Jump to content

Is this racism?


Gallus

Is this racism?  

26 members have voted

  1. 1. Is this racism?



Recommended Posts

The root of the problem here is defining what racism is.

For Racist, google says; showing or feeling discrimination or prejudice against people of other races, or believing that a particular race is superior to another.
For Racism it says; prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior.

This is discrimination against people of other races, so is racism by that definition. But this is more about the letter of the law versus the spirit of the law. I think the part about the belief that one's own race is superior is key to what is and what isn't racist. I would be shocked if anybody on this forum thought that these kids were being given scholarships/grants because Stormzy thinks black people are a superior race to white people. I would be shocked if anybody on this forum thought they were of a superior race to another person.

Throwing about the word racist has great shock value and stirs up a nice bit of controversy because of its unclear meaning, which is why this thread has been posted in the first place. The internet age thrives on name calling on a technicality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Lroy said:

Throwing about the word racist has great shock value and stirs up a nice bit of controversy because of its unclear meaning, which is why this thread has been posted in the first place. The internet age thrives on name calling on a technicality.

I agree, the word "racist" has a lot of emotional baggage. If it was somebody from Shortlees offering to fund folks from the scheme through Oxbridge nobody would think ill of them.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't get "positive discrimination". I guess it means allowing a certain group of people to have something that the rest of the groups don't get. That is the reverse, so still discrimination.

It's a bit like when the government brought out employer incentives to provide 18-25s with employment. That had a knock on affect for people 50+, for example, who were then discriminated against for those jobs...which is against employment laws as it's discrimination.

All for Stormzy doing this but, as mentioned above, if Ed Sheeran had said the same for deprived white students (of which I'm sure have a lower acceptance rate at the same university also) the headlines would have been completely different.

If a student/employee is good enough for the position, then they should have that position.

 

Edit: So I've gone for no, but it is discrimination by its very nature.

Edited by killieblues
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, killieblues said:

I would say that the difference between the number of deprived white, and black students, is negligible.

They'll be I'd guess 10 times more students from deprived white backgrounds than the total number of black undergraduate students - there's only 58 black undergraduates there in total.  They don't seem to want to tell you in these reports how many undergraduates they have in total, to allow us to do the math.   Whether or not you'd want to attend such an elitist institution if you were black or from a deprived background is another matter.  You'd probably do better surrounded by less toffs.

Besides, you're most likely to be admitted to Cambridge if you're of Chinese ethnicity.  Make of that what you will.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, RAG said:

They'll be I'd guess 10 times more students from deprived white backgrounds than the total number of black undergraduate students - there's only 58 black undergraduates there in total.  They don't seem to want to tell you in these reports how many undergraduates they have in total, to allow us to do the math.   Whether or not you'd want to attend such an elitist institution if you were black or from a deprived background is another matter.  You'd probably do better surrounded by less toffs.

Besides, you're most likely to be admitted to Cambridge if you're of Chinese ethnicity.  Make of that what you will.

Fewer toffs, not less. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Lroy said:

Throwing about the word racist has great shock value and stirs up a nice bit of controversy because of its unclear meaning, which is why this thread has been posted in the first place. The internet age thrives on name calling on a technicality.

Agreed.

But seeing as we're here, saying something like 'if you're good enough for the position, then you should have that position" is quite naïve... how do you combat discrimination and institutional racism then?

I'm guessing it's quite hard for most of us to judge fairly as we'll never 'walk in their shoes'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
On 8/17/2018 at 6:49 PM, Scooter said:

Agreed.

But seeing as we're here, saying something like 'if you're good enough for the position, then you should have that position" is quite naïve... how do you combat discrimination and institutional racism then?

I'm guessing it's quite hard for most of us to judge fairly as we'll never 'walk in their shoes'.

I'm not sure why you think that statement is quite naive? Surely it's how it SHOULD be? Or do you not think that is the case?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, killieblues said:

I'm not sure why you think that statement is quite naive? Surely it's how it SHOULD be? Or do you not think that is the case?

That IS how it should be, in an ideal world, but that's not how it is... we have discrimination all around and sometimes these programs are a small way of redressing the balance.

For centuries, discrimination has been okay because it was against 'other' people... now it's seen to be against people like us and folk get up in arms about it, but no-one wants to address how we deal with ingrained and institutional discrimination in general.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

When you think about it almost any scholarship that is offered by an individual or by a body is, in its very nature, prejudicial. Whether it is offered to pupils below the poverty line, whether it is offered to children who have lost a parent, whether it is offered to those affected by a particular tragedy (eg Grenfell). Most commonly for Oxford (having taken a look through their scholaship pages), the scholarships seem to be be restricted to residents/nationals of a particular country

If somebody is putting up money, then they can generally set the rules (within reason) as this is not a job covered by employment laws.

Stormzy's aims are laudable and he's a young, famous black man prepared to put his money where his mouth is. If it just encourages other young black people to consider Oxford as a place they could aim for, then that is a great aim achieved.

But there is one concern I have.

Presumably mixed-race candidates will be considered. But what if they are the offspring of a white mother and a mixed-race father? What if their ethnicity is (excuse the crude categorisation...) one-eighth black? Who will judge that someone is "not black enough" to qualify?

 

Edited by Jon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...