Yes. Free college would be a good start. Stopping over policing of black/brown neighborhoods would be another. Basically anything that actively seeks to break the cycle started with slavery and continued through Jim Crow. Occupying black/brown neighborhoods and using jay walking as a pretext to throw as many in jail as possible needs to stop - immediately.
Right. Fucking. There. Let me guess, you are a white male tired of people bringing up diversity? Or maybe you have forgotten about the special status given to minorities that brings us to todays topic? If enough was done, we wouldn't be having this conversation. As if "whitey" hasn't been shaking down different groups over the years.
It's clear that the diversiteers doesn't ever intend to define what constitutes "doing enough", and why would they? We keep falling for it.
As for whitey shaking down other groups, so what? That's how the world works... shake or be shaken. I realize this is a topic that brings out a lot of emotions and moralizing in people, but it really is that simple...
People aren't robots so meritocracy is a pipe dream. Everyone has biases (just different ones). And if that's how the world works, then why the criticism of "whitey" being shaken down?
Your post smacks of "don't hate the player, hate the game" kind of reasoning. Another word for this is "Supremacy" or "Entitlement". A black candidate doesn't get the job so maybe he or she isn't qualified, but as soon as the tables are turned for a white candidate, then all hell breaks loose.
In an ideal setting, the best candidate gets the job. But who is the best candidate? The black guy who doesn't live in the bay area, with no formal education but had to self teach himself programming because he couldn't afford to go to school?
Or the recent Stanford grad that is more likely a culture fit (looks and sounds like the interviewer) with the grades but not the real world experience (yet)?
> And if that's how the world works, then why the criticism of "whitey" being shaken down?
I'm not criticizing it per se. I'm trying to describe Diversity Inc. as a much simpler phenomenon than it's being made out to be. It's a battle between two groups with a conflict of interests, and one of those groups isn't even taking its own side in the fight. It sounds simplistic, but without an understanding of the basic political dynamics at work, there's not much use bickering over the details.
As for who is the "best" candidate for a given role, I didn't comment on that, but human interactions and group dynamics are highly complex phenomena. The problem as you described it may turn out to be unsolvable. This raises the question of who exactly benefits from these futile attempts to solve it. See above.
Considering when the "shakedown" laws were written the power structure was exclusively white I disagree with your premise. White men shaking down "whitey" to no benefit of the lawmakers doesn't really hold water. Try again.
