<p>He “didn’t mean to offend anyone”??? How did he think that might be read?</p>
<p>And, aside from how racist or not he claims to be, the pepper spray remark is enough to prove him not up to the level of professionalism and competency necessary to be a good police officer.</p>
<p>Basically he’s saying that he would take physical revenge enough to injure or kill someone for a personal slight. Not the kind of person you want as a peace officer.</p>
<p>That cop will, I think, lose his job and the reason is that he used the police system to send out this email. (This is a local story for me.) Imagine he had used his home account and sent out this email to a few friends. Then you’d have an issue of free speech that’s offensive and then maybe you send the guy to sensitivity training class, demote him or otherwise discipline him. But he used the city’s own email system to send this email out, not to a small group of civilian friends but to other police officers. That’s a firing offense.</p>
<p>To put this in context, a subway train recently crashed because the driver was texting his girlfriend and ran a red light. Then a bus driver was filmed by a passenger reading while driving and another was filmed texting and talking while driving. The city mandated that bus & train drivers not have cellphones with them. Over the past weeks, passengers have caught drivers on film using phones - including one who borrowed a phone from a passenger and then had everyone wait five minutes while he stood outside to make a call - and the city is processing their terminations. </p>
<p>As to the racism in the email, yes it’s offensive and no it doesn’t mean this guy was a bad cop or that he treated black people badly on his job because people say things that they won’t really do. But he violated rules in a way that crossed a bunch of lines. As the Mayor says, “He doesn’t have any place in the police department.”</p>
<p>Did you hear only one teacher will be required to write the teacher evaluation this year(fall-2009-10 apllication)? I didn’t find the teacher evaluation 2 form on the Common app, website.</p>
<p>“As to the racism in the email, yes it’s offensive and no it doesn’t mean this guy was a bad cop or that he treated black people badly on his job because people say things that they won’t really do.”</p>
<p>Do you honestly think there’s any chance that someone who said such things would treat black people fairly? Do you honestly think there’s any chance that a person who’d write such an e-mail (and send it to the Boston Globe) has the character and smarts to be a good police officer?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I never thought about this, but you’re exactly right. And that’s just outrageous. The presumption is that every white person there deserved the spot, but the blacks are usurpers of rightful places til proven otherwise.</p>
<p>We saw the same thing with the Sotamayor nomination – she graduated summa cum laude from Princeton, but it didn’t count because she is a hispanic female and got in by way of affirmative action. See: [The</a> dumbest Princeton honors student ever - War Room - Salon.com](<a href=“http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2009/05/29/barnes_sotomayor/index.html]The”>http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2009/05/29/barnes_sotomayor/index.html)</p>
<p>"The arrest of Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. sparked allegations of racism, followed by fierce denials that race played a role in the 911 call or the police response to the report of a possible break-in at his Cambridge home. But social psychology research indicates that regardless of people’s stated attitudes about race, unconscious racial biases can influence their behavior in surprisingly powerful ways.</p>
<p>That means that people who are not racist may unknowingly behave in ways that reflect racial stereotypes, even when they may disagree with such ideas. One study found that doctors with more unconscious bias against blacks were less likely to give African-American heart attack patients clot-busting medication than white patients. Another found that when participants in a computer simulation were told to shoot criminals but not unarmed citizens or police who appeared on the screen, more black than white men were incorrectly shot…</p>
<p>It’s impossible to know whether hidden bias caused Cambridge police Sergeant James M. Crowley, a white man who teaches courses on how to avoid racial profiling, to arrest the African-American Gates. But research indicates that a large majority of white people, and about half of black people, are quicker to make positive associations with white people and negative associations with black people.</p>
<p>“I think our data, obtained from millions and millions of people, show a real disparity between who we think we are, who we say we are . . . and what actually goes on in our heads,’’ said Mahzarin R. Banaji, a Harvard psychology professor who is a leader in studying such implicit bias.</p>
<p>Banaji’s research has found, for example, that many white people more quickly associate positive adjectives with white faces and negative adjectives with black faces. In computerized tests, many white people also more quickly associate harmful weapons with black faces than with white ones.</p>
<p>Overall, Banaji said, about 75 percent of white people show a white preference in such lab experiments, whereas black people are split half and half between favoring black and white.</p>
<p>That means that while the incident in Cambridge two weeks ago has layers of complexity and confusion, a vast body of scientific literature suggests the important role that unconscious bias would probably play."
[In</a> matters of race, research shows key role for unconscious bias - The Boston Globe](<a href=“http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2009/07/30/in_matters_of_race_research_shows_key_role_for_unconscious_bias/]In”>http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2009/07/30/in_matters_of_race_research_shows_key_role_for_unconscious_bias/)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Ivies have been known to reject better qualified black candidates (if “better” is defined as having higher test scores and GPA) over subjectively “less qualified” blacks. And they also routinely admit scads of white students with lower stats than many of their black applicants. Most people who whine and kvetch about test scores and minority admissions would never advocate a system of college admission here in America whereby GPA and test scores were the sole criteria for entrance. They want to be evaluated for the truly unique individuals they believe themselves to be, knowing that there’s inherently more to themselves than raw data. They would never agree to a system such as that routinely seen in China and other Asian countries, whereby only the very highest scorers on a test taken on a single make or break day, determines whether one gets in or not. That, they say, would be cruel, and frankly “Un-American”. However, when it comes to black admission, the only criterion they feel truly justifies unquestioned admission to an elite school would be ironclad, unassailable test scores and GPA—meaning better than virtually all the rest of the applicant pool. Otherwise, they they will have had to have received an AA boost. In their own case, they are individuals with unique traits, personal strengths, and intangibles that would benefit the schools to which they apply, but in the case of AfAms, it’s all about their skin color. It is this attitude that drives me wild, though I have experienced it all my life: being seen as black first, and perhaps an individual upon second look. Knowing that she’s white, nobody gets upset about the admission of Calmom’s exceptional daughter’s admission to top schools like Chicago. They just figure she must have had something other than raw data to suggest that she was intellectual dynamo that she is. However, if she were black…no need to proceed further. All questions answered.:rolleyes:</p>
<p>Amciw has mentioned several times that her black classmate was “rich”, but that she was “not rich”. Does this assessment spring from actual knowledge of this kid’s family’s financial resources, or just a skewed perspective? Is there perhaps a certain amount of class envy mixed in with the racial resentment as well?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think ANYONE who whines over someone else getting into a school (in the absence of some really clear evidence that the person is just completely incapable of handling the academics, or evidence of bribery / wrongdoing) is just a pathetic person to begin with. Be happy for other people’s good fortunes, recognize that life isn’t always perfect and that you weren’t “entitled” to a seat at any Ivy League school, and move on. YK, all the Ivy League degrees in the world don’t mean much if one has a resentful loser attitude towards others.</p>
<p>" think ANYONE who whines over someone else getting into a school (in the absence of some really clear evidence that the person is just completely incapable of handling the academics, or evidence of bribery / wrongdoing) is just a pathetic person to begin with."</p>
<p>I agree. I also think that by participating in such whining, the complainers are providing evidence of why they themselves didn’t deserve to get into the school. </p>
<p>The people whom the top colleges want are those who can rise above setbacks instead of spending their time ranting about the good fortunes of others.</p>
<p>“The average poor black student would still get slightly more lenient admission standards than the average poor white student because the average poor black student is more disadvantaged.”</p>
<p>^This is an incredibly stupid comment. To start, the experiences are different. I wouldn’t say a poor white kid in Appalachia has it any tougher or easier than a poor black kid growing up in the city. </p>
<p>If there happens to be a correlation between socioeconomic and race based affirmative action, that’s fine. But i’m against giving affirmative action to rich black kids who have a ton of opportunities and resources. Even though their parents may have suffered from discrimination, they most likely have not, as our generation view race very differently than the previous ones.</p>
<p>and btw Northstarmom- 3.5, 2100, minimal sat’s is nowhere near harvard quality. That’s pretty clear evidence. or you can take a broader view and look at the stats of AA accepted versus the applicant pool. It’s one thing to argue that individuals were qualified for the college, but saying that colleges don’t use affirmative action is just stupid.</p>
<p>These are the same people who are all concerned with “prestige,” and in getting into certain schools because they think that they will achieve membership in some club of prestigious people. They’re not sophisticated enough to get that truly prestigious people, people worth knowing, people of class and character, don’t sit around resenting other people who supposedly usurped their rightful places of anything. That’s hardly the mark of how a “prestigious” person spends his or her time.</p>
<p>
Not quite true – some CC’ers got quite upset at the time & made all sorts of accusations and assumptions. But there just wasn’t anything based on race. (Outside of CC, we weren’t discussing test scores.)</p>
<p>And of course, down the line no one will question my daughter’s admission or accomplishments. Her SAT scores are not branded on her forehead, so most people she will encounter later in life will never know what they were. People will make the reverse assumption – they will assume based on the title of the school on her degree that she must have had very high scores.</p>
<p>pizzagirl</p>
<p>you have seriously misjudged me if you think i’m worried about prestige. </p>
<p>it’s not about prestige. </p>
<p>it’s about people less qualified than i am taking up seats at selective colleges.</p>
<p>i’m not mad if a kid that didn’t have the resources and had to work through high school got into harvard with a lower gpa and a SAT.</p>
<p>i’m mad that there’s kids in my town who live in houses 3X the size of mine, yet they are considered “disadvantaged” so it’s easier for them to go where they want to go.</p>
<p>Okay, poetsheart, what you are saying here is:
…people make instant assumptions, that if an applicant is African-American, that she is admitted to certain colleges because she is black?</p>
<p>And Northstarmom says:
</p>
<p>That last sentence above following the previous one shows a development of reasoning on behalf of “black people” that even though it’s “impossible to know whether hidden bias…” caused the problem between Gates and Crowley, ONE SHOULD ASSUME that the research Northstarmom quoted is at work.</p>
<p>I frequently agree with you, Northstarmom, and certainly hold you in high regard, but I am disappointed in this. Race-blindness can and should go both ways.</p>
<p>In fairness, is it possible to agree that these are all offensive and unhelpful to the cause of race relations in this country?
– racial profiling
– inequality in apprehension of racial minorities, i. e. “driving while black” etc.
– assumption of unfairness (absent all relevant data)
– adopting the “it’s because I’m black” defense if something goes wrong
– adopting the “it’s because she’s black” opinion if someone has something you don’t have</p>
<p>Meanwhile, our President got it just right and organized a neat bit of domestic diplomacy – let’s just sit down together and share some time and a drink. We will see we are more alike than unalike, and we’re all in this together. Crowley – you are not the enemy. Gates – you are not the enemy. Make peace and show respect for each other. At least, I hope that’s what they all say.</p>
<p>(Nobel Peace Prize for Obama?)</p>
<p>Regarding racism in the Boston area:
Back in the early 90’s we were trying to figure out if we were going to stay in the Boston area or move elsewhere in the country. One of the factors in the decision was a race riot that happened in the local high school. Only the black kids were arrested. The white kids were not. We knew it would be hard for our minority kids to get a fair shake in that kind of atmosphere.</p>
<p>i would think the nobel peace prize would go to somebody who did something more important than settle a disagreement between two people</p>
<p>I don’t know about a Nobel Prize for Obama, but I think that Officer Crowley should be thanking his lucky stars that Obama answered the question as he did and set himself up to be the peacemaker.</p>
<p>Think about it. If Obama had uttered a “no comment at this time” type answer, Crowley would not be invited to the White House for a make-up-and-be-nice conversation with Prof. Gates. Gates, for his part, would be free and clear to file a juicy lawsuit against Crowley and the CPD, which he is well within his rights to do. A suit would have brought a very public airing to the “make believe” part of Crowley’s police report on the incident and that, coupled with the violation of Gates’ civil rights, might possibly have cost him his job if not resulted in a demotion of some sort.</p>
<p>So instead of preparing his legal defense, Crowley gets the most powerful person in the free world on his side helping to just make the whole mess go away. He’s a lucky guy.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>PH, the surest way to eradicate this “problem” is to ignore it altogether! </p>
<p>Tests scores and admission data are subject to privacy rules, and all information --except for benign statistical analyses and government reports-- remains for the college and the applicants to know but for the rest of the world to find out and speculate ad nauseam.</p>
<p>All problems arise when people start engaging in comparing notes, in feeling compelled to share the most minute details of their own files and hoping to satisfy their curiosity about the information of others. </p>
<p>The reality is that NOBODY who roams this forum has ever been compelled to disclose his or her information. Inquiring minds can be quickly dismissed by simply ignoring request for information. There is not even a need for a polite NOYDB! And that is the reality … it is none of anybody’s business! If people want to drive themselves nuts by looking at the statistics of AA applicants, let them but do not feed the ■■■■■■ and troglodytes! </p>
<p>The biggest problem (and perhaps the only one) with AA is that we still need it so desperately, in spite of all the claims of the goons who work at places such as Center for Equal Opportunity (read Chavez, Clegg, Connerly.) </p>
<p>As far as dealing with people who are determined to scrutinize (or attack) your right to “be there” the easiest and safest path is to let your actions and your performance speak for you. Since you won’t change their mind by providing “supporting data,” it is easier to ignore the questions and … comments.</p>
<p>PS It is amazing how trivial test scores and GPA become as soon as you get your dorm key. At least for students. As can be seen in this thread, parents have a much harder time to stop yapping about their daughter’s GPA and essays. Perhaps because of the pride of authorship?</p>