Why we have OBAP........

[hbrow15]

obap makes a distinction between us based on race. BTW you don't know my race.

i try not to make distinctions about people based on race...i was taught by my daddy that it was rude to make those kind of distinctions.

OBAP...here is a group of pilots...an organization of black airline pilots (albeit anyone can join) that makes a racial distinction in their name and in their charter. who do they award the scholarships to? white pilots? didn't think so...it is racially motivated with the purpose of furthering the cause of black pilots...totally racist.

WIA...same...totally sexist.

when they do award scholarships to black pilots...those pilots jump to the front of the line and go to airline XYZ. the scholarship winners are black. are they poor? maybe (maybe not). chances are they are from families that had a lot more money than mine did growing up...you may not believe this but there are some white pilots from the wrong side of the tracks too...who is looking out for their interests? the only OBAP scholarship winner i ever met (sample size of one) he grew up in a family a lot more affluent than my family was...funny that he got a scholarship and hired directly by SWA (thus circumventing the normal application/interview process because the OBAP scholarship winners are basically direct hires and go into the first available class...this is true...they jump the queue). anyway, he probably woud have been hired anyway...so all the OBAP did was short circuit the normal hiring process and put him in line ahead of all the guys and gals waiting in the pool (there were ~200 in the pool waiting at the time).

all the WIA scholarship winners i have met (4 to be exact) came from affluent upper middle class backgrounds...they got hired because they had vaginas (not because they had it rough).

all of this "social engineering" is a result of the 50s-60s racial movements. it is a leftover of the 60s idealism of people trying to make things better but sometimes making things worse.

HR departments are responsible for who gets hired (not OBAP). however, OBAP knows how the system works and they work it to try to give advantages to a group of people based on their race (not their socioeconomic background). that is racist and sad.

i think what the previous post that said (if you changed the name to "organization of white" instead of "black") is true...it would horrify any normal, educated, good person.

it is a double standard to think that is OK to have an OBAP because you are helping blacks. truth is that this group is targeting who they help based on race...and it makes a distinction between people based on race. any group that does this...whether it's based on race or gender is taking a stance "against" everyone else they distinguish themselves from. that's who is leftover...those not in their target group. if they were out to help underprivileged or poor it would be cool with me but that's not what they do.

you can have your club...no one can take it away. it's perfectly legal. it's just sad that you...especially as a former marine can't see it for what it is. it's a racially motivated group who drive a wedge between whites and blacks...it fosters resentment and hate.

Cyclone
1st I know your a navy guy but Marine is always capitalized give the Eagle Globe and Anchor it's due respect I just noticed you are a P-3 guy funny we may have ran into each other, Were you ever station at NAS JAX?, that's where I recieved all my flight training at Jax Navy Flying club. Based on your theory we should have a problem just with the name, we are all military why divide us based on the branch of service and not replace Navy with military? Probably because it was on a Navy base most people that would be members would be sailors but we all were able to join. We had dirt cheap rates at the flying club and paid no tax therefore it made flight training much more affordable as a matter of fact if it were not for my GI bill and the flying club I probably would not have been able to afford my flight training, since this avenue was only open to military is that fair to everyone else who is not in the military?. It seems as if your problem is with the airlines that do the hiring in your example SWA. These companies set it's own practice that we may or may not think is right. I was at an air inc conference once when I learned Jetblue for instance, in every interview group tries to include a certian number bomber pilots, a certain number of fighter pilots, helo guys, blacks, women, military transport and so forth just so they have a diverse background among the pilot ranks because everyone brings different experiences based on thier background. Now you may ask why there was not mention of white guys, out of those groups that they try to include which one you think they may have a hard time filling? the fact of the matter is there is no shortage on white male applicants and notice I said interviewed not hired, everyone still has to get through the same process. One problem is when a black guy gets hired and a white guy does not automatically somewhere in his mind he will probably think that he was not hired and the other guy was is because he was black. You dont think guys or women have come out of interviews unhired thinking it was because he was black or she was a woman? and none ever stop to think it was because the other applicants had better interviews. You were a P-3 driver how many of your squadron mates walked in your resume or how many have you walked in? now how many Marine or army Aviators resume's did you walk in I would dare say not many if any because those are not the circles you run in, and of those that you have how many were black pilots?. Is this unfair for you or your squadron mates to jump to the front of the line because you knew someone? and we both know that this happens because if any Marine came through I would do whatever I could to get him onboard. So what's the difference or are you saying it's ok to make a end run around the process as long as you are not black or a woman? Again Obap target's inner city kids that many feel like if they dont run with the ball the only way to any financial success is criminal activity and we are a group of pilots that come from those same communities trying to show them a different path and we are just one group of proffesionals that give of our time in this manner there are groups of black Engineers Doctors Lawyers and so forth that came from the "Hood" and were at one point knuckleheads and found away out doing something different that what I described before. You say they target who they help based on race, somewhat true, as stated before it's mostly inner city areas they target which you have already said have been harmed in the past, but if you go to these areas and knock on ten doors who do you think will answer the majority of the time people who look like you or people who look like me. If we went to gated upper class communities and knocked on ten doors who do you think would answer the majority of the time people who look like you or people who look like me. So it stands to reason if you target a certain area the majority of the participants would fit the demographic of that area. So as white cloud said if we dont go into where we grew up and try to make a change who will? the fact of the matter is even if your heart was in the right place, the Organization of White Airline Pilots would not make the same impact to inner city black kids as OBAP would. You asked how many white's recieved scholarships from OBAP? to my knowledge...none, then again I dont recall seeing to many black's taking pictures for AOPA scholarships or very many other's that didn't envolve a football or a basketball. Through the professional pilot development program OBAP takes and young person from zero time matches him dollar for dollar on his training all the way through CFI,II & MEI mentoring him all the way through and again the majority are black but not all. If SWA UAL USA DAL choose to support that with type rating scholarships we thank them for thier support, and make no mistake no one makes that type of commitment unless they think there is something in it for them even if it's just a tax write off or maybe they see the same issues and think we have a good fix for the problem that thier business can help with. You said you came from the other side of the tracks so on some levels you can relate and maybe even more than I would ever know so open invitation me and you go to a ACE camp or we'll do pilots in schools together and we can even goto an all white school, if you will goto one with me in the "hood", that way you can make an informed opinion based off of your own experiences. PM me when your ready

 

[ImRickJames]

rick james...you have no idea what i wish for and you have no idea how your capabilities would stack up against mine.

you sure have a lot of generalizations that you can't back up in your post. my disadvantage is that there are people like you...unwilling to recognize a double standard...unwilling to acknowledge that stereotyping a group in a negative way (as you did personally towards me) is inherently bad. you can paint anyway you want but that doesn't change what it is. discrimination is discrimination. prejudice is prejudice. i don't like it in any shape color or form. i believe it is wrong. you don't know me and you don't know anything about me so don't pretend like you can commment about me personally.

I know you by what you post on the thread, it doesn't take a genius to see that you are insecure in your ability to get a job because you seem to blame everyone else. There are people getting hired every month, if your not, then you need to do something to improve your standing.

In an interview, they don't like hearing excuses, so you might want to start practicing taking responsibility for your advancement or lack there of.

 

[SirFlyALot]

This has to be one of the most uninformed sterotypical statements concerning OBAP that I have ever read.

you must have been apart of a meeting that I was not because I have never heard anyone at OBAP say anything that would make me think that they want to tilt the scales of hiring blacks.

Hbrow, Cyclone didn't have to attend a meeting to gather this impression. All that Cyclone had to do was click over to www.obap.org and do a little reading. OBAP's intent may very well be to make sure minority pilots are hired based on their merits. However, from reading their website and knowing what OBAP stands for, it is very easy to arrive at a different conclusion without performing any gymnastic feats of logic. None of the OBAP members here have yet answered the question of OBAP's position on affirmative action, etc.

first I consider myself very successful and as far as respect never been a problem for me, I hold my own in and out of the cockpit.

Hbrow, I respect your confidence in your own abilities and your own merits. But, then, it begs the same question I asked ImRickJames, why defend OBAP when you know full well what its stated goals are? None of the OBAP members here have yet answered this question either: how would you feel if we substituted the word "white" for the words "black" or "minority" in OBAP's goals statement? Why not transform OBAP into an organization devoted to helping disadvantaged people regardless of their race?

Some folks will complain if they perceive a minority group to be looking for handouts and also complain if that same minority group exercises independent leadership to help members of their community get ahead.

WhiteCloud, this statement is a bit of a red herring. You whiplash us with two situations on opposite ends of the spectrum in an attempt to draw attention away from the centrial issue. The central issue is: is it acceptable in your book for OBAP to promote the issues and concerns of certain racial groups over others? If it is acceptable, logically defend your viewpoint head-on without resorting to hyperbole, emotion, or other curveballs.

If someone doesn't feel comfortable in their own skin that being around people with many different shades, not only theirs, make them uncomfortable, than yes you may not be comfortable in an organization like OBAP that have members that cover the color spectrum.

Another red herring. This issue has nothing to do with whether or not a given individual is "comfortable in their own skin". OBAP may have members of every color. That doesn't change the name, purpose, intent, or stated goals of OBAP. One of the fundamental pillars of OBAP's existence is to further and advance the careers of its "black" and "minority" members, not the small numbers of white people who are members.

The point you seem to keep missing is that it is not about the slaves, it's about the racial discrimination that has gone on for hundreds of years. Just go back to the 50s, 60s, 70s, and in aviation, well into the 80s. Blacks could not get into the same schools, resturants, librarys, etc as whites...

What happened to blacks in this country was a horrible thing; no way around it. However, the way to get past it is not by creating new patterns of racial discrimination and exclusion. You know what, at some point in the past, my ancestors may have owned slaves. I don't know. On the other hand, at some point in the past, your ancestors may have also owned slaves. Does that mean you or I should be discriminated against? My father went into Mississippi during the 1960's as a Freedom Rider to aid the civil rights movement. He risked his life to help integrate the South. Should I be granted special priveleges for my father's actions? As I grew up, he taught me that race should not and does not matter. OBAP today seems to be at odds with that notion. I talk to my father today and he feels that programs like affirmative action have taken the ideals of the civil rights movement beyond their original vision.

 

[ImRickJames]

SirFlyALot vbmenu_register("postmenu_737589", true); , we shall not come to an agreement today nor ever on this matter. Agree to disagree and may we both live on to a fruitful career. Good day to you sir!

 

[SirFlyALot]

You were a P-3 driver how many of your squadron mates walked in your resume or how many have you walked in? now how many Marine or army Aviators resume's did you walk in I would dare say not many if any because those are not the circles you run in, and of those that you have how many were black pilots?. Is this unfair for you or your squadron mates to jump to the front of the line because you knew someone?

Hbrow, please don't try to distract the issue at hand: we are talking about racial discrimination, not whether or not it is okay to advocate for friends and acquaintances. That is an entirely separate issue. Relationships are the fabric of society and we will not and should not ever escape that. When military guys recommend their friends to the chief pilot, this is based on merit in the eyes of the guy doing the recommending. Same goes for civilian guys recommending their friends. It's not like you walk into the chief pilot or HR rep and say, "Hey so-and-so, I know this really great white guy. He's comes from a great white family and all his friends are white too, etc" No, you don't do that. You walk in and tout the merits of your friend. You say something like, "Hey so-and-so, I want to recommend a great guy that we need to hire. He was an evaluator and instructor in the military, he's got 5000 hrs. Outside of flying, he's involved with Charity X and Charity Y, etc". Pushing your friends because you think they are great people is the way society does business. Pushing your friends because you favor their skin color is wrong.

So as white cloud said if we dont go into where we grew up and try to make a change who will? the fact of the matter is even if your heart was in the right place, the Organization of White Airline Pilots would not make the same impact to inner city black kids as OBAP would.

Hbrow, amen, I agree that we all shoud try to help all people who are less fortunate. I'm simply not willing to frame my extension of help in terms of people who belong to a certain race.
And...amen again! An organization called the Organization of White Airline Pilots wouldn't get very far. Nor should it get very far. Hbrow, if your primary interest in OBAP is helping inner-city youth, then why not push for OBAP to become an organization devoted to that cause? I can totally understand that and would have no problem supporting that. Why not push OBAP to eliminate racial language or bias from their mission?

 

[Cardenal]

I support, respect and admire what OBAP does.

And I am just a dumpy middle-aged white guy!

I think discussions such as these bring out the insecure, resentful and racist side of a lot of people. Oh! I forgot: also the mean, ignorant, and selfish traits of the same.

 

[Mkubwa]

This has to do with affirmative action in college admissions but I believe it cuts across the board.

It's a bit of a read (had to post in two sections) but Cohen gets right to the heart of the matter as far as I'm concerned.

-M

Race in University of Michigan Admissions
Carl Cohen, Professor of Philosophy
The University Record, February 25, 1997

The role of race in University admissions deserves our thoughtful reconsideration. We all want an admissions system that opens access equally to all, one that yields entering classes with a wide variety of talents and interests while remaining truly fair. These objectives do not require --- nor does law or morality permit --- the outright preferences we now give on the basis of race, or other ethnic categories for which race may here serve as shorthand.

I preface this critique with a personal note: There is no institution in the world, save only my family and my country, that I love more than the University of Michigan, to which I have devoted more than 40 years of my adult life. I have been honored to serve as chairman of our Academic Senate, and as chairman of the American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan. But when this University, of which we are so proud, engages in deliberate discriminatory practices that it seeks to hide and then disguise, we on the faculty are right to be appalled. The motives behind such conduct may be honorable, but worthy aims cannot justify racially discriminatory devices. Racial discrimination is wrong; it always was and it always will be wrong. We are not permitted to dabble in it. Moreover, advantages given to persons of some races but not others do great damage --- to the University as a whole, but especially to those who were supposed to have been helped. In this sphere our proper "goal" is the complete elimination of all preferences by race; the proper "timetable" for the achievement of this goal is now.

Intellectual diversity --- the variety of opinions and perspectives that enrich and invigorate university life --- was recognized (in Regents v. Bakke in 1978) as an important aim. Using skin color as a proxy for intellectual diversity is morally problematic, relying as it does upon stereotypes --- but in any case the intention to use race as a proxy for potential contributions certainly cannot excuse deliberate discrimination by race. Spokespersons for our University, seeking the protection of the Bakke decision by echoing its words, repeatedly say that "we consider race among many other factors." This is true but highly deceptive. We use race in admissions as no other non-intellectual criteria are used. All applicants are classified by race first; we count applicants and acceptances by race at every turn; we establish "affirmative action goals" that can be satisfied only by racial numbers. Our admissions systems are, in sum, thoroughly saturated by racially preferential devices.

Justice Powell made it very clear in Bakke that an admissions system whose focus upon "diversity" amounts mainly to adjusting the racial proportions of its classes misconceives the diversity of which he was writing. He, the author of the defense of diversity upon which reliance is so commonly placed, declares unequivocally that race-based systems devised to advance racial proportionality are constitutionally invalid on their face.

The continuing unabashed use of ethnic preferences to achieve a higher proportion of one race or another --- success measured by percentage numbers carried to decimals --- is a flagrant violation of the principles laid down in the law of the land; readers who doubt this will receive a copy of the Bakke opinion from me upon request.

In that opinion, Justice Powell rejects the effort to defend the pursuit of racial percentages so long as "goals" but not "quotas" are employed. "This semantic distinction," he writes, "is beside the point." The point, Powell emphasizes in Bakke, is that any admissions device is discriminatory "whether described as a quota or a goal" if it uses "a line drawn on the basis of race and ethnic status." That is the fatal flaw of racial preference, the deliberate use of racial categories for disparate treatment. Moral principles condemn it; and as the Supreme Court of the United States has made perfectly clear, our Constitution and our laws forbid it.

Do we, at this University, draw such racial lines? Do we knowingly discriminate by race? Most certainly we do. The preferences we confer are not merely "plus factors" giving marginal benefit to minority applicants otherwise equal or nearly equal; they are major and systematic discriminatory devices designed to give very substantial advantages to applicants from some racial groups. University of Michigan records obtained using the Freedom of Information Act reveal that what is going on beneath euphemisms and obfuscation is, in a word, shocking. Some illustrations will exhibit the racial mischief we do:

First, the formal, written policies of our admissions system are explicitly discriminatory. In a document headed "Guidelines for All Terms of 1996," prepared by the Office of Undergraduate Admissions and marked "Confidential --- Internal Use Only," the responses to be given to applicants on first review are set forth in a grid, whose vertical axis is formed by the several categories of GPAs, and horizontal axis by the several categories of SAT (or ACT) scores. Every applicant falls into one of 90 resultant cells. Within each cell appear instructions regarding the letter of response counselors are directed to send to the applicant; but different instructions appear on two (or three) different lines within each cell, and at the top of the sheet appears this directive: "In General [sic] use the top row in each cell for majority applicants and the middle and bottom rows for underrepresented minorities."[emphasis added] Elsewhere in the document we learn that the phrase "underrepresented minorities" refers, in this document, to "American Indians, Black/African American, and Hispanic/Latino American."

How sharply these different responses discriminate by race may be seen from the following two examples among many:

1) Non-minority applicants with GPAs between 3.2-3.3 (B+) and with SAT scores of 1010-1080 (or ACT scores of 22-23) receive on first review the coded classification "R-TST" which results in a response letter coded R, for Reject. Minority applicants with precisely the same academic scores and credentials receive the coded classification A . . ACSP, which results in a response letter coded A, signifying Admit. Is this, or is it not, outright discrimination by race?

2) Non-minority applicants to the highly prized Premedical-Medical Program, INTEFLEX, are classified on first review A-INT (Admit) only if they have a GPA of 3.8 (out-of state) or 3.6 (in-state) and SAT scores of 1320+ or ACT scores of 30+. Minority applicants to the same INTEFLEX program are classified A-INT with GPA of 3.4 (in-state or out-of-state) and SAT scores of 1170+ or ACT scores of 26+. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 expressly forbids discrimination against any person in the United States "on the ground of race, color, or national origin . . . under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance." Do these explicitly different admissions standards by race show, or do they not show, that we are violating that law?

Second, in actual decision-making as well as in formal policy we discriminate by race. This is proved beyond cavil by the numerical results of our admissions process, revealed in official documents from our Law School and Medical School, as well as from Undergraduate Admissions. Reports, again in the form of grids, show for each cell marked off by GPA (vertical axis) and test scores (horizontal axis) how many applicants there were in that cell, and of these how many were offered admission. So the percentage rate of admission for any cell may be readily determined. But separate grids are prepared for Blacks, and for whites, and for those of other ethnic groups, so the rate of admission for any cell or cells may also be calculated by race. Two illustrations of the racial disparities in admission rates disclosed will betoken the scale of our discriminatory practices:

1) A total of 526 applicants for undergraduate admission (according to the data provided for 1994) had GPAs between 2.80-2.99 (B-), and SAT scores of 1100-1390 (or ACT scores of 27-32). Of these, 48 were minorities and 478 were non-minorities. Of the non-minorities in this category, 12% (56) were offered admission. Of the minority applicants in this category, 100% (48) were offered admission. Similar disparities abound. Is this or is it not compelling evidence of discrimination by race?

2) Law School applicants with GPA between 3.25 and 3.49 (B+), and Law School Aptitude Test (LSAT) scores between 156 and 163 (good but not outstanding), were very numerous in 1995. Of the 238 "Caucasian Americans%quot; in that category only 7 were offered admission, 3%. Of the 17 African American applicants in that category 17 were offered admissions, 100%. Similar disparities abound here too. Is this not ineluctable evidence of racial discrimination practiced by an institution receving Federal financial assistance?

 

[Mkubwa]

Part 2:

Apparently anomalous admissions are often defended as no more than the result of attending to the merits and special talents of individual applicants. Reasonable people will agree that scores and averages are not the only things that ought to count, and that admissions need not be based entirely upon numerical credentials to be fair. But non-quantitative merits of character and talent are exhibited by individual applicants from every ethnic group; if considered for applicants of one color, fairness requires that they be considered for applicants of every color. The weighing of such individual characteristics, therefore, cannot possibly explain the patterns of racial discrimination that pervade our admissions systems.

If the quest for intellectual diversity cannot justify our racially discriminatory practices, might they be justified as compensation for injuries earlier done? No. A remedy for injury may be given justly only to those who have suffered that injury, not to other persons whose skin is of the same color. Wrongs done to some Blacks (and other minorities) cannot be redressed by giving favor to other Blacks, any more than wrongs done by some whites may be punished by penalizing other whites. Rights are possessed by persons, not by skin color groups. Where a remedy is due, it is due to the person damaged, not the group to which that person belongs.

Moreover, whether some person has in fact been injured in a way that justifies a racial remedy is a matter that does not lie in the competence of the University or its admissions officers to determine. And if some competent court were ever to find that unlawful racial injuries had been inflicted by our University, the authority to fix a compensatory remedy certainly would not rest in our hands. But of course the admission preferences we give were never designed to give remedy; they were designed to achieve racial proportionality.

Racial discrimination having this objective is morally indefensible. It will come to an end before long because most citizens of Michigan, when they learn what we are doing, will not tolerate it. The contrast between our public profession of "commitment to a policy of nondiscrimination," and our knowing but hidden practice of such discrimination, will provoke resentment and hostility gravely damaging to us. If we continue to engage in discriminatory practices, and to seek to deceive the public about them, we will not deserve to be excused.

 

[Mkubwa]

Justice Clarence Thomas:

In Adarand Constructors v. Peña (1995), Thomas commented on affirmative action: "I write separately,. . .to express my disagreement with the premise. . .that there is a racial paternalism exception to the principle of equal protection. . .That these programs may have been motivated, in part, by good intentions cannot provide refuge from the principle that under our Constitution, the government may not make distinctions on the basis of race. As far as the Constitution is concerned, it is irrelevant whether a government's racial classifications are drawn by those who wish to oppress a race or by those who have a sincere desire to help those thought to be disadvantaged. There can be no doubt that the paternalism that appears to lie at the heart of this program is at war with the principle of inherent equality that underlies and infuses our Constitution. See Declaration of Independence ('We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness')."

 

[SirFlyALot]

I support, respect and admire what OBAP does.

And I am just a dumpy middle-aged white guy!

I think discussions such as these bring out the insecure, resentful and racist side of a lot of people. Oh! I forgot: also the mean, ignorant, and selfish traits of the same.

This might be true in some cases. I don't know. However, when you join the debate especially to cast one side or the other in a disparaging light, please be specific and cite examples to support your claim. Why do you support, respect, and admire what OBAP does? Be detailed. Be logical. Use critical thinking. Otherwise, you're just another reed of grass blowing in the wind swayed by what sounds good and feels good to you at the moment.

So, it's not okay in your book to rail against the idea that one person might have an advantage over another because of the color of their skin? A person that stands on a principle like that is "insecure, resentful" and even "racist"...unless he or she favors a race that in your mind is acceptable? How about not favoring any race? To you, people who want to completely eliminate race as a consideration in our society are mean, ignorant, and selfish? Then, I guess you would throw people like Frederick Douglass, Rosa Parks, and Martin Luther King into that same boat? That is a sad, sad thing.