42 new of 217 responses total.
Affirmative Action Car Financing Does anybody know the details on a lawsuit that is supposedly resulting in reduced-rate loans on car purchases financed through Nissan, as long as you happen to be correctly pigmented?
No, but there was a recent lawsuit against (I think) GM dealers for refusing to finance people who didn't happen to be light-skinned.
NASHVILLE, Tenn. -- Nissan's financing arm has agreed to stop marking up loan rates offered to qualified minority buyers under a proposed settlement of a class-action federal discrimination lawsuit. The agreement, filed this week, seeks to settle a 1998 lawsuit by black and Hispanic car buyers from Tennessee and Florida who said Nissan Motor Acceptance Corp. charged them higher interest rates on car loans than whites with similar credit ratings. Under the settlement, NMAC agreed to institute a credit pre-approval program offering "no markup" rates to black and Hispanic buyers who have never declared bankruptcy or had cars repossessed. The company said it will make 675,000 such offers over five years. The "markup" is a percentage in addition to the minimum percentage rate at which NMAC approves credit. It usually is split between the dealer and NMAC. Studies prepared for the plaintiffs by researchers from Yale and Vanderbilt showed that rates for minorities could be 30 percent to 50 percent higher than what whites paid.
Boy, it sounds like those "correctly pigmented" minorities get *all* the breaks. Chalk up another astute call for vigilant egalitarian klg.
The usual standard of accuracy we expect from klg.
Au contraire, mon ami. It looks like I was entirely correctomundo. An affirmative action program - benefiting not those who were discriminated against, but those who happen to fit the racial profile. It's a private company, though, so if it WANTS to do it, who am I to say it's wrong? Unless, there was an "element" of coercion involved. Ya think there was?? Nah!! By the way, is there any information as to how "black and Hispanic" buyers are defined? What's the threshhold of being "black?" Is there a "blood test" or something?
Did I read the article wrong? I read it that they'd been adding a markup to minority loans, and that they were going to stop adding that markup.
Yes. They have been adding a markup, and they will continue to add a markup - only to whites.
jmsaul 2, klg 0.
Re #183: I don't see that in the article. Maybe you could provide another report that supports your interpretation?
With pleasure: http://www.oakridger.com/stories/102400/stt_1024000011.html "Nissan, GM Deny Discrimination in Loan Financing "NASHVILLE (AP) -- Companies that administer auto loans for Nissan and General Motors on Monday denied allegations in two class-action lawsuits that black car shoppers are charged higher rates than white shoppers. "Officials with Nissan Motors Acceptance Corp. and General Motors Acceptance Corp. said both companies have zero-tolerance policies against discrimination. They said the lenders are never informed of the customer's race when a loan application is submitted through a car dealer. And they argued that studies cited in the lawsuits to support the accusations are flawed. ". . . "An analyst for Nissan said the plaintiffs' study . . . didn't control for any other factor other than race," said Janet Thornton, who conducted NMAC's own statistical analysis. Thornton said that, when the data are analyzed based on credit characteristics, "we find no differences by race in the markup charge." . . . ." (Say, Russ - Have you ever served as a vote counter in Florida?)
Well, that settles it. We be can confident that corporate officials would never lie about such things, after all.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Some people believe the Constitution means what is says. Others say it means what they believe.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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?
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"?
Amazingly enough, I find I aggree with Rcurls response 196.
/emote is led away laughing manically
>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.
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.
And why is it necessary for them to do so?
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?
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.
only the people can force the gummint to stay within the boundries of the constitution - an informed/educated people, btw. teh ignorant will be oppressed, as usual.
Is Diversity Overrated? By STANLEY ROTHMAN March 29, 2003 NORTHAMPTON, Mass. The Supreme Court hears arguments next week in the cases that may determine whether racial and ethnic preferences in higher education admissions and hiring are preserved or discarded. Whatever it decides, the court should be skeptical of one of the most popular justifications for preferential treatment of minority applicants: that a diverse student body necessarily improves the quality of education for everyone. One of the most comprehensive studies ever undertaken of diversity in higher education indicates that this contention is at least questionable. The study's findings show that college diversity programs fail to raise standards, and that a majority of faculty members and administrators recognize this when speaking anonymously. . . (I)n 1999 we surveyed a random sample of more than 1,600 students and 2,400 faculty members and administrators at 140 American colleges and universities, asking them to evaluate the quality of education at their institution, the academic preparation and work habits of the student body, the state of race relations on campus and their own experiences of discrimination. . . If diversity works as advertised, we surmised, then those at institutions with higher proportions of black enrollment should rate their educational and racial milieus more favorably than their peers at institutions with lower proportions. The results contradict almost every benefit claimed for campus diversity. Students, faculty members and administrators all responded to increasing racial diversity by registering increased dissatisfaction with the quality of education and the work ethic of their peers. Students also increasingly complained about discrimination. Moreover, diversity fails to deliver even when all else is equal. . . . A higher level of diversity is associated with somewhat less educational satisfaction and worse race relations among students. . . We also asked students about policies used to increase diversity. Three out of four oppose "relaxing academic standards" to increase minority representation, as do a majority of faculty members. And an overwhelming 85 percent of students specifically reject the use of racial or ethnic "preferences" along with a majority of faculty members. More telling, 62 percent of minority students oppose relaxing standards, and 71 percent oppose preferences. Among the most striking findings is the silent opposition of so many who administer these programs yet must publicly support them. Although a small majority of administrators support admissions preferences, 47.7 percent oppose them. In addition, when asked to estimate the impact of preferential admissions on university academic standards, about two-thirds say there is none. Most dismaying, of those who think that preferences have some impact on academic standards, those believing it negative exceed those believing it positive by 15 to 1. . . . Stanley Rothman, professor emeritus of government at Smith College, is director of the Center for the Study of Social and Political Change. Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company
Did you go to UM Law School? Then fuck off.
Why, Mr. jmsaul! Are you addressing nous?
Yes, I am. Since you didn't actually go there, and I did, I don't value your opinions on whether diversity in the law school student body provides a better experience for the white students.
So please, show us your data.
You have several choices: