Again, I think in order for this debate to continue objectively, it is important to define what is meant by Affirmative Action. There are really two distinct ways in which such a system can operate. One is to set up rules making discriminatory hiring illegal, and prosecute any instances on a case by case basis. The more common usage refers to the more recent legislation which extends beyond case-by-case issues, and sets up quotas as a more defining characteristic. When discussing AA, I think it is important to distinguish whether one is talking about AA programs at all, or just quota-based AA. I don't think any here (and very few anywhere) are stipulating that they are against any form of AA program. Almost all of the comments I see here against AA are against quota-based AA. Being against such programs does not mean that one supports racial discrimination in hiring...and there is always the case-by-case prosecution to fall back on. So, when one is arguing against AA, one is usually arguing solely against quota based AA. Therefore, showing statistics indicating current racial disparities in the workforce does not rebut arguments against quota based AA (in fact, it probably presents the start of a case against it, as such statistics indicate it is not working just as much as it indicates the need). In order to defend quota based AA, one needs to show specifically that quota based AA programs are working. I have not seen any such statistics presented here. Are there no such statistics? If not, then doesn't that indicate the program isn't working? In the absence of such statistics, it would seem we are starting to bump up against the definition of insanity here, that being to continue to do something over and over again, each time expecting different results.

Now, it may be that indeed quota based AA programs are working. There can still be an argument against them, in that as they are inherently discriminatory themselves, they may be creating racism as fast or faster than they are addressing it. Once the evidence is shown that quota based AA programs are indeed changing hiring practices, IMHO, the debate would then need to focus on that issue.

However, until evidence can be shown that quota based AA is indeed working, this seems a moot point. Surely there must be some evidence out there of its effectiveness? If not, I ask those who strongly support it.....why such strong support for a program that has so little evidence of success?



This is why I think it is important to recognize the distinction between AA in general, and quota based AA. There are lots of alternatives to quota based AA programs. Handling discriminatory hiring on a case by case program is one way, but it does have issues, mainly due to placing the onus on the victim to prove discrimination, which is very difficult. But there are others. Addressing the qualifications of minorities through education and training would be another. Using the power of the market to force companies to evaluate their hiring practices if evidence of discrimination exists would be a valid alternative. There are surely many others. This is why I think it is imperative to define what is meant by AA when having this debate....otherwise those speaking out against quotas and those defending AA in general are just speaking right past each other, digging deeper and deeper holes from which to shout back at each other from. That's not helping anybody.

Let's be honest about this, it does not cause reprisals. A malicious spirit causes reprisals, AA just plays the excuse.


Are you suggesting that the speech of most black people is hard to understand or somehow disrespectful?

Most black people speak similarly to white people, with an extremely slight accent.

Have you ever heard a senator from Alabama speak?

...and yet blacks get called to task for "cultural norms?

Same goes for dress, blacks don't have special clothing (except for possibly the youth, but then again all youth do).

I really don't understand where this complaint comes from seeing as every day I dress is jeans and a t-shirt.



Race a Factor in Job Offers for Ex-Convicts
The people who conduct these studies a well aware of the importance of limiting variables.

What do these ridiculous slight differences have to do with anything? A black person's hair is structurally different from a white person's, is this to be held against them?

I await with bated breath.......



Does it exist? Of course. Is it a "major" issue within America compared to others? No. Does racism by "blacks" exist? Also, of course. And it is arguable a lot more prevalent because.... it is socially accepted while "white against black" racism is nearly universally scorned.



That's an exceptionally simplistic question that begs for a simplistic answer.... but, I really need to know what you mean by a few things. Qualifications? Those are a myriad of things that include background, experience, personal temperament, ability to grow, adapt, and work in the company's best interests. And what do you mean by "black" and by "white"? What about people with mixed racial backgrounds? What about Asians? Are they "white" or "black" in your simplistic model? Do you propose a color chart to hold up to people's skin? And what of people from India or from the middle east, many of whom have pigments darker than many "black" people?

Can you see where this is going? Your question, and THEREFORE, the concept of race that it depends on, is absurd.

Furthermore, per your scenario, if two "properly educated" (whatever that means), "qualified" and "dressed" "white people" come into an interview, will the candidate for the job in the US be decided only on "qualifications"?

Have you ever been involved in a hiring process in the business world? How about the "firing" process? I know that academia lives in a sort of parallel universe that doesn't reflect much of the "real world", but I can assure you that every company that I've ever worked for (big and small) cared about one color and one color alone; green (as in US Dollar for those who deal with alternative multi-color currencies).

Hiring someone who doesn't work out is extremely expensive. And most people don't get fired for their "qualifications". They get fired for their "behavior". Being able to maintain the accepted level of "professionalism", and the ability to work well with in team situations with all types of people are the type of qualities that keep people employed and thus, allow a company's investment in that individual to be returned.

Therefore, is really no way to answer the question you asked. It's both simplistic and absurd.




Again, a cartoonishly simplistic question. Which "blacks" are you referring to? Of which socio/economic level? Are we talking about Colin Powell (ex US secretary of state), Dr. Condi Rice (current sec-state), or a guy like Ken Chenault who pulls in a cool $18M or so as CEO of American Express? Or, are you referring to some gang-banger in South Central LA? You are making the same mistake that "nighttimer" is by lumping people who "look" alike into the same "culture".

I just can't answer such an absurd and simplistic question.



Your paintbrush is again way too wide. There is no way to answer such an imprecise question.



Those "statistics" prove nothing. By your logic, the National Hockey League is blatantly racist (as is the NBA, NFL, and MLB).

What is the percentage of "black" hockey players in the NHL? How many in Junior Canadian Hockey? I'm sure it's less than the "population at large". Could other factors possibly be at work here? Is it possible that the interest in jobs and careers is not equally distributed among all population groups? Since you quoted "statistics", I assume you understand at least a few rudiments of the mathematical concepts, no?

You know the old adage about "liars", "damn liars" and "statisticians"?

Not at all. Please don't answer my questions with more rhetorical questions.

What I'm saying emphatically, without any objective argument is that:
1. At this point we're not really talking simply about "judge-ships" (or doctors/lawyers, etc for that matter), and the stats given don't give any objectively quantifiable argument that compares apples-to apples. There is no way to quantify experience and education, number of interviews, race of employers and employees, etc across the US. What we can show is gov't doctrine, etc on where caucasian men are pushed out for a less qualified "minority" of one type or another.

2. Statistically, fewer black students graduate HS, have lower SAT/ACT scores, and are less likely to attend college. (need I provide documentation?)

3. I'd like to see where the supporting AA statistical information on this board is gathered from, by whom, and how. (not being judgemental, but I work with statistical information on a VERY regular basis professionally and understand the semantics of stats)

We all could build polls that would SPIN the information in our direction, but what I'm looking for is an objective argument based upon debatable sources.

Until now, we've discussed an untold number of "studies", "sources", etc. I have provided some objective information in relation to the doctrine set forth by the US military, and some understandable arguments as to how they relate to race relations (long prior in this thread), but have yet to see anything but poorly SPUN ideas about the "plight of blacks in contemporary America.

I agree that there are circumstances that cultural differences play a part in. For instance, hair styles such as corn rows are often looked upon as different, as are long nails or woven hair.

I by no means mentioned "pimp suits or anything of that nature. What I was saying is that just as there are geographical differences in dress, there are sometimes cultural norms that stand in the way. This can find it's way into speech, dress, and every part of what makes us unique and individual. (... this could apply to middle-eastern people or asians and hispanic people)

For instance, here in Dallas, people might arrive to a high profile interview in the summer without a jacket or tie. People often wear short-sleeve "polo" shirts in the summer, and casual Fridays often entail Jeans (and sometimes sandals!)... even at high-profile companies. In my experience, this isn't always acceptable in other places (i.e. our office off Wall st).

How do you approach these issues, and what is the best way??? (not that there really is...)

This argues for AA as a person who is unable to understand that a black person's is structurally different and therefore may call for a different hairstyle is likely not informed enough to make a wise business decision without help.


Approach them by realizing they are wholly irrelevant, if a person object to "black styles" of dress or hair it is quite probably because they are racist to begin with.

I'm not one to throw that word around but this is ridiculous.

Most black people know full well how to "look professional" and do so whenever interviewing for a job.

We can keep making excuses for racist managers, but... why?

I agree whole-heartedly that geographical differences can cause divisions. This happens here in wonderful Dallas, in that often times we have southern accents (*wink wink*) and taking business to the Northeast causes interesting conversation! ( I go to NYC often...)

I believe you've helped to make my argument. I am confident that if I were to move to the Northeast, there are going to be instances in which people perceive a "southern accent" as ignorance, or equate it to incompetence.

Is that right or equitable?? Heck no. But AA doesn't make any strides in changing behavior or perception at all....

However, a few distinctly interesting facts about the article that you found in nightimer's post.

1. It only took 13 applicants, doesn't discuss their experience, and they went to different interviews!!!!!!
"Beginning in February 2004, Professor Pager and the study's other author, Bruce Western, also a sociology professor, sent 13 white, black and Latino men posing as ex-convicts to more than 3,500 job interviews throughout the city, most of them in Manhattan. (The study did not form any conclusions about Latino ex-convicts.) Saying they had completed only high school, they applied for a broad spectrum of jobs, from couriers to cashiers, deli clerks to telemarketers. "

2. It never quantfies the information that you use to prove a point (or ummm... try to)
"Black men whose job applications stated that they had spent time in prison were only about one-third as likely as white men with similar applications to get a positive response."

Where did they get this information, where is it disclosed, how many people did they poll, how much of an experience gap did they have, etc, etc, etc???

3. ""It takes a black ex-offender three times as long to receive a callback or a job offer," said Devah Pager, an assistant professor of sociology and one of the study's two authors."

WHY??? It never answers this questions.


If I were to use the same logic, I could go back to my professional Football argument. I have following qualifications:
1. In good shape, as a Marine reservist and regular long-distance runner, etc
2. Played football from the age of 9 until 18
3. Love and understand the game
4. Play in rec leagues in the city
5. Played and coached intermural teams in college

Are the New Orleans Saints going to slide me in at wide receiver?? Why?? Is it because I'm white????
We could use the very same conjecture in this argument....

If I'm not mistaken the article specifically said there experience, personality, etc. was matched carefully so as not to introduce any factors other than race.

The size of the gap doesn't suggest random happenstance...


If a person is put off by what they consider "black culture" they are a racist and nothing will change their attitude.

AA does change behavior however, by mandating this change by law.

Yes, AA forces behavior changes through racism.

I'm not going to enter the debate on hiring "convicts". For pete's sake, this is HARDLY typical or representative of what happens in business today.

What exactly are you referring to with respect to "black culture" in the hiring process?

There are certain realities in business and one of them is that there is a level of conformance required at most positions... and the higher one goes into an organization, the higher that level of conformance.

We're not talking about "skin color" or even "gender" here. We're talking about patterns of behavior. speech, dress, and other outward appearances. We're also talking about "attitudes" in many respects.

If you go to an interview for a middle management position dressed and talking as a "rapper", you have no chance (unless the company is in that specific business). And that's not "racism", it' reality.

The same is true for "white" people too. Those interviewing for high level positions who show up in culturally inappropriate dress, use language and a vernacular that is also not appropriate to that position, and who behave in "different" ways will be discriminated against. We're not talking about regional accents either. If you show up in an interview for a management job dressed like you're going to be pulling a transmission or doing a valve job, you just aren't going to go very far.

That's the way the business world works unless the person is the owner of the company, in which case, they have the luxury of setting their own tone.... unless of course, they may have to deal with investors, bankers, customers, etc.

Now, given that reality, how would you raise YOUR children to succeed in the business world? Accept and MASTER the reality? Or, just whine and complain and DEMAND that the world change for them or institutionalize racism in order to compel business to change?

You can't have your cake and eat it too, turnea.

Earlier in this debate you mentioned that black people speak and dress in the same way that white people do (paraphrased), but now you're saying that people put off by "black culture are racist". That's particularly contradictory. Do black people have culturally different speech patterns or don't they? *(*tongue in cheek**)
http://melanet.com/clegg_series/ebonics.html

I'm put off by people that don't make me feel as if they will gain and retain customers. I (along with nearly everyone on the planet) am concerned with the bottom line, which is why my dept is about 1/2 black. I have some good people, of which some have darker complexions. For most businessmen, green is the color that matters.

My point is that it has nothing to do with the color of anyone's skin, which is the backbone of racism. It has everything to do with the environment in which people are raised, and the cultural level of comfort that they exude.

Secondly, my point about the study is that it doesn't deliniate anything objectively as to how they came to these "conclusions".

It states that they tried to ensure that the 13 people were similar in experience, origin, and personality (paraphrased).

My point is that:
1. 13 people sent out on job interviews per race is hardly a reputable study as it assumes that the few number of interviews it experienced were a "snap shot" of America. Lord knows that they'd fail any students that based their findings on less than 50 examples!!!!
2. These applicants couldn't possibly have had the same backgrounds. Experience and education are very relative terms.
3. Devah Pager, one of the people quoted in the article, is a known affirmative action supporter and hardly non-biased (just google her name..)
4. The people in this study had to have known what they were being used for. Considering the source and nature of this argument, it would be very easy to "help out your cause"...

Finally, and most importantly, no one has ever argued the point that AA doesn't make any difference in the root of the problem. When will it stop??? When American industry has visibly suffered? (which it may be as we type...)????

When will it end? How do we quantify that America has begun to hire based solely upon Merit?? (which is a fallacy in itself)

AA supporters presume that America is a meritocracy for everyone but Black people (or minorities), and that people aren't hired based upon personalities, geographical originations, personal interests, religion, or other obscure and completely non-racially oriented factors. On this board, AA supporters seem to argue that the magical % of demographics = political and professional representation. How could that ever happen in America (we both ask??)

I believe that we should approach this as a socio-economic issue, as opposed to a racially-centered issue. The fact is that poor people are very likely to stay poor. This isn't something that any of us really would argue... I believe that if we were to research the number of poor children that end up being CEO's, politicians, and Business owners... it would be a mirror of black statistics in the same vein...

(Does anyone ever wonder why poor people tend to be democrats?? )

Good heavens I think we both know most black people don't speak ebonics, exposure is in order here...

Let me repeat precisely what I said.

and secondly

I never denied differences existed, I merely pointed out they are slight and irrelevant to employment qualifications.

You seem keen to exagerate these differences, while I present them as they are. Black people do not walk around speaking an unintelligable, harsh, dialect. If you walk up to the average black man on the street and ask for directions you will get a plain answer.

If that answer sounds slightly different due to to an accent it makes not difference.

If a hiring official makes a big deal out of it, he/she is probably a racist.


Racism is not just driven by color, a person uncomfortable with black speech pattern or hair structure is just a racist as one put off by their skin.


American industry has suffered form AA? Prove it.

Meanwhile I'll say it again, the root problem is racism and no government program can solve that completely. It can alleviate the effects.

I said, and I quote "that it may be as we type". I don't know of any studies that can prove/refute the effects at all because it's such a touchy subject that people primarily dance around it. There have been industries in which socialized policy has been known to be detrimental. This could include, let's say, unionization.
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=256034

Unions typically pay workers wages that without unions would be far less. They protect less productive employees, and drive the cost of doing business up for all involved. Let's use the GM plant in Shreveport, Louisiana for instance. The lowest paid worker (let's say a custodian) would make $22/hr, while outside of GM his counter-part may only make $9-10/hr.

Does this mean decreased productivity??? Not necessarily.

However, the policy of hiring less productive or less qualified people MAY have this effect.

Don't SPIN or mince my words. I don't know of any objective studies on Affirmative action on either side of the spectrum. I believe that people move and change the information, or set up the research to ensure their success. It's similar to polls used by the parties. They are often used to bully public opinion. I'm appalled that scientists from Princeton were published in the NY Times after using only 13 people from the various races as a basis for their statements.

I'm even more appalled that you're using it as a basis for your arguments...

So, to you, "terrorists" and "traitors" and "nazis" - as liberals have recently been characterized by conservatives - are just "misguided"??

Sorry, lordhelmet, hyperbole exists on both sides - it doesn't just come from evil - er, sorry, misguided - liberals.



Maybe that's because we don't see these "other methods". What "other methods" are you putting forward to create equal opportunity for minorities in this country, for example? What "other methods" are you suggesting for integrating the workforce? What "other methods" have you outlined to ensure that hiring, firing, and promotion are not based on racial prejudice? Let's hear these "other methods" - please. They might be good. They might be better than affirmative action. What are they?

Or are you arguing that an employer has every right to hire a white man over an equally black man just because he doesn't like blacks - and that that isn't an example of racism?

Right back atcha aevans176. Was all that bold necessary?

You are attempting to introduce a host of other questions in this debate when we already have one on the table. For example:



These questions are related to the methodology used to reach the statical conclusions. How do you propose that I find out what the test subjects wore and further---what the hell difference does it make? If you choose not to accept the results of the research, that is your right. But if you want to debunk it by determining if every "i" was dotted and every "t" crossed, you will have to do the legwork yourself. Don't expect me to do the heavy lifting for you.



Why are you asking me? I don't know where you're going here. Start a thread. Just like I would if I wanted to know why so few NASCAR drivers are African-American.



Based on what? Your opinion? Where is your empirical evidence that this is the case? What are your "objective stats and links?" You seem to cast doubt, question the motivations of and dismiss any conclusion reached by sources that you say lack credibility. It is not my job to search the ends of the Earth and the Internet in a vain quest for a "objective source" that means your criteria---particularly when you have not bothered to provide the parameters of what you would consider objective.



Here you go. Enjoy. http://www.apa.org/pubinfo/affirmaction.html

We can debate aevans176 if you are a skeptic. There's nothing to discuss if you're going to be a cynic.

I’ve been watching this thread for awhile. Wertz, nightimer. kmsouthern, turnea, Vermillion and Doclotus have already said it as well or better than I could.

I would, however, like to address a few points.



One of my professors from years ago jokingly suggested that if we really wanted to make the playing field level, then we should tax inheritance at 100% and start everyone off at the same point. Forty or so years later, this would involve changing tax laws and those regarding gifts to minors. Once we clear the hurdles of taxes and gifts, we could then give everyone seed money, say $50,000 to $100,000 and let them make it from there.

Like my professor, I’m just joking. This ain’t gonna happen. There is, however, a point to be made. That is that some people start off in a more advantageous position than others. George W. Bush is a case in point. It is my guess that those most vehemently opposed to affirmative action are those who were born with a head start--those who perhaps have the most to lose.

Lordhelmet it looks like you and aevans176 have pretty much isolate yourselves on this questions.

I’ll address you first.



You didn’t have to finish what you were addressing to nighttimer. Sometimes what one doesn’t say is as important as what they do say. I think most of us caught your drift.



Are newspapers written for Spanish speaking readers also racist? What about “white” publications that down play black accomplishments and ignore black audiences—are they racist, too?

I went to Borders and did a little research this afternoon.

First, I looked at the latest issue of People, a horrifying thought in itself. On the first thirty or so pages I found 59 pictures of whites and 10 of Blacks. Two of the black pictures were of Michael Jackson. What I found even more telling was the advertising. An American Express add featured two white males, a white baby and a dog. I went through eight more ads—Loreal, Skky, Skechers, Matrix, One, Listerine and Walmart before finding a Black guy pictured with four whites in an AMC ad. Apparently, the advertisers are going for the money.

In People’s defense they did have a feature story on a black mom, Sharon Williams; who hunted down the Black killer, Joseph J. Brown of her daughter, Demetria Hill.

To my surprise, Rolling Stone didn’t fare much better. I found a few small pictures of 50 Cent, Kayne West, and Jean Wyclef. There was also a Black guy in a Saturn ad.

Just out of interest, I picked up a British Magazine by Mappin House on Eric Clapton entitled Blues Heroes: Starring…Clapton. The publication featured full length articles on Black American bluesmen Albert King, Howlin’ Wolf, Muddy Waters and B. B. King. There were also pictures of Ivory Joe Hunter, Mance Lipscomb, Big Bill Broonzey, Little Walter, John Lee Hooker, Junior Wells, Son House and Etta James and others.

Don ‘t you think lordhelmet that if “Black” newspapers and publications like Jet and Ebony offend you, that American publishers could follow the lead of the British?



This is a new tactic for you lordhelmet. Usually you point the finger at Bill Clinton to get the heat off Bush. Now you give us a list of people accused of plagiarism to get the heat off yourself.

Be truthful now. Have you ever read one of Doris Kearns Goodwin’s books? How often do you read Molly Ivins’ column? Could it be that you got your info from Michelle Malkin?

http://michellemalkin.com/archives/002101.htm

I now have a couple of points to address with aevans176.





You might do well to debate the issue rather than pontificating on how others should debate. Vermillion has a perfect right to ask rhetorical questions and turnea is entitled to ask you to corroborate your opinions.

Your second argument first. I never stated what you attribute to me. As I responded to "vermillion", your premise is simplistic. What do you mean by "white man"? What about "black man"? What about "equally"? Do you think that hiring decisions are so simplistic that candidates walk into an office with a numerical grade that "rates" them and that those hiring them just make a decision based on "race"? Do you have practical experience hiring people? Firing people? Managing a group of people? Being held accountable for showing a profit? Anyone who has knows that such simplistic characterizations are complete and utter bunk.

Secondly, you are the one who accused anyone of opposing AA of being a "racist". Your charge is despicable, it's unfounded, and it proves my point that you reposted above. Anyone with an IQ above room temperature in America today knows that one of the absolutely worst things that a "white" person can be charged with being is a "racist". Yet, you throw that invective around indiscriminately. I suggest you either PROVE it or rescind it.

Now, to your first question. What other methods as an alternative to AA?

I have covered this time and time again. Perhaps you should read my previous posts?

Affirmative action is racism. It's not a solution to anything. It causes more problems than it pretends to "fix". It's focused on "equal results", not "equal opportunity". And it misuses statistics out of context in an attempt to prove racial discrimination. That's wrong.

What is a better way?

Fix the dysfunctional cultural issues that I identified. What chance does a "group" of people have who find a 70%+ out-of-wedlock birth rate acceptable? How can a "group" succeed in America when the family structure has been so devastated, when education is not held as a priority, and when its members are encourage to behave, communicate, and dress in ways that are outside of the mainstream?

The solution is there for those who want it. And, gladly, given the rise of the "black middle class", there are many individuals who "get it".

The problems facing the black underclass today are not the result of "racism". They are the result of behavior. Their OWN behavior.

I can't "fix" them and neither can you. That change has to come from within.

Like I said before, it's a shame that true role models like Colin Powell, Condi Rice, and Clarence Thomas are held in such contempt by "black leaders" who are nothing better than snake-oil-selling hucksters; telling the underclass what they want to hear, that it's NOT their fault and that it's "whitey" who's holding them down.

The sad thing is that even some educated and relatively successful people buy into that nonsense and just enable that dysfunctional culture for yet another doomed generation.

Hobbes, as someone once said, "You have lurched uncontrollably into the truth."

There is only so much referencing one can do to history, statistics, calls for sober reasoning, appeals to logic and good common sense before one collapse into a complete state of exhausted frustration. It becomes a bit like the man who kept hitting himself in the head with a hammer. When asked why he replied, "Because it feels so good when I stop."

When faced with willful ignorance, deliberate demonstrations of ignorance and attitudes that demonstrate if not overt racism, at least a virulent strain of bias and prejudice based on race, it becomes an exercise in redundancy to try and "reach" that person.

So we’re different colours
And we’re different creeds
And different people
Have different needs
It’s obvious you hate me
Though I’ve done nothing wrong
I’ve never even met you
So what could I have done

There's a lot of "take" in a debate about affirmative action" but not much "give." I don't totally endorse the position of Wertz that those opposed to affirmative action who offer no substitute or solution for it are racist. They may honestly be troubled by a system they believes creates inequity to solve inequity. They may also honestly wonder if people are being granted advantages based exclusively on their race. Just because those opposed to affirmative action have no solution to offer for discrimination based upon race does not automatically make them racist themselves.

But I do believe Wertz is correct when he asks that the opponents at least make some effort to make a better tomorrow today.



Now you’re punching
And you’re kicking
And you’re shouting at me
And I’m relying on your common decency
So far it hasn’t surfaced
But I’m sure it exists
It just takes a while to travel
From your head to your fist

What is not a solution is simply declare that racism has been vanquished (except for this one last vestige of it--affirmative action) the playing field has been leveled and Dr. King and all the other advocates for equality have seen their dream realized. We as a people have reached the Promised Land.

Not quite yet. Putting your hands over your eyes or your head in the sand is not a viable option. I posted a link to a website in my previous post that I believe would answer a lot of the questions and concerns of the skeptics and critics of affirmative action programs. I doubt that it will actually change the mind of anyone who is opposed to these initiatives. At the very least though it is more information and information can become knowledge and knowledge is...well, we know what knowledge is.

I came across a quote from Suzy Steamboat in another thread that helped me realize why we've reached the point in this debate that we're only talking AT each other instead of TO each other.



I can’t understand
What makes a man
Hate another man
I can’t understand (people are people)
What makes a man (why should it be)
Hate another man
Help me understand...

--- Depeche Mode/"People Are People"

Wow BOF, you would do well to debate the issue rather than to tell me how to debate (the same logic...!!! )

That being said, I've given some poignant ideas, stated fact as opposed to rhetoric, asked very pertinent questions, only to be returned with SPIN and RHETORIC. What I was trying to invoke is intelligent debate.
nighttimer and I had a few brief moments of progress.... followed by some other debaters hopping on the AA train and not moving us anywhere.

It's funny you mention well formed debate.

Your post discusses:
1. A British magazine that has an article on BLUES, and you didn't expect it to be flush with black people??? Do you really think the British think of Black people as equals?? (laughing out-loud) That's like not expecting to pick up a Sports Illustrated during Basketball season and see blacks... come on. That's like reading a Country Music Magazine and not expecting to see white people!!!! Of course Blues articles will have plenty of darkly colored people, as that's how the genre originated.(**SIDENOTE- I don't mind magazines like Ebony or Jet. They cater to a certain demographic, just as 17 or Cosmo do... more power to them; who are they hurting??? No one...**)
While I'm not fond of periodicals that incite racist or derogatory rhetoric, that would apply to probably every race, color, or creed in the US. I'm sure that the nation of Islam and the KKK both have some inflammatory remarks in their newsletters... go figure.

2. A statement by a professor from Lord knows when about taxing inheritance. This, in itself, would never cause equitable hiring practices or diversity. It wouldn't even cause economic equality. Interesting you bring it up... of course people start off with an easier life than others. That goes without saying. This is true nationwide and it transcends gender and race.

3. Finally, and most importantly, you talk about two magazines that you happen to pick up. Your point in itself aids my cause.
Simply put, the whole argument for affirmative action (at least on this board) hinges upon flawed studies and mostly conjecture. There is no real way to compare experience, education, personality, etc on a national scale. All we can do is speculate.
I surely do not believe that one of the "studies" cited on this board (over and over) that uses a sample of under 50 applicants in ONE CITY is proof of anything....

The argument against AA generally objectively shows racial bias and a lack of effectiveness in the policy. There are studies that show that AA doesn't increase minority graduation rates in our Universities, there is military doctrine (included earlier) that blatently deliniates that there are "quotas", and all the while-40 years later- there hasn't been a significant enough change in society for minorities that AA shouldn't even be rethought???

My question is again, at what point is AA going to end? At what point is the playing field supposed to be level? Why do we perpetually ignore socio-economics and stick to race??? Are we supposed to have equal representation in all aspects of American life for AA to be effective? How does that coorelate to hard work and motivation (of conversely a lack there of?)? If that is true, does there need to be a realistic demographic representation in professional sports??? What about hockey? Seriously... what if black people felt they were discriminated against in the NHL? What if white people felt as if they were being discriminated against in the NBA???
Again... BOF, let's give objective answers as opposed to SPIN and RHETORIC.

You're right, fighting racism with racism is ludicrous on the face of it. There simply is no rational justification for imposing racial quotas and claiming it's to help racial equality.



Exactly. I think it's funny that blacks spend so much time wanting to be 'equal' and just as much time trying to be different. They've invented a 'black culture' and do their best to act different from whites, then they complain because they get treated differently.

Duh. Figure it out.

I think it's funny that blacks, and to a lesser degree hispanics, point their fingers and claim racism when asians have far less problem integrating into society because they actually TRY to fit in.



There is no 'black middle class' or 'white middle class', there is just the middle class. People reach their level regardless of what color their skin is. People in the middle class, be they black, white, green or blue, all have the same opportunities if they choose to pursue them. It's as much a matter of fitting in with the norm as it is being professionally qualified.

You know I'll take this nonsense up in a new thread even though it is marginally on topic.

The case for AA is only strengthened when its opponents make comments as if they were from another planet.

..and what country is this bit talking about. Not the United States of America, where African-Americans have been fitting in since before it existed.


The only thing besides racism that could explain this outlook is sheer overwhelming lack of exposure, hermit-style.

Where are black Americans striving to be "out of the mainstream"?

Where don't they fit in?

Someone suggested that it would help to define Affirmative Action. I very much agree, so I will attempt to do so. I will add that my expertise lies with the federal AA system and not with college admissions, but I'll attempt to address both.

What is Affirmative Action?

Or, for starters...what it's NOT. It’s not a quota system (quota systems ARE illegal), it’s not allowing unqualified people a free reign on jobs, it’s not just about hiring, it's not black vs. white…the list of assumptions/misinformation is astronomical. With respect to federal AA, companies that are not federal contractors or sub-contractors do not fall under the federal Affirmative Action program and while they may implement their own programs under the guise of AA, AA is NOT any of the above things.

I worked directly for the president of the Arizona Affirmative Action Association (referred to as Quad A by those who are members or familiar). I wrote and maintained AA programs for all sorts of companies throughout the U.S. Not only did we write AA programs, but we also had to analyze thousands of pages of company employee data in order to implement these programs. As a result, I saw the “big picture” of MANY companies’ practices pre-AA and post-AA. Let me tell you that AA made a HUGE difference in some areas and only a minimal difference in others – but the main point is that it DOES make a difference. But let's first get to the definitions of AA, shall we?

From Facts on Executive Order 11246:





From 41 CFR 60-2.10 - General Purpose and contents of affirmative action programs



That covers AA in the workforce realm...but since this topic originated with a discussion about affirmative action within the education system, here is some information detailing the roles of AA in college admissions.

Here's an interesting link regarding the history of AA with specific references to some of the cases regarding education

Affirmative Action History



In the realm of education, the 'precedent case' was Bakke v. Californa (1978). Basically, the Bakke case found that strict quotes were unconstitutional, but that race WAS a legitimate factor in the admissions process.

There are now two schools of thought when it comes to AA in education. There's Bakke and there's Hopwood (v. Texas). The Hopwood case found that "educational diversity is not recognized as a compelling state interest". However, in the SCOTUS' ruling in Michigan (2003), Hopwood became invalid.

AAUP - Affirmative Action

With regard to the Michigan case:


Also (in reference to Supreme Court decision):


And more on the Michigan case from a timeline of AA history:

Affirmative Action Timeline



The Supreme Court finds that it's constitutionally sound to use race as one of many factors in the admissions process...provided that there are no inflexible/set quotas.

And there is a very interesting book that I've come across in my search for research today: The Shape of the River: Long-Term Consequences of Considering Race in College and University Admissions. I haven't read the book, but it certainly sounds like an interesting read.

From the
Andrew Mellon Foundation



I think I'll be checking that book out as soon as I can find it.

Basically, in both education and in the federal realm, Affirmative Action IS NOT ABOUT QUOTAS. I can understand why some might think that AA will unnecessarily give favor to those in the protected classes (women, minorities, Veterans, people with disabilites, etc.), however my personal experience tells me it IS necessary and NOT prejudicial. I also don't believe that it does or should create doubt about the road that the minority (or other protected class person) had to travel in order to succeed in their achievments. I don't believe that AA is a system that rewards negative behavior by any stretch of the definition. I don't believe doubt about those who've benefitted from AA is warranted.

Finally, as a sidenote...there have been some references made to the racial makeup of professional sports. While it's not really relevant to the topic (it's a topic in and of itself), for the record, the vast majority of pro athletes are white. In fact, the last stat I have (from 1995) says that blacks are only 10% of all professional athletes in the U.S. It just so happens that black athletes appear in the more popular sports (football, basketball) at numbers significantly greater than their proportion in the general population. There are a host of factors that play into this phenomenon (none of which are really relevant here). HOWEVER, I am commenting on it because it works the same way that AA works: you look at the qualified pool of applicants in comparison with the actual makeup of a company (or sports team) if you're looking for any signs of discrimination. You don't randomly suggest that discrimination is present just because there are 'too many' black men in the NBA (for example...there's already been a topic at AD on this very subject)...just as you don't randonly suggest that discrimination is present just because there are 'too many' white men in executive positions - WITHOUT knowing the makeup of the qualified pool of applicants, there's no way to know what 'too many' is.

Also, lordhelmet, you continue to place the 'blame' on the shoulders of a culture.

.

That's your opinion and while you're entitled to your opinion, it does not make it so. Stating that these problems are solely a result of a dysfunctional culture does not address the issues that helped create this supposed culture. I'm interested in what has led you to come to these conclusions...what research, what studies, what exerperiences. I'd say that there ARE certain 'cultural' problems with in the Black community, but that none of these things exist in a vacuum and none of these things are the result of some sort of inherent problem within the community itself. My biggest gripe has always been with respect to education and the idea that being education means 'acting white'. That attitude is not nearly as prevalent as it was, say, 30 years ago.

With respect to your statements about role models...I'll give you taht COndi Rice and certainly Clarence Thomas are not generally well-respected among Blacks. Colin Powell is actually quite well-respected by just about everyone I know (black, white, whatever). His ties to the Bush administration are what lessened some people's respect for him, but most Blacks - in my experience - still largely respect the man and would vote for him were he to run for President. He would have been wise to do so some years ago before his reputation was question by being associated with George Bush.

And for the record, you bring up these three Black politicians...and TWO of them are IN FAVOR of Affirmative Action as a result of their own experiences and understanding. If these Black CONSERVATIVES believe that the country will benefit from AA programs, why are these opinions not touted by their party (after all, a minority would be far more likely to realize the 'worth' of AA than a white man).

CBS News: Powell Defends Affirmative Action




And another from Powell's speech at the RNC in 2000



LH, I'm interested in hearing who you would define as the "black leaders" that the Black community looks up to. If you define Colin Powell and Condi Rice as respectable Black leaders, it might help to realize that their beliefs on Affirmative Action greatly differ from yours.

First off, "kmsouthern", you obviously spent a lot of time on your post and you obviously have a lot of knowledge in the field. It's clear you're very "close" to this topic and I certainly don't want to offend your motivations. I commend your effort here. However.....I just have one question that I believe cuts to the core of the debate on AA....



What is your definition of "make a difference" or "make a HUGE difference" in some areas?

At the end of the day, what is the primary "metric" used to determine if AA is a "success" or "not a success"?

Wonderful! It seems like this thread is becoming a little more focused.

Thank you, KMSouthern, for you excellent input on what exactly constitutes AA. I would add that it still seems somewhat quota-based to me...



however, as you state, these seem more diagnositic than prescriptive, so I am willing to go with the fact that AA programs are not in fact quota based systems, and are instead more focused on, well, affirmative action programs that a company undertakes to try to address any deficiencies. I for one constantly harp on other threads that any program needs to have stated goals and specific methods of achieving them, so it would be pretty hypocritical to then turn around and complain when another program does just that.



Can't say that I see anything I would argue against there. I also accept your indication that such programs do have a history of success, which should be expected given quantifiable goals and specific programs designed to achieve them. Are such programs still potentially racist? Well, maybe, in that they would be creating programs and opportunities for one group, and not another. But, that's probably necessary, so I don't think that alone can be used as an argument against AA.

I think it might be informative to include my thoughts on the Hopwood decision. At the time that came about, I was working in a department at the 'other' university of Texas (OK, I r an Aggie, I'll admit it). This department among other things handled most diversity issues. Most of the administrators in our department were very distraught at the decision, in that they didn't see how they could otherwise get minority students to attend their school. I found their concern extremely misplaced, in that essentially would Hopwood said, to me, is that you can't bribe minorities to attend...but that doesn't preclude you from making other efforts to entice them to come. What was being done to make TAMU a place minorities would want to come? I didn't see anything...which explained their concern. However, their concern shouldn't have been that the 'bribe' was taken away...but that is was necessary in the first place. Rather than focus on giving handouts to minorities, why not focus on making your university some place minorities would want to come to? KMSouthern, it seems that AAP were exactly what was needed....proactive programs designed to make a university a place that would encourage minority students to attend, along with outreach programs to get them where they would need to be to succeed there. Monetary incentives aren't really necessary...the government already has lots of ways for underprivileged people to help pay for college. It was the other things that should have been addressed all along, IMHO. KM, NT or Turnea...I would very much like to hear your comments on this.



I absolutely agree with this.



LH, I will admit that I share some of the concerns you express here, but hopefully I can get you to admit this statement is a bit extreme. I don't think anyone can argue that racism does indeed exist today, and that minorities are negatively affected by it. Some more than others, and I will also say it probably affects those expecting it more than those who aren't. But, I say that not being to walk a mile in their shoes....I am open to the fact that my opinion might change if I were to do that. In the hope of cutting out some of the extremism going on here, and getting us to focus on the 'meat' of the issue....are you open to the fact that at least some of the issues facing blacks today are indeed due to racism? I don't really see how your thoughts can be incorporated into the debate if we can't at least get to that point.

Conversely, absent the extremism, I think some of LH's points do deserve to be addressed.



Is there not some validity to what is being expressed here? I say this not as a criticism...rather, it might point to areas outside of AAP that need to be addressed (or maybe things that AAP outreaches should address?). I think the same comments could be directed at 'white trash' communities, which have statistics very similar to those often brought up for blacks, in terms of crime, education, out-of-wedlock births, etc. Until their socio-economic issues are addressed, all the AAP programs on earth aren't really going to help. It is almost impossible, sociologically, to escape the environment you are brought up in...it is much better long term to try to change the environment.

For others here arguing against AAP, does KMSouthern's definition ease some of your concerns? Personally, I don't see anything there I object to. As I stated in my request for a definition, I think much of the argument against AA is against quotas. Take that issue away (which I think she did), and I don't see much left to argue against...unless one takes the stance that racism doesn't exist today, which I don't think is a position that can be defended.

Hobbes, I wish you well in your attempt to get lordhelmet to moderate his stance that racism only exists in the minds of a few David Duke types and the proponents of affirmative action. Nothing in the gentleman's prior posts indicates that particular ship has not already sailed.

I'm troubled by this continual repetition the figure of a "70%+ out-of-wedlock birth rate" I have been unsuccessful in getting LH to divulge the source of this number beyond the referral to some articles by a few Black columnists.

On the Joint Center for Political Studies website I came across these numbers compiled from figures from the U.S Census Bureau.

Between 1980 and 1994, the proportion of all black families that were headed by single parents climbed from 52% to 65%. By 2000, however, this percentage had declined slightly to 63.2%. Among both white and Hispanic families, the percentage maintained by single parents increased between 1980 and 2000, among whites from 17.1% in 1980 to 26% in 2000, and from 25.9% to 35.4% for Hispanics. However, these increases still left the percentage of black families maintained by single parents more than twice the percentage for white families, and 75% higher than that for Hispanics.

in 2000 the overwhelming majority of black single-parent families (90.1%) were maintained by women, and so were 79.3% of white single-parent families.

In 2000, 19.2 million children under 18 lived with one parent, including about 58.2% of all black children and 23% of all white children. In 1998, for both black and non-Hispanic white households, the average number of children per household living with single fathers was 2.0. The average number of children in the families of black single mothers (2.5) and white single mothers (2.2) was higher, as was the average number of children in two-parent black (2.6) and white (2.4) families.

http://www.census.gov/population/ socdemo/hh-fam/htabFM-2.txt

But even more telling are the numbers compiled by Jonathan Rauch in a 2001 article published on Reasononline:

33. That is the percentage of all American children born out of wedlock in 1999, the most recent year for which figures are available. Now another number: 69. That is the percentage of black children born out of wedlock in 1999. The good news is that the illegitimacy ratio for blacks stopped rising in the 1990s; the bad news is that it stabilized at more than triple the illegitimacy ratio of 1960. Today, about two-thirds of all black families are headed by a single parent (usually the mother), and a majority of all black children live in fatherless households.

...in white America, marriage and two-parent households are more the rule than the exception. Still, the numbers are sobering. In 1960, about 2 percent of white children were born out of wedlock; in 1999, the comparable figure was 27 percent--and the figure for whites, unlike the one for blacks, continues to grow.
The result is that, by some estimates, 60 percent of all American children born in the 1990s will spend some significant portion of their childhood in a fatherless home. Moreover, the great engine of single-parenthood is no longer divorce, as it was in the 1960s and 1970s; it is the rising share of births to people who never marry to begin with.

...poverty correlates more strongly with a family's marital status than with its race. According to Census Bureau data, a two-parent black household is more likely to be poor than is a two-parent white household, but both are far less likely to be poor than is a mother-only household of either race. In other words, if you are a baby about to be born, your best odds are to choose married black parents over unmarried white ones.

Second, recent research finds that, dire though the consequences of single parenthood often are for black children, the consequences tend to be even worse for white children. "The consequences of family disruption are smaller for disadvantaged black and Hispanic children than for disadvantaged white children, both in terms of percentage points and in terms of proportionate effects," write Sara McLanahan and Gary Sandefur in their 1994 book, Growing Up With a Single Parent: What Hurts, What Helps. They add that a middle-class income is no shield. "The chances that a white girl from an advantaged background will become a teen mother is five times as high, and the chances a white child will drop out of high school is three times as high, if the parents do not live together."

http://reason.com/rauch/01_05_19.shtml (emphasis added)

Much ado has been made by lordhelmet, Cephus and aevans176 that one of the failings of affirmative action is that Blacks do not seem to be "fitting in" and LH adds the observation that Blacks do not assimilate as "other groups" seem to do so with considerable less effort.

This sentiment is summed up by Cephus:



This is an amazingly unenlightened perspective.

Blacks are different from Whites. Anyone with functional eyes would know that (though it helps if the eyes are open). Their history is different. How they live and experience life is different. Their bodies are different. Their perspectives are different. We're all shaped by the same external stimuli but we all process it differently.

Blacks don't spend much time "wanting" to be equal to Whites. If all men (and women) are created equal then Blacks and Whites already ARE EQUAL. The notion that Blacks must strive to obtain equality with Whites is a racist notion.

When a White youth puts on a baseball cap backward, cranks up some 50 Cent and Ludacris in his tricked-out Escalade and pimp walks around in the newest Air Jordans with tats running up and down his arms, talking in a bogus street slang and coming off like he's seen one too many Eminem videos, just who is biting whose culture here? Who's zoomin' who?

Asians have a problem themselves as the "Model Minority." They didn't create this myth for themselves. White people did. They needed someone they could hold up (and beat over the head of everyone else) as the people of color who quietly assimilated, didn't make any trouble, never complained, worked hard to achieve the American dream and were really, really good at math.

This is somewhat akin to the question, "Why can't you be more like your brother? HE never gives us any trouble!"

So what do you make of this statement, Cephus?

As diverse and rapidly changing as the society we live in, Asian Americans do not conform to any single description. Despite this, Americans reluctant to address the realities of continuing racism and white privilege have consistently portrayed Asian Americans as a "model minority" who have uniformly succeeded by merit.

While superficially complimentary to Asian Americans, the real purpose and effect of this portrayal is to celebrate the status quo in race relations. First, by over-emphasizing Asian American success, it de-emphasizes the problems Asian Americans continue to face from racial discrimination in all areas of public and private life. Second, by misrepresenting Asian American success as proof that America provides equal opportunities for those who conform and work hard, it excuses American society from careful scrutiny on issues of race in general, and on the persistence of racism against Asian Americans in particular.

http://www.modelminority.com/

Asian Americans have problems? Sure they do. Just like everybody else.

Asian Americans are twice as likely to be poor as no