Cornell U. welcome package: check your privilege

[Basil II the B.S]

Part of the reason I make these threads is that I want to make a clear cut between the moderate left and the extreme one. I think this indeed can be agreed on distinguishing between equality of opportunity and outcome. So long that we remain within equal opportunity, I don't get anxious over slippery slope policies (unless you want to slap an 80% income tax). Equality of outcome is, to use a term beloved by its advocates, problematic. The list of privilege a few years ago was only a few items. Now it's 15 and it'll likely expand more (tall/short? High IQ/low IQ?). The slippery slope here is blatant because it already has the government determining what hobbies males and females should do, so that we fill the ''gender gap'' and we have 50% females in engineering fields. Then you have very bizarre experiments like pre-teens males forced to dance and females taught how to yell.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/24/w...reschools.html
This is a massive restriction to equality of opportunity, it's creepy at the level of Maoist China (they did try similar experiments), it's simply non-negotiable under any term.
It's also way beyond anything that worked to some degree in Western Europe, like national healthcares, minimum wages and so on. Those at worse resulted in reductions of inequality of outcome, without excessive violations to equality of opportunity. Public education more often than not increased equality of opportunity and thus it's desiderable. There isn't a violation of the social contract unlike the OP policies do.

[HannibalExMachina]

asians being the only group, so, how is that?

this isnt the most academic source, but i figure youd prefer over more lefitist academia:

https://www.financialsamurai.com/inc...ncome-so-high/


median income also doesnt mean asian are just richer in general

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank...ethnic-groups/

discrimination isnt limited to education and fiscal inheritance either;

When human capital, skills, and other factors contributing to the racial wage gap are taken into account, many researchers find that there is still a portion of the racial wage gap that is unexplained. Many attribute this to another factor: race. Differences in wages due solely to race is racial discrimination. Through the use of statistical controls, sociologists and economists "ask whether a given person with the same background characteristics, such as level of education, region of residence, gender, marital characteristics, has the same earnings as a statistically equivalent person from a different racial/ethnic group".^[5] Differences that emerge are taken as evidence of racial discrimination. Research has found wage and employment discrimination against blacks, Native Americans, Hispanics, and Asians; however, discrimination has been found to be a much larger contributing factor for black wages than wages of other races.^[5]

A study conducted by Grodsky & Pager (2001) found that individual attributes, such as human capital and region, account for just more than half of the black-white wage gap, and an additional 20 percent is due to different occupational distributions between blacks and whites.^[13] The remaining portion of the wage gap not accounted for by individual and occupational distribution factors is thought to be due, at least in part, to discrimination.^[13]
Discrimination based on race has been found in other research as well. Seventy-four percent of employers in one study were found to be racially biased against blacks, and blacks have been found to make lower wages than whites working in the same industry.^[3] White Latinos earn higher wages than nonwhite Latinos, regardless of whether they are native or immigrant, suggesting possible discrimination based on skin color.^[3] Additionally, many employers openly admit to discriminating against blacks and workers in the inner city, as one study by Kirschenman and Neckerman (1991) found.^[3] Hiring audits have also found discrimination in the labor market. Blacks and whites who have the same credentials receive jobs at a rate of 3:1.^[3]


studies can be found under the footnote links.

also, more women than men in the medical field? as (often underpaid) nurses, not doctors. as for doctors, they enter the field in rather equal numbers, but with an unequal outcome. why are women so much more unlikely to end up in the same positions?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28834842

this isnt just about stereotypes. stereotyping is symptom of racism, but causes are systemic. people belonging to a marginalized group being sucessful doesnt mean there is no marginalization. they hey are less likely to be sucessful, even if some make it. obama being president (and still having to deal with racist backlash) means it is not impossible for a POC to become president, nothing more.

you are going on an individual case by case basis, to adress a systemic problem. thats why you end up with contradictions.

[HannibalExMachina]

so, if someone has a disadvantage because of historical and ongoing discrimination, thats not unequal opportunity?

[Basil II the B.S]

so, if someone has a disadvantage because of historical and ongoing discrimination, thats not unequal opportunity?

It can be addressed as unequal opportunity deriving from inheritance. Much of the ''ongoing discrimination'' simply isn't true either. It is true that there are some issues deriving from belonging to certain groups, but every group has a degree of negative stereotyping.

The conceptual framework of oppression by ''systemic whiteness'' in the US is negated by the fact that Asians, and I'm including both East Asians and Indians, are the ethnic group with the highest income in the US. There's no white supremacy keeping them down. Similarly the alleged privilege of males is negated by the fact that there are more women than men in the medical field, which is a high income one. Unsurprisingly, those who promote the paper in the OP are actively discriminating against Asians in universities, primarily because they are the real world evidence that a) minorities can be more successful than whites in a predominantly white country, thus there's no oppression b) you do not need a special treatment to make up for your oppression to succeed.

[conon394]

You know Basil I'd be more impressed with this story if the document did not indicate it was prepared for Seattle University. I pretty sure Cornell has there own letter head. If Campus Reform were a real news agency one might wonder why they did not contact Dr Kathy Obear for a comment on the use of her material. She is quite easy to find via google. I am sure she would be interested in what would be a copy right violation by Cornell. Given the lack of context who knows why Seattle university had the sheet made.

Really both John J. Carberry (public relation Cornell) and Dr Obear have public/offical emails. Why not contact them both and see if you get a reply?

Also where is page one I mean if you can scan one document why not the whole thing. Given Dr Obear's web site I assume what you have is a page from an executive coaching seminar.

[HannibalExMachina]

oh goddamnit, we know they are trying to scare people, thats not the point

[Basil II the B.S]

They did contact Cornell 4 times for confirmation, 3 times they refused to answer, the 4th they didn't deny.

[conon394]

Did they? Why not the author. Where is the first page so we can see the context for page 2. Why is something made for Seattle university not Cornell. You typed a lot here but cannot muster a email of you own to Cornell?

[NosPortatArma]

i never realised how much i have been held by because i am a 23 year old student who has not yet completed my education, with a regional accent, atheist, non-married, and probably from a lower class background. i score a whopping 6/15 on the opression index! and here i thought i belonged to the reviled opressors. i have been more of a victim than i tought all along! i should demand better treatment from now on.

[PointOfViewGun]

Looks like we can conclusively classify this thread and it's opening post content as fake news. It took only 3 pages.

[Diamat]

I'm an (legal) immigrant in the United States. I have a German accent when speaking. I have never let these facts hinder my career or blame my identity for failure to achieve something. A natural citizen of the United States doesn't have more privilege than me. The only ones who have privilege are non-white immigrants. When I went to university, I couldn't get many of the scholarships other immigrants could get, even though my situation was the same. Why? Because I was white and male. European immigrants have a much harder time than non-Europeans, yet Europeans don't complain.

[PointOfViewGun]

I'm an (legal) immigrant in the United States. I have a German accent when speaking. I have never let these facts hinder my career or blame my identity for failure to achieve something. A natural citizen of the United States doesn't have more privilege than me. The only ones who have privilege are non-white immigrants. When I went to university, I couldn't get many of the scholarships other immigrants could get, even though my situation was the same. Why? Because I was white and male. European immigrants have a much harder time than non-Europeans, yet Europeans don't complain.

Ah, personal anecdote, very convincing... except it doesn't ring true with reality. Practically any statistics I could find online points out that white people get most of the scholarships. If you didn't get a scholarship as a white immigrant it likely had other reasons.

[Diamat]

Ah, personal anecdote, very convincing... except it doesn't ring true with reality. Practically any statistics I could find online points out that white people get most of the scholarships. If you didn't get a scholarship as a white immigrant it likely had other reasons.

Maybe white people as a whole, but you have to factor in immigration (i.e., white immigration). If it still says that white immigrants are eligible for more funding than non-white immigrants, then please provide the data.

[PointOfViewGun]

Maybe white people as a whole, but you have to factor in immigration (i.e., white immigration). If it still says that white immigrants are eligible for more funding than non-white immigrants, then please provide the data.

Before I bother checking for it, I wanna make sure, you want me to provide refuting evidence to a claim you made that was purely based on anecdotal data, true?

[Aexodus]

Before I bother checking for it, I wanna make sure, you want me to provide refuting evidence to a claim you made that was purely based on anecdotal data, true?

Is there or is there not affirmative action for non-whites in US Universities?

Does this not mean black immigrants will be treated better than white immigrants in Universities in terms of finding a placement?

I can’t find the link, but me as a Norn Irishman would be more eligible for some jobs in England because I am a ‘minority’.

There’s anglo privilege for ya . In fact, there isn’t a single Northern Irishman on non-local BBC television. I claim institutional racism against Ulster Irish for lack of media representation lol

You're basically objecting to it because a scholarship that targets groups that don't have the same kind of resources as you do exist.

You don’t know that. As in, you don’t know he has more resources than a non-white competitor.

Do all Germans have more resources to get into University than all non-Euro people?

[conon394]

https://www.npr.org/templates/story/...ryId=134623124

On the immigration thing what is the time line if you not a legalized citizen when to applied not getting aid is often par for the course as Universities look to balance the books with full paying foreign students. Interesting point is there just aren't many merit based scholarships around. Aid is more subtle. When I got my MA at Iowa State I did not get a scholarship, but a waiver of out of state Tuition a top flight RA job that paid a decent salary all year and access to the states subsidized student loan system if I wanted and free bare bones dorm living. The free ride scholarship is kinda of a myth outside of sports, I got a 300 dollar a year stipend for books and supplies or class fees from a scholarship I was pretty happy. And as the article said it was specific it was set up a somebody who had though academic books were too expensive and you had to be in the UAW or have family in the UAW and be a Michigan resident attending a public university in Michigan.

I have no ideal what your income or family income was but might be mistaking need based scholarships for merit. Are you thinking of things like Pell Grants that your family income/wealth that may excluded you? However this intresting read

https://webcache.googleusercontent.c...&ct=clnk&gl=us

US formulas kinda punish the poor and lower middle class in many cases

Personally another aspect is people often forget sure coming out of HS maybe (if you have one) your guidance councilor might have did leg work for you and the University will have an offer. But I know both my wife and I kinda forgot you can keep applying for merit bases scholarships. Its work and a pain and just pulling the arm of the student loan machine can seem easier. Worked for my brother in law. in graduate school he was methodical made himself a state resident and joined whatever group or interest he needed to do to keep racking small to medium sized grants and scholarships.

[Diamat]

Before I bother checking for it, I wanna make sure, you want me to provide refuting evidence to a claim you made that was purely based on anecdotal data, true?

Sure, if you can refute my anecdotal evidence about white immigrants. Maybe I was mistaken to think that there were a bunch of scholarships for non-white races for which I wasn't eligible to apply, while all non-white people were able to apply for all white-people scholarships (which don't even exist as a concept). Can you even imagine the fallout if there was a scholarship only for white people, or better yet, male white people?

https://www.npr.org/templates/story/...ryId=134623124

On the immigration thing what is the time line if you not a legalized citizen when to applied not getting aid is often par for the course as Universities look to balance the books with full paying foreign students. Interesting point is there just aren't many merit based scholarships around. Aid is more subtle. When I got my MA at Iowa State I did not get a scholarship, but a waiver of out of state Tuition a top flight RA job that paid a decent salary all year and access to the states subsidized student loan system if I wanted and free bare bones dorm living. The free ride scholarship is kinda of a myth outside of sports, I got a 300 dollar a year stipend for books and supplies or class fees from a scholarship I was pretty happy. And as the article said it was specific it was set up a somebody who had though academic books were too expensive and you had to be in the UAW or have family in the UAW and be a Michigan resident attending a public university in Michigan.

I have no ideal what your income or family income was but might be mistaking need based scholarships for merit. Are you thinking of things like Pell Grants that your family income/wealth that may excluded you? However this intresting read

https://webcache.googleusercontent.c...&ct=clnk&gl=us

US formulas kinda punish the poor and lower middle class in many cases

Personally another aspect is people often forget sure coming out of HS maybe (if you have one) your guidance councilor might have did leg work for you and the University will have an offer. But I know both my wife and I kinda forgot you can keep applying for merit bases scholarships. Its work and a pain and just pulling the arm of the student loan machine can seem easier. Worked for my brother in law. in graduate school he was methodical made himself a state resident and joined whatever group or interest he needed to do to keep racking small to medium sized grants and scholarships.

I gotta tell you honestly, it's pretty hard for 1st generation immigrants. We don't understand the system. We have to figure it all out as we go. My mother had no idea about the system, so it was basically up to me to figure it out, much too late in most cases. Anyway, I'm not really complaining, because now I have a PhD from an elite Uni in the US. But this was all by my own effort, not because the government gave me free things. And I'm paying back a bunch of loans even though I don't live in the US anymore. I feel like I owe it to this country. They provided me with a great education, so I want to return the favor. Given my experience, I really do feel that non-white immigrants are treated like this rare species that needs protection so that it doesn't go extinct. It is one of the most pathetic components of the American system.

[Prodromos]

Oh we're gonna do it this way?

Jesus gives a very easy way for those who are born with or acquire wealth to become as "privileged" as those who are born poor: Sell all your possessions and give all your money to the poor.

I assume you have done this yourself?

I think you missed the most important part:

26 Those who heard this asked, “Who then can be saved?”

27 Jesus replied, “What is impossible with man is possible with God.”

While virginity and poverty are the highest state of perfection, not all are called or able to reach such a great degree of perfection. The perfection attainable in this life is for the few. It's good to have a spouse and be wealthy, but it is better to be poor and virgin. Those who can live like this, should, but those who can't, should ensure their desires aren't sated in an evil manner. So virginity and poverty aren't necessary to inherit eternal life, but chastity and charity are.

You can be rich and holy, as long as the pursuit of wealth isn't taken to the point of idolatry, where your material wealth becomes your treasure and object of reverence. Indeed after a certain point of wealth, this may be harder than for a camel to go through the eye of a needle. It would be wise to dedicate one's excess wealth to charity, which can take many forms in modern times, not only direct distribution to the poor. But what the point of excess is, it would probably vary from individual to individual, and situation to situation. But keep in mind, the vast majority of the Western poor today are fairly rich, and relative poverty is not poverty.

Poor people are spared from many of the evil temptations that accompany wealth, and so they are indeed privileged in this respect. But every person has different temptations. A rich man may be susceptible to greed, but he may very well be immune to sexual immorality. In much the same way a poor man may be immune to greed, but he may be susceptible to any number of other sins. Every person is advantaged in some respects and disadvantaged in others. A rich man who's unable to resist the evil temptations that come with wealth, he'd do well to abandon his wealth and live in poverty, if it would prevent him from sinning and going to Hell.

Matthew 6:24 “No one can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and money.

Matthew 6:19 “Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moths and vermin destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. 20 But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moths and vermin do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal. 21 For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.

Matthew 5:27 You have heard that it was said, ‘Do not commit adultery.’e 28But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman to lust after her has already committed adultery with her in his heart. 29If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. 30And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to depart into hell.

(not literal)

32 I would like you to be free from concern. An unmarried man is concerned about the Lord’s affairs—how he can please the Lord. 33 But a married man is concerned about the affairs of this world—how he can please his wife— 34 and his interests are divided. An unmarried woman or virgin is concerned about the Lord’s affairs: Her aim is to be devoted to the Lord in both body and spirit. But a married woman is concerned about the affairs of this world—how she can please her husband. 35 I am saying this for your own good, not to restrict you, but that you may live in a right way in undivided devotion to the Lord.

36 If anyone is worried that he might not be acting honorably toward the virgin he is engaged to, and if his passions are too strong and he feels he ought to marry, he should do as he wants. He is not sinning. They should get married. 37 But the man who has settled the matter in his own mind, who is under no compulsion but has control over his own will, and who has made up his mind not to marry the virgin—this man also does the right thing. 38 So then, he who marries the virgin does right, but he who does not marry her does better.

[the_mango55]

I think you missed the most important part:



While virginity and poverty are the highest state of perfection, not all are called or able to reach such a great degree of perfection. The perfection attainable in this life is for the few. It's good to have a spouse and be wealthy, but it is better to be poor and virgin. Those who can live like this, should, but those who can't, should ensure their desires aren't sated in an evil manner. So virginity and poverty aren't necessary to inherit eternal life, but chastity and charity are.

You can be rich and holy, as long as the pursuit of wealth isn't taken to the point of idolatry, where your material wealth becomes your treasure and object of reverence. Indeed after a certain point of wealth, this may be harder than for a camel to go through the eye of a needle. It would be wise to dedicate one's excess wealth to charity, which can take many forms in modern times, not only direct distribution to the poor. But what the point of excess is, it would probably vary from individual to individual, and situation to situation. But keep in mind, the vast majority of the Western poor today are fairly rich, and relative poverty is not poverty.

Poor people are spared from many of the evil temptations that accompany wealth, and so they are indeed privileged in this respect. But every person has different temptations. A rich man may be susceptible to greed, but he may very well be immune to sexual immorality. In much the same way a poor man may be immune to greed, but he may be susceptible to any number of other sins. Every person is advantaged in some respects and disadvantaged in others. A rich man who's unable to resist the evil temptations that come with wealth, he'd do well to abandon his wealth and live in poverty, if it would prevent him from sinning and going to Hell.

(not literal)

Disingenuous garbage.

"We should keep poor people poor because it's better for their soul and we know what's best for them, rich people will make the sacrifice because someone has to, we can't all be so lucky as the poor and oppressed"

This is one of worst things I've ever heard from someone who claims to be religious.

Furthermore, the part you claimed was "most important" supports my argument over yours.

[Harith]

This is one of most disgusting things I've ever heard from someone who claims to be religious.

It's reactionary propaganda that the church used, quite successfully for a while, to convince the serfs that they are better as slaves than free dignified human beings.

We have this nonsense by muslim clerics too particularly in the Gulf, Iraq and Iran where the clerical body enjoys a degree of privilege. It's disgusting and deeply immoral especially when they tell this nonsense to parents who just buried their terminally ill child because they couldn't afford medicine or basic necessities of life.