men are meant to be free. John Locke is the father of rights and the person who set out rights in their best form up until Ayn Rand. The corner stone of America is rights. Slavery existed in America prior to America being created and kept on for a while after it was created, but it also existed in South America, in Africa, and all around the world. Slavery contradicted, as Jefferson and others knew, the founding ideals of America. This conflict is exactly what lead to the ending of slavery. The thing that made America unique was not slavery, the thing that set America apart was the ending of slavery on principle for the first time in human history. If you don't have this idea and you can't defend it, then I'm afraid you will not be able to properly fight slavery, as history shows.

In fact, it also requires a rational, objective epistemological foundation to defend freedom. Mysticism won’t get you there. I can get angry over the injustices of the past, but the fact is many of those injustices were as much due to people not knowing any better as to evil. Peikoff notes somewhere that there were lots of peasant revolts during the Dark Ages against the aristocracy, but they didn’t amount to much, because they didn’t have the ideas.

None of this excuses any injustices in the world, but it does show you how hard it is for mankind to get things right and how valuable it is for men to get things right. I also think we’re lucky to live in a time when we have the ideas to properly assess the situation, even if those ideas are somewhat limited to Objectivists.

Btw, to take this a step further, Objectivism upholds rational egoism and rational egoism says that a man’s own life is his highest value. So, this means that to me my highest value is my life and to you your highest value is yours. The legal system, however, must treat each individual equally.

Edited February 29, 2008 by Thales

[Publius]

Frankly, multiculturalists today are fanning the flames of racism, they're pushing it. This means that intellectuals in universities and high schools are pushing it. We’re not fighting ignorance here, we’re fighting “intellectuals” who are proactively in course after course, day after day, pushing racist dogma. It doesn't help the cause when you have that sort of thing going on in institutions of learning from K12 through university. Not to mention the way the media regularly pounds the issue down our throats. I'm not sure which is being pushed more today, environmentalism or multiculturalism.

I remember having some fierce ideological battles with my multicultural studies professor (it was a required class at my university). I never came around to his way of thinking, but I wouldn't go so far as to say he was pushing racism. I think he saw individuals and by extension society, being strengthened by the sense of community one had in their particular ethnic group, and that the melting pot was a false promise. I didn't, and don't, agree with this, but I don't think it is racist in nature. Have you ever taken a multicultural class of any sort? Maybe it was different for you.

The thing that made America unique was not slavery, the thing that set America apart was the ending of slavery on principle for the first time in human history. If you don't have this idea and you can't defend it, then I'm afraid you will not be able to properly fight slavery, as history shows.

In fact, it also requires a rational, objective epistemological foundation to defend freedom. Mysticism won’t get you there

Not sure about all of this. Seems we couldn't act "on principle" until it served a useful purpose during wartime, namely encouraging slaves to escape to the north and deprive the south of much needed labor. The British beat us to it anyway. Even if there were some major economic reasons for ending slavery, there was a strong Abolitionist movement in Britain that contributed to its end. And the whole idea behind the Abolitionist movement was Christian in principle, not some Locke-inspired idea of the rights of man.

[RationalBiker]

Racism is judging people by their race.

Agreed.

However, there is all to common a viewpoint out there that it is only racism from the "protected class" to the minority class. This evasively gives minority classes free reign to think or do whatever they want to the "protected class" and not be considered being racist. This position essentially holds that only 'whites' can be racist. Wikipedia;

Some sociologists have defined racism as a system of group privilege. In Portraits of White Racism David Wellman (1993) has defined racism as "culturally sanctioned beliefs, which, regardless of intentions involved, defend the advantages whites have because of the subordinated position of racial minorities,”

Of course I think that is a load of whooey.

[softwareNerd]

...the whole idea behind the Abolitionist movement was Christian in principle, not some Locke-inspired idea of the rights of man.

I think there was a thread about this somewhere on the forum. Generally though, just because a group of people (be they Quakers or whatever) think their version of Christianity is anti-slavery does not imply that this is "Christian in principle". Search for the previous thread. I think you'll find some interesting discussion.

[adrock3215]

But I myself have read some Dubois(A self made person aswell I might add) and to be completely honest, to me, blacks are more important because it seems that our lives have been worth less than the average white life as long as blacks have been in contact with whites.

Make no mistake about it: DuBois was not self-made. This piece of garbage was born a free-man, and was educated in the halls of Harvard and fine European institutions. Moreover, ironically, he had a mixed heritage, with some white European in him. His exact birthdate including the day is known; Washington didn't even know what year he was born in, he was born on a Virginian plantation, "somewhere or sometime".

The truth is that the ideas that promoted capitalism, mainly those of individual rights, are the reasons why slavery was eradicated. Without the Western World and all of its ideas, the globe would still be plagued with slavery in all corners. Washington understood this over a hundred years ago. The following is directly from Up from Slavery:

I have long since ceased to cherish any spirit of bitterness against the Southern white people on account of the enslavement of my race. When we rid ourselves of prejudice, or racial feeling, and look facts in the face, we must acknowledge that, notwithstanding the cruelty and moral wrong of slavery, the ten million Negroes inhabiting this country, who themselves or whose ancestors went through the school of American slavery, are in a stronger and more hopeful condition, materially, intellectually, morally, and religiously than is true of an equal number of black people in any other portion of the globe.

People forget that slavery still occurs today in parts of the Islamic world and it is sanctioned by the Koran. Matter of factly, the Islamic slave trade has historically always been the largest in the world, with various Islamic figures selling slaves to be shipped to the Americas, the Middle East, and the Asias. But go try to figure out why black nationalism in America has been centered around Islam, i.e. Elijah Muhammad and Lou Farrakhan's Nation of Islam. It's absurd. It's absurd how the black liberal elite, who always knows best, scoffs at Washington, his ideas, and his writings, even in some instances calling him a "traitor" and a "buffon". But the same elite liberals are quick to move in defense of the privileged ivory-tower intellectual DuBois, who made a career out of selling the concepts of victimization and racism. The article here correctly summarizes the differences between the two men. The main point is:

The dichotomy between Du Bois and Washington would be that of expediency versus patience; political protest verses self-help; overt activism in the streets verses the quiet assiduousness of personal and moral development in the home; seeking redress of rights in the courts of America for better jobs, schools and educational opportunities versus seeking knowledge in the libraries of America and creating our own jobs, schools, and educational opportunities; forcing Whites to accept us as equals verses showing Whites that we can first treat each other as equals. Such were (and presently are) the choices Black America must choose.

After 100 years and the achievement of all social rights (even privileges), why are the problems still the same today as they were during the 19th century? Could it be on account of something (gasp) African Americans are doing wrong?

[DavidOdden]

Make no mistake about it: DuBois was not self-made. This piece of garbage was born a free-man, and was educated in the halls of Harvard and fine European institutions. Moreover, ironically, he had a mixed heritage, with some white European in him.

I think you're confusing the concept "self-made" with "uneducated" or "Afrocentric". In modern America, it has been possible for a black man to be passively carried through the educational system, just being automatically promoted through the grades, admitted to college exclusively because of the color of his skin and then given a sheepksin at the end of the time, but that has been pretty rare and certainly was not the case in DuBois's time. BTW it's probably the case that most American blacks (those whose ancestors were slaves in North America, including Haiti) have some white European in them. I don't see the irony in that. A hypothetical example of irony would be if Farrakhan were to claim that a drop of ancestoral white blood made a man unfit to live.

[adrock3215]

I think you're confusing the concept "self-made" with "uneducated" or "Afrocentric".

Perhaps. I am merely pointing out the fact that DuBois came from a specific privileged class of people; born in the North, with ancestoral blood ties to many different peoples and colors, he was a mulatto essentially (French, Dutch, African, Native American) whose parents had certainly acculumated an amount of wealth unimaginable to a Southern black. The result is a privileged viewpoint typical of an elite liberal leader, who just can't understand why everyone else can't see how smart he is and accept his values and words as the word of the Lord.

I suppose in a strange, perverted sense I will acquiese that DuBois is self-made. It certainly takes a good deal of ingenuity and entrepreneur-like skill to invent not only a new market by creating a supply of goods and services, but also your own profession. DuBois established the former with the exchange of racist, collectivist, victimist ideas and the latter when he became a professional race merchant.

A hypothetical example of irony would be if Farrakhan were to claim that a drop of ancestoral white blood made a man unfit to live.

Hah. Got a good laugh from that one.

[Thales]

I remember having some fierce ideological battles with my multicultural studies professor (it was a required class at my university). I never came around to his way of thinking, but I wouldn't go so far as to say he was pushing racism.

Regardless of what an individual professor may be doing, the underlying premises of multiculturalism are racist, because they elevate race and culture to preeminence over the individual. This is racism and opens the door for less tactful and more overt racists than your professor. It's like a moderate muslim versus an extremist, the moderate may be better, but if the ideas he holds were acted upon purely you’d end up with an extremist muslim.

Not sure about all of this. Seems we couldn't act "on principle"

The principle was set out and placed in writing in the Declaration of Independence, (DOI). This is what I mean. Lincoln quoted the DOI at Gettysburg. The Brits did free slaves first, but the principles weren't in their legal documents like they were in America. The principle pushed the issue of freedom over the long haul, right up to Martin Luther King.

[DarkWaters]

However, there is all to common a viewpoint out there [that I wholeheartedly reject] that it is only racism from the "protected class" to the minority class. This evasively gives minority classes free reign to think or do whatever they want to the "protected class" and not be considered being racist. This position essentially holds that only 'whites' can be racist.

This is certainly a reprehensible viewpoint. In my opinion, this is tantamount to stating that beating a man to death is not murder if he was capably of physically overpowering you.

[Publius]

Regardless of what an individual professor may be doing, the underlying premises of multiculturalism are racist, because they elevate race and culture to preeminence over the individual. This is racism and opens the door for less tactful and more overt racists than your professor. It's like a moderate muslim versus an extremist, the moderate may be better, but if the ideas he holds were acted upon purely you’d end up with an extremist muslim.

I think you misunderstand the definition of racism or how it is used colloquially. It is true that they do put race and culture over the individual, but this isn't racist in my view, just incorrect. Multiculturalism doesn't hold that any given race is superior, just that an individual belongs to a particular group as part of their identity and one should have pride in that identity. All races and cultures are encouraged to fellowship together. This is where I think the idea breaks down, because the melting pot is the more ideal social construct to uphold, given the natural strife that occurs when we pigeon hole ourselves into enclaves.

You sound like you have some experience with multiculturalism first hand, however, which would be interesting to hear about.

The principle was set out and placed in writing in the Declaration of Independence, (DOI). This is what I mean. Lincoln quoted the DOI at Gettysburg. The Brits did free slaves first, but the principles weren't in their legal documents like they were in America. The principle pushed the issue of freedom over the long haul, right up to Martin Luther King.

Well yes and no. The principles of freedom in the DOI were noble and just, but that didn't stop us from selectively applying them. For a great deal of time only men with property could vote, women (half the population) could not vote for another 150 years, and had limited rights (could not own property in marriage) compared to men.

The founding document, the Constitution, explicitly said a black man was 3/5 of a man. This is always a black mark on our claim to virtue and a "principle" we would rather choose to forget about. So the principles were there in fragmented pieces, only coming to true fruition in increments over a long time. I'd be curious to see if were true that some 18th or 19th century government documents from England or France did not delineate in some way the principles of freedom that repudiated slavery in some way.

[softwareNerd]

I think you misunderstand the definition of racism or how it is used colloquially.

... ...

Multiculturalism doesn't hold that any given race is superior, just that an individual belongs to a particular group as part of their identity and one should have pride in that identity.

What does pride mean in this context? If one is proud, it must be because one sees some good. One would not be proud of being bad at something or being "just average".

[Publius]

What does pride mean in this context? If one is proud, it must be because one sees some good. One would not be proud of being bad at something or being "just average".

I'm not defending multiculturalism, but my understanding is it has to do with group identity. Nevertheless, it is a concept that is repudiated by Objectivism, obviously.

[softwareNerd]

I didn't imply you were defending multiculturalism. You simply stated that racism and multiculturalism were different. However, reading your descriptions of two concepts I could not see what difference you wanted to highlight.

I think you're using "racism" to describe a situation where someone thinks that something about their racial identity makes them superior. And, you described multiculturalism as the idea that one should have pride in their racial identity. If pride is something one feels because one possesses or earns something of value, then I'm curious how you see those two concepts as being different. Is it because on is taking pride in things that one believes are of no greater objective value compared to the things in other races; or it is something else?

I think regular folk -- not the intellectuals who teach them -- often have a benign concept of multiculturalism. They hold sessions where they talk about each other's birth, marriage and death customs, and taste each other's cuisine. They're right in thinking that many of these practices and values that are historically practiced by certain ethnic groups are simply optional ways (of getting married, or enjoying food, etc.). To them, multiculturalism means: all these customs are objectively equal. This concept says: the things that are specific to your ethnicity and race may be values, but the form in which they are implemented is simply an optional historical accident. The variety is fun and we can remain attached to our particular optional values, but we realize that they are not objectively any better than those of other people. This type of concept of multiculturalism is quite reasonable, and is not repudiated by Objectivism.

Pride is different from affinity and valuing. It is one thing for me to enjoy and value Chinese food more than some other food; but, it is quite different if I took pride in the goodness of Chinese food, because I am Chinese. That is why I asked what you meant when you said "pride".