|
Grex > Diversity > #11: Whittier College Republicans to hold "Affirmative Action Bake Sale" |  |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 217 responses total. |
scott
|
|
response 187 of 217:
| 
Mar 6 18:03 UTC 2003 |
Well, that settles it. We be can confident that corporate officials would
never lie about such things, after all.
|
johnnie
|
|
response 188 of 217:
|
Mar 6 19:02 UTC 2003 |
Also from klg's link (left out purely by accident, I'm sure):
-----
The suits...describe an agreement where lenders encourage car dealers to
inflate the interest rate beyond the risk-related rate when they think a
customer will pay it.
The lenders acknowledge they share commissions with car dealers, but
deny inflating the rates based on race.
As for the markup policy, officials with both companies say it is a
standard way to compensate the dealer for arranging the loan.
"The plaintiffs call it a markup. ... We call it a commission," said
Anne Fortney, an NMAC attorney. "The dealer is performing a
service for the creditor and the consumer. ... If it weren't for this
arrangement, we would have to have a loan officer at every
single dealership."
----
So, while "both companies have zero-tolerance policies against
discrimination", and "the lenders are never informed of the
customer's race when a loan application is submitted through a car
dealer", the dealer (who quite obviously is aware of the race of the
buyer) seems to be the one setting the markup/commission.
Hard to believe such a foolproof system could ever break down.
Here's my favorite part: "GMAC's Farmer said it is 'an industry
practice, and it's not illegal. We assume when we go to a store and buy
something that it's marked up.'
"Not illegal"--I like that; it's a wonderful rationale for all sorts of
moral transgressions. And somebody should inform Mr Farmer that when we
go to a store we do indeed assume items are marked up, but we assume
they are *not* marked up based on the buyer's race.
|
klg
|
|
response 189 of 217:
|
Mar 6 20:38 UTC 2003 |
The question that was raised was whether certain individuals (who
suffered no personal harm) will automatically qualify for beneficial
treatment solely based on race. You may attempt to weasel around all
you wish, but despite your attempts at distraction, my case has been
proved.
|
gull
|
|
response 190 of 217:
|
Mar 6 21:30 UTC 2003 |
Re #189: Your quotes still don't say that, though. All they say is that the
companies claim not to have been discriminating, which is exactly what I'd
expect them to say. They don't say anything about giving minorities a
preferred rate.
|
johnnie
|
|
response 191 of 217:
|
Mar 7 02:17 UTC 2003 |
Actually, the settlement does call for Nissan to provide "no markup"
financing (and a markup [aka "commission to the salesman who steered the
buyer to Nissan's financing arm instead of a bank"] of some amount is
the normal procedure) to 675,000 future minority-type automobile buyers.
Us oppressed white folk who go to finance a Nissan will still have to
pay whatever the usual markup is.
Of course, they're only doing this to attone for screwing over
godknowshowmany folks in the first place, but I gather klg doesn't
figure that into the fairness equation.
|
russ
|
|
response 192 of 217:
|
Mar 7 03:40 UTC 2003 |
Re #188: It's true that there's nothing (theoretically) wrong
with pricing any good (including a loan) at what the market will
bear, and customers for car loans are different just as air
travellers are different. So long as there is no bait-and-switch
or other unfair practices, it's within the law.
But everything within the law isn't right. If the dealerships (which
were acting as agents for GMAC in this situation, if I read everything
right) were pushing loan-rate premiums at minority buyers more than
others, they were discriminating. By the time someone has gone to
the trouble of choosing a vehicle and filling out all the paperwork,
they have a substantial investment in the process. To abandon that
investment and go to a different dealer (or even choose a different
brand) costs them, especially if they have no more time for car-
shopping.
There have been enough stories in the news of late about loan fraud
that we should be very suspicious of any activity like this where
the rate to be charged is not made clear at the outset. I doubt
very much that this was the case. This should probably be stopped,
because it is too close to sharp practices.
|
klg
|
|
response 193 of 217:
|
Mar 7 17:22 UTC 2003 |
The question of whether the company may have been discriminating has
nothing to do with my point. My concern is with how the "remedy" is
being applied.
|
scott
|
|
response 194 of 217:
|
Mar 7 17:31 UTC 2003 |
for you, relevance of past history is apparently only important when it
supports your arguments. Like in the Iraq items where you gleefully talk
about all the things Saddam Hussein has done in the past?
|
klg
|
|
response 195 of 217:
|
Mar 7 18:04 UTC 2003 |
Another weapon of mass distraction?
I am not taking issue with the fact that a penalty is being applied. I
am taking issue with the "affirmative action" nature of it, whereby it
is not being directed to benefit those who MIGHT suffered harm, but to
a group of people based only on their race.
I am not taking issue with the fact that a penalty is being applied. I
am taking issue with the "affirmative action" nature of it, whereby it
is not being directed to benefit those who MIGHT have suffered harm,
but to a group of people based only on their race.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 196 of 217:
|
Mar 7 18:20 UTC 2003 |
The opposition to affirmative action always strikes me as a ruse by
racists to hold back minorities. The racists have mostly lost the formal
legal battles concerning voting, accomodations, access, etc, but they
realize that by opposing affirmative action they are opposing the final
stages of integration, where it is subtle discrimination that still
limits minority equal access to leadership levels of society. They
never come up with any solutions to the remaining problems of racial
discrimination - they just want to declare that if everyone is EQUAL they
should get equal treatment in everything, conveniently forgetting that
in fact, in the everyday operations of society, everyone is NOT equal
because of racism.
|
jazz
|
|
response 197 of 217:
|
Mar 7 18:25 UTC 2003 |
It's more often an emotional issue.
First of all, the pro-affirmative-action side has to admit that
affirmative action is discrimination on the basis of race. It may be
discrimination with the goal of counteracting racist discrimination, but it
is discrimination.
Then imagine the feelings of someone who's denied a position, or a
college admission, because someone who technically lost to them by whatever
criteria are used for judgement is of a different race.
Whether it's for the public good or not, it still doesn't feel good.
|
jep
|
|
response 198 of 217:
|
Mar 7 19:28 UTC 2003 |
re resp:196: Strange... I think every affirmative action proponent is a
racist who thinks people of "lesser races" can't get along without
special help. It seems to me that every one of them is trying to
compensate for his discomfort about other races by giving them money
and hoping they'll go away. It's an obvious ploy but doomed to failure.
Oh, wait. I just remembered not everyone with whom I disagree can be
lumped together into a single homogenous group which can be
labeled "Those Who Are Wrong", and that my opinions aren't universal
laws of nature.
|
klg
|
|
response 199 of 217:
|
Mar 7 20:16 UTC 2003 |
Some people believe the Constitution means what is says.
Others say it means what they believe.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 200 of 217:
|
Mar 7 20:52 UTC 2003 |
The Constitution says that everyone is equal, but in fact everyone is not
equal in several respects resulting from continuing racial discrimination.
How do you plan to square that with the Constitution?
|
mcnally
|
|
response 201 of 217:
|
Mar 7 20:58 UTC 2003 |
And many insist that it means what it says when what it says agrees with
their interpretation and then claim it means something else when it's not
so convenient to read it literally.
|
other
|
|
response 202 of 217:
|
Mar 8 00:18 UTC 2003 |
Affirmative action is a less-than-perfect way to address real concerns in
a less-than-perfect society. There are those who argue that it should be
dispensed with because it is unfair, and there are those who support it
because it redresses other unfairnesses. They're ALL right, to some
extent, so what we're left with is a COMPROMISE.
Compromise in context of intractable differences in philosophy is the
only means of progress. Get used to it.
|
jep
|
|
response 203 of 217:
|
Mar 8 00:30 UTC 2003 |
I don't believe there is one person in the country who believes in the
strictest, most literal, restrictive possible interpretation of the
Constitution for every possible situation which can come up. Not as a
guide to running the government. If there is such a person, I'm sure
he's institutionalized somewhere.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 204 of 217:
|
Mar 8 00:54 UTC 2003 |
re #200: how about if you show us the part of the Constitution that
"says that everyone is equal" first, before we waste time discussing
this?
|
drew
|
|
response 205 of 217:
|
Mar 8 01:11 UTC 2003 |
Re #196:
I oppose Affirmative Action and I have stated a solution to the problem
of discrimination based on race: deny the decision makers knowledge of what
race any applicant is.
Re #200: Where, exactly, *does* the Constitution say that "everyone is equal"?
|
lowclass
|
|
response 206 of 217:
|
Mar 8 01:27 UTC 2003 |
Amazingly enough, I find I aggree with Rcurls response 196.
/emote is led away laughing manically
|
johnnie
|
|
response 207 of 217:
|
Mar 8 01:48 UTC 2003 |
>I have stated a solution to the problem of discrimination based on
>race: deny the decision makers knowledge of what
>race any applicant is.
That my be do-able in college admissions, but almost impossible in
practice for most other situations (applying for housing, say, or a
job).
Opponents of affirmative action could make a lot more headway if they
were as vigorous in their promotion of all anti-discrimination policies,
and not just those that hold down the white man.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 208 of 217:
|
Mar 8 05:15 UTC 2003 |
None of the opponents of affirmative action here have put forward a
practical way to eliminate racial descrimination in our society. More
important, perhaps, they haven't even expressed any sympathy for the
problem.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 209 of 217:
|
Mar 8 07:45 UTC 2003 |
And why is it necessary for them to do so?
|
rcurl
|
|
response 210 of 217:
|
Mar 9 01:25 UTC 2003 |
Because there is a problem to be solved that they are ignoring in
promoting their objective. This makes it look very much like they
have an ulterior motive. Why all this stress on a minor problem in the
face of the much greater problem?
|
russ
|
|
response 211 of 217:
|
Mar 10 00:57 UTC 2003 |
Re #210: Perhaps they believe that the means being used to correct
the problem are worse than the problem, or the government is not
entitled to use such means under the Fourteenth Amendment.
The Constitution isn't worth much if the government can ignore it.
|