...You raise interesting points... Look at the new CFO as an example.
Luca Maestri: over 25 years of experience
CFO of Xerox
CFO Nokia Siemens Networks
CFO European Operations General Motors.
Bachelor's in economics: Luiss University in Rome in 1988
Master's of science: Boston University in 1991
Board member of The Principal Financial Group.
How many minorities were making it through Bachelor's and Master's programs at this time? We are talking about people who were born in the late 1960's. You can imagine the challenges facing minorities at this time... As a side note, I work in tech and we have a pretty diverse workforce. However, the people will real ambition trying to get to upper management are almost all white and mostly male. This is not the people that have made it, but the people that are hell bent on getting there and working hard to make it happen. Just seems like everyone else is working hard to make a life and going for a grade increase or salary bump, but not the strong push upwards into director/VP/SVP territory.
Thank you, Phone-UI-Guy. A well reasoned, convincing point you've made – that, for me, presents a true path to minority success, albeit in a generation.
I'll see if I can find the source material for the story about a school that requires all (or most) students to take a programming class in the 6th grade. Technology dependance is already here (especially with the Millennial Generation on down) – at least dip your toe in test the programming waters.
I'm an artist and as a college kid 30 years ago, I took a course in Basic (0 to 60 in one semester). A Sherlock Holmes – if/then exercise, etc. from what I remember. I didn't have any interest in learning Pascal, Fortran or other languages. I was fascinated by "programming logic". I took a law class, as well, and was surprised to see the parallels in logic there. As I said, I'm an artist (that was raised on the Mac) but to this day, feel I've benefited from this exposure.
Well I think we should have a WET awards and TV station. I mean it's only fair right?
The BET is the perfect example of "hey we don't practice what we preach."
Did you really just say that..?! Spartan....ever since blacks were allowed any hope of an opportunity not so long ago all of our racist citizens would say things like they need to get their own....but when blacks took that advice the racists didn't allow that either ( google Black Wall Street ). Now here you are using BET as an example of blacks demonstrating some form of reverse racism....that's so weak. Every other minority has their own tv station...Spanish, Chinese, Japanese, Korean etc...So what you are implying is that blacks can't have their own station promoting themselves...? While everyone else can..? WOW..?! And we do have several WET stations they're called ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX etc...not to mention cable. Now I'm not a fan of Jesse Jackson or his methods, but I do think that corporations have and obligation to reinvest in all underprivileged areas black, white, Hispanic etc...in the form of prep schools / tech programs that will prepare underprivileged youths who have an interest in that field...and the gov't can give corporations huge tax breaks and incentives for doing so...this way everyone benefits. It won't solve all the problems that hundreds of years of racism and class separation has helped cause but it is a step in the right direction.
Did you really just say that..?! Spartan....ever since blacks were allowed any hope of an opportunity not so long ago all of our racist citizens would say things like they need to get their own....but when blacks took that advice the racists didn't allow that either ( google Black Wall Street ). Now here you are using BET as an example of blacks demonstrating some form of reverse racism....that's so weak. Every other minority has their own tv station...Spanish, Chinese, Japanese, Korean etc...So what you are implying is that blacks can't have their own station promoting themselves...? While everyone else can..? WOW..?! And we do have several WET stations they're called ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX etc...not to mention cable. Now I'm not a fan of Jesse Jackson or his methods, but I do think that corporations have and obligation to reinvest in all underprivileged areas black, white, Hispanic etc...in the form of prep schools / tech programs that will prepare underprivileged youths who have an interest in that field...and the gov't can give corporations huge tax breaks and incentives for doing so...this way everyone benefits. It won't solve all the problems that hundreds of years of racism and class separation has helped cause but it is a step in the right direction.
1) There is no such thing as reverse racism. There is just racism.
2) When one decides to exclude others from something one is choosing to adopt segregation. That is what he is talking about with WET, albeit in a horrible way. I don't think BET is aptly named to represent a culture of people that aren't being represented by the ABC, CBS, NBC, and FOX's you mention, but they certainly aren't excluding people that are identified or identify as "black" to be on those channels. That is why these aren't whites-only channels. even though, to this day, they might not have enough of the nation's TV watchers represented but I assure you it's not because they care about the color of their skin, but rather how much green they have in their wallet… which is part of a deeper, longer-term issue that needs to be resolved, but the solution going forward isn't segregation and countering unfairness with other unfairness.
PS: I use quotes around terms like "black" and "race" because as a man of science it's impossible for me to accept these terms except for communicating with others. It also means it's impossible for me to be racist. Why? Because as a man of science I accept evolution and DNA and I know that the difference between all people are genetically slight because the time from the first human to day is trivial with the age even the oldest creature on Earth. IOW, there is no such thing as races in biology. What the ignorant perceive as sweeping visual differences are merely based somewhat on some cultural and environment adaptations that allow for better survival as a species we can (and should) procreate without any issues without producing sterile offspring, which becomes the case before the separation can no longer create offspring as a species diverges. Those are just visual changes like the thickness of skin and quantity of melanin to help protect one from harmful ultra-violet light or Allen's Rule where in warm climates you want to dissipate heat over a larger surface area for a given volume as opposed to the opposite in a cold climate. The one area that there is absolute zero evidence of being better or worse than another so-called "race" is intelligence, morality, and every other part that makes up the human condition. We are one and the same species. I wish we all could accept that premise because the potential for greatness in man is much bigger when we include everyone.
1) There is no such thing as reverse racism. There is just racism.
2) When one decides to exclude others from something one is choosing to adopt segregation. That is what he is talking about with WET, albeit in a horrible way. I don't think BET is aptly named to represent a culture of people that aren't being represented by the ABC, CBS, NBC, and FOX's you mention, but they certainly aren't excluding people that are identified or identify as "black" to be on those channels. That is why these aren't whites-only channels. even though, to this day, they might not have enough of the nation's TV watchers represented but I assure you it's not because they care about the color of their skin, but rather how much green they have in their wallet… which is part of a deeper, longer-term issue that needs to be resolved, but the solution going forward isn't segregation and countering unfairness with other unfairness.
PS: I use quotes around terms like "black" and "race" because as a man of science it's impossible for me to accept these terms except for communicating with others. It also means it's impossible for me to be racist. Why? Because as a man of science I know that evolution and DNA and I know that the difference between all people are genetically slight because the time from the first human wasn't that long ago. IOW, there is no such thing as races in biology. What the ignorant perceive as sweeping visual differences are merely based somewhat on some cultural and environment adaptations that allow for better survival as a species we can (and should) procreate without any issues without producing sterile offspring, which becomes the case before the separation can no longer create offspring as a species diverges. Those are just visual changes like the thickness of skin and quantity of melanin to help protect one from harmful ultra-violet light or Allen's Rule where in warm climates you want to dissipate heat over a larger surface area for a given volume as opposed to the opposite in a cold climate. The one area that there is absolute zero evidence of being better or worse than another so-called "race" is intelligence, morality, and every other part that makes up the human condition. We are one and the same species. I wish accepted that because there the potential for greatness in man is much bigger when we include everyone.
Explain to me how a minority group having their own tv station is unfair to Euro-Americans the majority of the US population that has several stations of which to choose. Do you know first hand if their hiring practices are discriminatory? Maybe minorities want to tell their own story or project a certain image of themselves what is wrong with that...? Is any Euro-American truly affected by this.....hardly not.
Explain to me how a minority group having their own tv station is unfair to Euro-Americans the majority of the US population that has several stations of which to choose. Do you know first hand if their hiring practices are discriminatory? Maybe minorities want to tell their own story or project a certain image of themselves what is wrong with that...? Is any Euro-American truly affected by this.....hardly not.
Why can't anyone sell their story to any other network? I don't think bigfoot believers are in the majority and it's certainly not an animal but Animal Planet has paid for that crap to be made. What stations have backed Oprah Winfrey or George Lopez's new show? It's not BET, and LET (Latino Entertainment Television), respectively. They are supported by major networks because they feel they can make money off their viewership so I'm not understanding you're premise that these "minorities" need to be allowed corrective discrimination and segregation in order to be succeed. It sounds like you're diminishing the potential of humans by trying to categorize them based on some superficial aspect of their appearance.
That said, I never said I have a problem with BET as there are clear cultural reasons for its existence even those the name of the network implies it's not a culturally based, but racially based, existence. I also stated that you can't have a long-term solution where you fight racism by being racist as it will inevitably bring about a new generation of racists who either a) believe they have a right something because of the color of their skin, or b) feel diminished because of the color of their skin. It saddens me that anyone would want to promote either of those two things.
Anyone can sell their story to any other network and they have......most minorities have sold their stories to the main stream major networks......but for every story that is sold to a major network several others are rejected....and this is where a minority owned network comes into play.....to pick up and create those shows and stories the major networks reject.....now I ask you again...why is that so wrong? Because the majority of the actors happen to be minorities? If that bothers European-Americans so much then do what minorities have done with the major networks....protest and lobby for more European-American representation on minority stations.
Anyone can sell their story to any other network and they have......most minorities have sold their stories to the main stream major networks......but for every story that is sold to a major network several others are
rejected....and this is where a minority owned network comes into play.....to pick up and create those shows and stories the major networks reject.....now I ask you again...why is that so wrong? Because the majority of the actors happen to be minorities? If that bothers European-Americans so much then do what minorities have done with the major networks....protest and lobby for more European-American representation on minority stations.
You're not opening your eyes up to see the bigger, longer-term issues at play and I don't really feel like repeating what I've already stated so I'll leave you with this video from an anthropologist about cranial types. Note that even abolitionists were advocating for the release of slaves and using this unscientific, racial book as an argument that it would be fine to release the slaves because their small cranial capacity is proof they will not revolt because they are easily tamed. Your argument in this thread is that this is OK because it's offering a short-term goal even though the long-term goal is the perpetuating of unfairness, segregation, and a statement that people of different skin color should not be treated equally within a society. You may never accept it, but you're wrong.
Yes we know what needs to be done but how to go about it. I read a article in the NYT titled 'a tale of 2 schools', both public schools and both received the same funding from the state. One was on the Upper East Side of Manhattan that the children of rich parents attended, and a school in a bad part of Brooklyn.
The parents of the UES school held fund raisers and were able to provide their school with the same resources as the best private schools meanwhile the school in Brooklyn had bake sales and we're only able to raise a few hundred dollars. So how can we fix that inequality?
The inequality is not money as we spend more per child then we ever have. The further back in history you go, the less was spent on education, and the more educated people were.
What we took out of education: Morality, Discipline, Social Statues. This coupled with broken homes and a government that will coddle you even when you fail has added to this decline, not the lack of money spent.
Back before the 70's, the Bible was an acceptable means of teaching in most schools. The teaching of social statues such as it is your obligation to add to society, to take care of your family, etc.. Moral absolutes and not just do what you want as long as it feels good. Discipline such as 'those that don't work, don't eat' all attribute to ones need to succeed in life. Succeed as in, get a good job, work hard, save money, pass on good values to your children. All that is eroded now, in the school.
At home, if these values are not taught, once again, you have failure. In the affluent areas, I'm sure these values are taught. In the poor neighborhood the mother (normally the only parent) is working or not involved as much with the child. On the other hand with Dr. Ben Carson his mother was involved and forced her boys to be educated even though she could not read herself.
I do think schools should have the best technology, teachers that are highly skilled, and a firm basis on what life really is. I also think bureaucracy 'steals' the needed funds from schools.
All this to say, there are many more important factors that need to be effectuated than the 'just throw more money' at it political solutions.
While I agree the best should be hired - The issue is 'who' is doing the hiring. I have had the opportunity of working throughout Silicon Valley and there is a sense that persons outside the Asian or Caucasian group are not deemed as 'qualified'. Then there is the criteria of graduating from a 'reputable' university or college. Hence the result, you get the same cookie-cut outs all from the same basket. I know plenty of Blacks and Hispanics that do software development and are in the technical field - however they have no desire or have a reluctance to apply to these companies. Just look at the show 'Big Bang Theory'. These people are branded as being intelligent. So when the others apply there is a sense that 'hiring' person(s) will look at these individuals with a different crucible or scrutiny then the other cookie cut outs - Why? Because these individuals are outside the normal box.
Google's HR person was interviewed a while back and remarked about one year they high fived all around for their hiring of 50% of the African American with an I.T. PhD awarded that year.
Comments
...You raise interesting points... Look at the new CFO as an example.
Luca Maestri: over 25 years of experience
CFO of Xerox
CFO Nokia Siemens Networks
CFO European Operations General Motors.
Bachelor's in economics: Luiss University in Rome in 1988
Master's of science: Boston University in 1991
Board member of The Principal Financial Group.
How many minorities were making it through Bachelor's and Master's programs at this time? We are talking about people who were born in the late 1960's. You can imagine the challenges facing minorities at this time... As a side note, I work in tech and we have a pretty diverse workforce. However, the people will real ambition trying to get to upper management are almost all white and mostly male. This is not the people that have made it, but the people that are hell bent on getting there and working hard to make it happen. Just seems like everyone else is working hard to make a life and going for a grade increase or salary bump, but not the strong push upwards into director/VP/SVP territory.
Thank you, Phone-UI-Guy. A well reasoned, convincing point you've made – that, for me, presents a true path to minority success, albeit in a generation.
I'll see if I can find the source material for the story about a school that requires all (or most) students to take a programming class in the 6th grade. Technology dependance is already here (especially with the Millennial Generation on down) – at least dip your toe in test the programming waters.
I'm an artist and as a college kid 30 years ago, I took a course in Basic (0 to 60 in one semester). A Sherlock Holmes – if/then exercise, etc. from what I remember. I didn't have any interest in learning Pascal, Fortran or other languages. I was fascinated by "programming logic". I took a law class, as well, and was surprised to see the parallels in logic there. As I said, I'm an artist (that was raised on the Mac) but to this day, feel I've benefited from this exposure.
1) There is no such thing as reverse racism. There is just racism.
2) When one decides to exclude others from something one is choosing to adopt segregation. That is what he is talking about with WET, albeit in a horrible way. I don't think BET is aptly named to represent a culture of people that aren't being represented by the ABC, CBS, NBC, and FOX's you mention, but they certainly aren't excluding people that are identified or identify as "black" to be on those channels. That is why these aren't whites-only channels. even though, to this day, they might not have enough of the nation's TV watchers represented but I assure you it's not because they care about the color of their skin, but rather how much green they have in their wallet… which is part of a deeper, longer-term issue that needs to be resolved, but the solution going forward isn't segregation and countering unfairness with other unfairness.
PS: I use quotes around terms like "black" and "race" because as a man of science it's impossible for me to accept these terms except for communicating with others. It also means it's impossible for me to be racist. Why? Because as a man of science I accept evolution and DNA and I know that the difference between all people are genetically slight because the time from the first human to day is trivial with the age even the oldest creature on Earth. IOW, there is no such thing as races in biology. What the ignorant perceive as sweeping visual differences are merely based somewhat on some cultural and environment adaptations that allow for better survival as a species we can (and should) procreate without any issues without producing sterile offspring, which becomes the case before the separation can no longer create offspring as a species diverges. Those are just visual changes like the thickness of skin and quantity of melanin to help protect one from harmful ultra-violet light or Allen's Rule where in warm climates you want to dissipate heat over a larger surface area for a given volume as opposed to the opposite in a cold climate. The one area that there is absolute zero evidence of being better or worse than another so-called "race" is intelligence, morality, and every other part that makes up the human condition. We are one and the same species. I wish we all could accept that premise because the potential for greatness in man is much bigger when we include everyone.
Why can't anyone sell their story to any other network? I don't think bigfoot believers are in the majority and it's certainly not an animal but Animal Planet has paid for that crap to be made. What stations have backed Oprah Winfrey or George Lopez's new show? It's not BET, and LET (Latino Entertainment Television), respectively. They are supported by major networks because they feel they can make money off their viewership so I'm not understanding you're premise that these "minorities" need to be allowed corrective discrimination and segregation in order to be succeed. It sounds like you're diminishing the potential of humans by trying to categorize them based on some superficial aspect of their appearance.
That said, I never said I have a problem with BET as there are clear cultural reasons for its existence even those the name of the network implies it's not a culturally based, but racially based, existence. I also stated that you can't have a long-term solution where you fight racism by being racist as it will inevitably bring about a new generation of racists who either a) believe they have a right something because of the color of their skin, or b) feel diminished because of the color of their skin. It saddens me that anyone would want to promote either of those two things.
rejected....and this is where a minority owned network comes into play.....to pick up and create those shows and stories the major networks reject.....now I ask you again...why is that so wrong? Because the majority of the actors happen to be minorities? If that bothers European-Americans so much then do what minorities have done with the major networks....protest and lobby for more European-American representation on minority stations.
You're not opening your eyes up to see the bigger, longer-term issues at play and I don't really feel like repeating what I've already stated so I'll leave you with this video from an anthropologist about cranial types. Note that even abolitionists were advocating for the release of slaves and using this unscientific, racial book as an argument that it would be fine to release the slaves because their small cranial capacity is proof they will not revolt because they are easily tamed. Your argument in this thread is that this is OK because it's offering a short-term goal even though the long-term goal is the perpetuating of unfairness, segregation, and a statement that people of different skin color should not be treated equally within a society. You may never accept it, but you're wrong.
[VIDEO]
Yes we know what needs to be done but how to go about it. I read a article in the NYT titled 'a tale of 2 schools', both public schools and both received the same funding from the state. One was on the Upper East Side of Manhattan that the children of rich parents attended, and a school in a bad part of Brooklyn.
The parents of the UES school held fund raisers and were able to provide their school with the same resources as the best private schools meanwhile the school in Brooklyn had bake sales and we're only able to raise a few hundred dollars. So how can we fix that inequality?
The inequality is not money as we spend more per child then we ever have. The further back in history you go, the less was spent on education, and the more educated people were.
What we took out of education: Morality, Discipline, Social Statues. This coupled with broken homes and a government that will coddle you even when you fail has added to this decline, not the lack of money spent.
Back before the 70's, the Bible was an acceptable means of teaching in most schools. The teaching of social statues such as it is your obligation to add to society, to take care of your family, etc.. Moral absolutes and not just do what you want as long as it feels good. Discipline such as 'those that don't work, don't eat' all attribute to ones need to succeed in life. Succeed as in, get a good job, work hard, save money, pass on good values to your children. All that is eroded now, in the school.
At home, if these values are not taught, once again, you have failure. In the affluent areas, I'm sure these values are taught. In the poor neighborhood the mother (normally the only parent) is working or not involved as much with the child. On the other hand with Dr. Ben Carson his mother was involved and forced her boys to be educated even though she could not read herself.
I do think schools should have the best technology, teachers that are highly skilled, and a firm basis on what life really is. I also think bureaucracy 'steals' the needed funds from schools.
All this to say, there are many more important factors that need to be effectuated than the 'just throw more money' at it political solutions.
Thanks for your reply.
While I agree the best should be hired - The issue is 'who' is doing the hiring. I have had the opportunity of working throughout Silicon Valley and there is a sense that persons outside the Asian or Caucasian group are not deemed as 'qualified'. Then there is the criteria of graduating from a 'reputable' university or college. Hence the result, you get the same cookie-cut outs all from the same basket. I know plenty of Blacks and Hispanics that do software development and are in the technical field - however they have no desire or have a reluctance to apply to these companies. Just look at the show 'Big Bang Theory'. These people are branded as being intelligent. So when the others apply there is a sense that 'hiring' person(s) will look at these individuals with a different crucible or scrutiny then the other cookie cut outs - Why? Because these individuals are outside the normal box.
Google's HR person was interviewed a while back and remarked about one year they high fived all around for their hiring of 50% of the African American with an I.T. PhD awarded that year.
Gwen Ifill correctly guessed:
One.
Can't hire what's not in the pipeline.