While there was a small part of my post that was a (IMO justified by your post) attack on your character, the vast majority of the rest of my post was in fact an attack on your absurdist arguments and definitions, and a call for you to provide any evidence at all to justify your 'position'.

That you have chosen to ignore those and not address any of those points... does not surprise me at all. However ignoring them does not make them go away.



Your post was not provocative, it was generalising, inaccurate and insulting.



No, thats true, there are small organisations all over the US that echo your unfortunate sentiments condemning 'black culture'.



What does that have to do with anything? My arguments and my evidence come from documents produced by the American Department of Justice. Evidence you have ignored, of course... Where does your evidence come from? Oh wait... my apologies. When you present some evidence, THEN I will ask where it comes from.

Okay I know these discussions usually get heated and cause the threads to be locked...can we PLEASE not go there? These are important topics and we can't ever seem to keep them civil in the race debate. That's really, really sad.

Pretty please...

As for LordHelmet's post, I have to say that while I was extremely disappointed with his beliefs, it's not at all uncommon. People think that becuase some groups of people have been able to overcome prejudice, that everyone should have an easy time with it.

It's just one of those things that you really should experience in order to fully understand. No amount of research or statistics is going to get the point across in the way that a 'walking in your shoes' experience would.

I don't want to dignify some of 'arguments' made in lordhelmet's last post with a response, because I've already done everything I can do to put the FACTS out there for all to see if they so desire. There's only so much arguing you can do before it starts to get frustrating.

But for the sake of all of us who actually want to debate this with research and evidence, can we please keep this on topic and civil?

Well, I'm certainly trying to be "civil" in this debate and I'm not suggesting that it's "easy" to come from various backgrounds.

The biggest obstacle we ALL have to overcome is our background. Period. That statement is race neutral.

Every single argument that I made can be (1) backed up with factual evidence and (2) is being commented upon by progressive "black leaders". I don't confuse those individuals with the racist reactionaries who have captured the lion's share of attention from the "elite media" by the way.

I know we find it uncomfortable to "go there". But we must. If the issue of race/racism is to be solved and if my children's children will one day look back at the debate and laugh.... then, it needs to be addressed honestly and the issues need to be looked at critically without blinking.

What I advocate is a race neutral future and the end of racism of all stripes including "Affirmative Action".

How can anyone possibly oppose this ideal???

The left does more than blink at this issue. They shut their eyes. And thus, they are contrary to a progressive future.

My ideals represent progressive thought. Reliving the past is by definition "reactionary". Thus, "affirmative action" is not only "racist", it's "reactionary".

Are you sure that's the side of history you want to be on?

No, it won't, but it can put people in positions where they don't deserve to be. Going back to the medical school example, if a school has 100 slots open, instead of putting the 100 best qualified applicants into those slots, you are required to put 50 white students and 50 minority students in and hope for the best. That means that instead of getting 80 well-qualified doctors and washing out 20, you might get 50 doctors and wash out 50 students.

In many companies, hiring is done, not solely on the basis of qualification, but on maintaining a certain 'racial profile'. If the best person for the job happens to be a white male and the company has too many whites already, the job very well might go to someone less qualified, but who looks good on the 'diversity index'. Unfortunately, there are many groups out there that aren't interested in how a company does but on how it looks.

Personally, I think that if a white male is the best one for the job, they should get it. If a black female is the best, hire her. If it's a gay, Jewish, American Indian in a wheelchair, hire him. Hiring should be done based on qualifications, not on the color of one's skin or their genitals.

In going over this thread, it seems that a definition of Affirmative Action would help clarify things. I don't think anyone is advocating that racial based hiring practices be allowed. The question is what to do about it. Generally, the issue boils down to whether racial quotas should be enforced, or whether issues should be taken up on a case by case basis. The former is the more recent legislation...generally when someone speaks out against AA they are speaking out against quota based AA...not against the concept itself. So, defending AA itself is not the issue...defending quota based AA is. I see benefits and disadvantages of each. Handling each case on an individual basis is difficult...how do you prove discrimination? Is it even worth one's time to take the matter up? Quota based AA was designed to resolve those issues (which it does)...but it carries with it the problem of reverse discrimination. Do its benefits outweigh that? Possibly....but that is where the discussion should focus, IMHO. I don't think anyone here is against AA of any kind...it is quota based AA that they have issues with, which is much more specific.



Isn't this the very attitude AA seeks to eliminate? This strikes me as treading on dangerous ground....this exact statement could be used to defend eliminating all AA programs, could it not? Which I think carries over into....



Yes, everybody does have to give it up....this goes for all parties involved. You are correct in stating the power is seldom given up willingly. It is probably even more difficult to give up when one doesn't even recognize they have it, which I think is where you would put most white people (probably accurately). But, let's not beat around the bush on what blacks then want or need....



But, your subsequent quote below indicates that there is indeed something whites have that blacks want....



So, whites do have something that blacks want--power---and you yourself admit that power is not given up willingly. That is why you should care what the majority of hard working, educated white males think. We can help you resolve your problem. Might you be able to do it without our help? Possibly. (but if white males truly have the power, that is up for debate). But I don't think you can argue that you can do it faster or easier that way. So, why make it more difficult than it needs to be? Telling us we're irrelevant to your cause doesn't do your cause any good...and in fact is probably hurting it. It is also a fallacious argument....you can't argue that we have all the power on the one hand, and then argue that we're irrelevant on the other. If we really do have all the power, that by definition makes us relevant.




No one is asking or expecting anyone to surrender their principles. However, what I think is missing from the issue is that many white males get the impression that it is indeed a one-way debate where they are the ones who give all and get nothing. I'm sure you would have many arguments to that perception, just as they would probably have arguments for it....that, to me, is where the communication needs to take place. And, despite your assertions to the contrary...it is pertinent to your cause. If whites truly have the power (and if they don't, why are we having this discussion?)....then the quickest way to resolve the issue is to convince them to give some of it up. I keep hearing about how pervasive this white preference is...if that is truly the case, then, indeed, blacks do need to care about how those whites think. Perhaps this can be better realized by examining it in a different perspective, outside of the biases anyone will naturally have here. Consider the case of the Sunnis and Shiites in Iraq. One side clearly has the majority vote, and therefore the power. They also have a long history of animosity towards each other (much, much longer than ours, and I daresay more violent) . How then will one get the other get to treat it equally? They need to convince the other that it is in their best interests to do so. This seems fundamental to me...yet it seems to be missing from the communication on the issue over here.

I will provide you with some examples later JLMA (if the thread doesn't get locked before I can post). Patience, it's coming.

Kmsouthern, I'm feeling you and I agree that it is frustrating when one poster tries to apply logic, reason, statistical evidence, supporting documentation, and just plain common sense and in response there's only hyperbole, anecdotes, and numbing repetition of an already discredited opinion as if saying it over and over will make it so.

Most people say their minds are open but it's usually only their mouths.

Why is there affirmative action? Here's one reason:

The U.S. Senate last night approved a resolution apologizing for its failure to enact federal anti-lynching legislation decades ago, marking the first time the body has apologized for the nation's treatment of African Americans.

One-hundred and five years after the first anti-lynching bill was proposed by a black congressman, senators approved by a voice vote Resolution 39, which called for the lawmakers to apologize to lynching victims, survivors and their descendants, several of whom watched from the gallery.

The moment lacked the drama of the fiery Senate filibusters that blocked the legislation three times in the past century. There were few senators on the floor last night and no roll call, no accounting for each vote. But 80 of the Senate's 100 members signed on as co-sponsors, signaling their support.

Missing from that list were senators from the state that reported the most lynching incidents: Mississippi Republicans Trent Lott and Thad Cochran.

"I am personally struck," Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) said, "even at this significant moment, by the undeniable and inescapable reality that there aren't 100 senators and co-sponsors. Maybe by the end of the evening there will be, but as we stand here with this resolution now passed by voice vote, there aren't."

In passing the measure, the senators in essence admitted that their predecessors' failure to act had helped perpetuate a horror that took the lives of more than 4,700 people from 1882 to 1968, most of them black men. At the turn of the last century, more than 100 lynching incidents were reported each year, many of them publicly orchestrated to humiliate the victims and instill fear in others. Lynching occurred in all but four states in the contiguous United States, and less than 1 percent of the perpetrators were brought to justice, historians say.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...5061301720.html

It's a historical, yet superficial gesture, made by the U.S. Senate. A half-hearted admission of fault without any offer to provide restitution to James Cameron, a 91-year old survivor of an attempted lynching. There was no roll call, no accounting of the 20 Senators who did not co-sponsor the resolution. It does not surprise me that Trent Lott and Thad Cochran were among those who didn't. I don't know the names of the other 18 senators who declined to co-sponsor the resolution. Not yet anyway, but I will.

But it does illustrate in stark contrast to those who would say, "Racism is over. The only racism that exists now comes from affirmative action," that America still has not come to terms with its long and ugly history of racial discrimination against people of color.

Not all, but some of those opposed to affirmative action are no different that those who deny the Holocaust happened to the Jews at the hands of the Nazis. They are sentimental for a revisionist, whitewashed version of race relations that never existed.

Nice strawman, nighttimer. However, it doesn't relate to the topic of whether affirmative action should or should not be continued.

Even some leftists in here agree that "affirmative action" is racism. It clearly is in my eyes and the eyes of most people. And as my mother used to say, "two rights don't make a wrong".

The history of the United States is not being denied by anyone in this thread. If you can point to a specific post or poster, please do so instead of just painting your insinuation with such a broad brush.

The issue is whether moving forward requires affirmative action (i.e., legal racism) or if there is a BETTER way to move foward.

I already put forth my thoughts related to that. Trying to impugn those who disagree with you by implying they are Nazi revisionists is NOT helpful.

Perhaps you need to look beyond your own strong biases in this case?

Ok... I'm going to move away from the heated debates that apparently have been thrown onto the board in my absence... (I'm sorry, had to work!)

Ok nighttimer, I agree that there has to be some middle ground on all subjects, hence the bi-partisan nature of our legislature.

However, I will have to argue the fact that you do need my vote, or the vote of people whom happen to think like me. The reality is that Affirmative Action and any other racially centered policy is never about brotherhood, but sir, more about division. It divides a country by skin color and causes us to find reasons to be different. Racially motivated doctrine only polarizes neighbors, raises eyebrows, and negates the achievements of hard-working Americans.

Teaching our children and peers that the color of their skin is a crutch for mediocrity is absurd and counter-productive. You call it necessary, but yet there are no recent studies that show AA is effective.

If what you want is black CEO's, Congressman, fighterpilots, or whatever... teach your kids to study. Teach them to be too proud for handouts. Teach your neighbors and countrymen that success isn't the responsibility of our government and that no policy will ever bring the "level playing field" that you carry like a torch.

Do you really think that because some black people were hired/admitted/accepted because they had to be "levels a playing field"? Does bringing diversity to a school or workplace envoke understanding? Go to your local state university and see how many black kids are spending time with the white kids... or the asian kids... I doubt that you'll be surprised to find some sincerely voluntary social segregation. Why??? I think it's because our culture surrounds itself with the notion that we have to identify specifically with our skin color. Affirmative Action is just another avenue by which to force a hiring manager to consider someone's skin tone in the process...which I think is a tragedy. I would love to just hire someone based upon experience and their personality as opposed to some anxiety brought upon by EEOC guidlines and mandates... too bad nightimer... that's not going to happen as long as our hands are forced.

You said it was further than communism (from capitalism, I presume). Mutualism is actually far closer to capitalism than it is to communism. Communism opposes all property rights, advocating collectivization of the "means of production" - mutualism merely opposes some property rights (e.g property in unoccupied land) while supporting others (buildings, tools, personal possessions, etc.)

What I want is that dream come true where the content of one's character is one matters and not the color of one's skin. You claim you want to bring about a "race neutral future and the end of racism of all stripes, lordhelmet? My, what a nice sentiment. How sad you totally undercut it with remarks like this:



This is a guess but if you went before any group of conscious African-Americans and ran this rap you would soon find yourself booed off the stage or watching their backs as they get up and walk out of the room.

How do you defend your contention? With this?

Well, that's just dandy, LH. So where is your "factual evidence?" You pull out of thin air a figure of a 70 percent out-of-wedlock birth rate. Where does that number come from? Who are these "progressive black leaders" whose are commenting about these things and supposedly supporting your weak-as-water generalizations, exagerrations, half-truths and stereotypes? Vermillion did a superlative job of taking a blowtorch to your rancor-filled rhetoric and blowing holes through the staggering lapses of logic.

You can dismiss the critiques by others of your half-baked theories as "personal attacks," LH, but by ANY standard you haven't put in the time or effort to refute with facts Vermillion, Kmsouthern or my responses to your race-baiting rhetoric. You merely repeat them with added force as if that will make them so.

You apparently want to debate our supportable facts with your heartfelt emotions. That's a waste of both of our time and the board's bandwidth.



The problem as I see it aevans176 is that we both want to get to that magical land called Equality, but we differ radically on what path will get us there.

I don't teach my children that their race is a crutch. I teach that their race is a reality and that some narrow-minded bigots will try to turn it into a liability. I teach them that the world may try to limit you, but don't limit yourself by buying into the lies that all black kids are doped-up copulating fiends droppin' babies, glorifying gangstas and speaking Ebonics. My son finished his first year of high school with a 4.0 average and my daughter graduated elementary with four "A's" and three "B's." I don't add that to be boastful, but to point out to those who think they know Black people because of their limited exposure to them that rumors that we don't excel or value education are grossly exaggerated.

Let me take your last sentence first. {I] I would love to just hire someone based upon experience and their personality as opposed to some anxiety brought upon by EEOC guidlines and mandates... too bad nightimer... that's not going to happen as long as our hands are forced.[/I]

Yeah, that is 20 kinds of Too Bad, aevans176, but it's bad for both of us. I would really like to think if there were NO affirmative action, NO "good ol' boy" network, NO preference based upon anything other than hiring the right candidate for the job that businesses would just do the right thing. But I don't believe in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny or that businesses do the right thing unless someone has put a foot in their butt to do so. And here's why:

Jun 17, 2005 6:41 am US/Eastern
(1010 WINS) NEW YORK Black men with no criminal histories are about as likely to be offered jobs in New York City as white men with felony convictions, according to a new study.

The study, released Thursday by the city Commission on Human Rights, found that employers call back black men who presented resumes with no criminal background 16 percent of the time _ about as often as white men who reported criminal histories.

Meanwhile, blacks with convictions in their past were called back just 6 percent of the time. Whites with clean records were offered jobs 21 percent of the time.

http://1010wins.com/topstories/local_story_168064931.html

I have not now nor ever claimed that affirmative action programs facilitate the idea of "brotherhood." They don't. Affirmative action facilitates access. Access to jobs. Access to schools. Access to opportunities that were once limited to Whites only.

That's the idea, aevans176. Let me get the job first. Later, we can work on going to lunch together. Left up to their own devices, it would be great to believe that companies and campuses would just open their door to become more inclusive and racially diverse. But nothing in the past indicates that left to their own devices White gatekeepers won't continue to screen out all non-White applicants.

Now you tell me when all those antiquated and backwards attitudes have passed from the scene and I'll grab a shovel to bury affirmative action right along side you and lordhelmet.

The problem with creating a colorblind society is that EVERYONE has to agree they're down for the program and not just the Black, the Hispanic and Latino, the Asian, the Native American, the female, the gay and the foreign who are supposed to park their individual traits at the door.

We say we want to get to that day where "content of character" trumps "color of skin," but merely because some White people have grown tired of affirmative action and resent it, does not mean there is no longer a reason for it.

I just find it funny that so many minority groups complain about racism, then turn around and are racist themselves and won't hear it when their hypocracy is pointed out.

Black groups complain that blacks are under-represented on television, they want a more racially distributed view and more black actors getting better parts in television series. Then they go create the Black Entertainment Network, where *ONLY* blacks get parts. The same goes for fashion magazines. They want more representation of black models, then they turn around and create black-only magazines where only black models get represented. It sends the message of wanting to eliminate racism, while allowing them to be racist at the same time.

I think it's a good thing to fight against racism, but not with more racism.

This is probably true. Isn't that then where the national communication should be focused?



This is a wonderful approach, NT....and I would add that it is essentially what all parents should be teaching their children. We all have issues that we can be confronted with that really have nothing to do with us, but that we have to overcome. Is being white trash in certain areas any different than being any other minority? Not really. It is an obstacle that needs to be overcome through the very process you outline here.



Yes, it is...and that is one of things that I don't think gets communicated enough. Eliminating racism is not just for minorities....it benefits all of us.



Again, I agree, and communicating what the benefit of that is to those hard working educated white male workers Aevans speaks of comes to play. There are those who are opposed to AA programs who are still bigoted, and resent any change. I don't think that's the majority. Many of us question AA because we're not sure its working, and we're concerned that it might be creating racism rather than solving it. I would hope you agree that those are valid concerns. Now, if evidence from your perspective indicates that those concerns are unfounded...that AA does indeed work, then, by all means, please share them and that concern will be addressed. Doing so would, I think, also address the other concern.

In order to "save bandwidth", I just post a few references.

Luther Keith

Anthony Bradley

Clarence Page

Jesse Lee Peterson

Here are a few of the commentators I referred to. There are many, many more. Thomas Sowell, Larry Elder, Walter Williams, Bill Cosby, etc., etc., etc. As I stated, I can back up every assertion that I posted. If you demand that I do, I would be happy to oblige.

I suggest that your thinly veiled personal attacks are neither helpful or add anything to this debate. I believe that you're a better debater than you showed in your most recent post.

The only thing wrong with your logic, Cephus is by extension it is "racist" that more entrepreneurs aren't opening tanning booths in Harlem and Compton.

The reason BET exists was supposedly to fill a void because of the lack of programming geared toward Black audiences. It is not racist to say more African Americans watch "The Bernie Mac Show" or "My Wife and Kids" than "Everybody Loves Raymond" or "Friends."

ESSENCE exists because VOGUE, MARIE CLAIRE, and other women's magazines do not carry advertisements for Black hair and skin care products or feature models advertising those products. Race-specific magazines cover topics of primary interest to Black readers. Nobody expects SPORTS ILLUSTRATED to suddenly start covering World Wrestling Entertainment events. The WWE has their magazines and TV programs to promote their product. What's wrong with that?

There is a difference between "niche" programming in television, music, movies or any other product and being racially exclusionary. White kids are allowed to watch rap videos on BET just as much as Black kids. Nobody's stopping them from doing so.

By the way---I HATE Black Entertainment Television. It's total crap.

Sorry aevans176 for jumping into your portion of the "debate" against "nighttimer"....

First off, nighttimer, you consistently mix and match the concepts of "race" and "culture".

I'm blue in the face from stating that "race" doesn't matter. Culture does. And you CLEARLY are not part of the culture that I'm referring to. You've apparently assimilated into the broader American culture as have your children.

You also cling to this mythical perception of "equality". Equality under the law and equality of opportunity is all that is guaranteed. Not equal results. "We" don't need to "do something" to guarantee you and your children will succeed equally. That's up to them. And you.

You don't end racism by perpetuating racism. Affirmative action is racism. It doesn't help. It hurts. And it hurts in profound ways because it taints the achievements of those who have rightfully earned them.

I think we should do away with the concept of "race". Your posts use "race" as a rhetorical weapon to pummel those who don't see the world through the same racial lenses as you.

Congratulations on your children. You should be proud of them. It shows that you're an attentive parent who values their education. But, as comedian Chris Rock says... "you're SUPPOSED to raise your children that way!!!".......

Those are very interesting statistics, considering they're in NYC as opposed to Dallas or Baton Rouge (cities that I dearly call home...). I have/do spend time in NYC, as my corp HQ is on Broadway and Wall, but I would never call myself a NY expert or claim to understand the culture. But you usually suspect the south to be as/more racist as what southerners consider to the be the seat of Yankee territory!

My questions that would arise from my inital reading about those statistics would be:
1. How do they know from a resume that someone is black or white? Names are misleading, and resumes don't come w/ pictures. One of my favorite peers is named Brandon Law and he's surely not white.... how would you know? Did they keep pictures or write in race on the resumes???
2. Who admitted to these actions, and how do they quantify a whole city and/or hiring decisions? Where did they get the information??
(I know that 1010wins is a well respected news station in NYC, and the City Commission on HR is hardly non-biased... so I'm a little apprehensive)
3. Why is NYC a snapshot of the country? I personally don't care to spend time there, and never leave Manhattan if I don't have to (and only because that's where the office is!!). I can say that on many levels people's attitudes and ideas vary geographically.

Finally- these stats never address experience, education, or qualifications. If we were talking apples to apples comparisons, I'd love to read the study/article.

What I'm saying is that studies like this support your claim nightimer, but they really don't have any truly objective impact on my/our attitudes. I definitely could go apply to be a wide receiver for the NO Saints, but frankly, I don't think I'd make it more than 15 minutes in try outs... why??? Probably because I'm not a world-class athlete. I'm in great shape, am relatively athletic, know the game, etc... but they're probably not going to hire me as there are better suited applicants. I also could go apply for a teaching job, tech support job, HR position, etc... of which no one would call me. Why?? Because my professional experience revolves around marketing channels and sales. I have a degree, could probably teach or work in HR, but most companies can find someone with more applicable training...
Understand my point??

Those studies are very misleading, and I believe it can work for both organizations such as moveon.org as well as the heritage foundation... so whatever.

That's the inherent problem with AA stats on either end. It doesn't account for the non-objective (is that a word?) nature of resumes and work experience. It's pure conjecture for the most part...

Actually, I think the creation of alternative outlets such as these is a perfectly appropriate way within our system to address this issue. If you feel that your group is not adequately addressed in some venue....create your own company to fill the void! That's the American way, isn't it? However, I do think it runs into a quandry, in that this should go for ANY niche. I imagine a WET would create an uproar, even though it would also be geared for a niche...although I don't know I could define exactly what that niche was. What about Redneck Entertainment Television? No, wait, we've got Jerry Springer, don't we?

And I suggest that if you have something a bit more substantial than your feelings, lordhelmet that I have personally attacked you, why don't you refer the matter to a board Moderator? Maintaining decorum is one of their responsibilities I believe.

I have told you before there is a difference--subtle, but a difference nonetheless---between attacking a poster and attacking a post. I don't attack posters or the content of their character. Now, on the other hand, I have no reluctance in attacking the content of their posts and yours offer ample opportunity to do so.

Or to make it even plainer: Don't hate the playa. Hate the game.



No, I don't think so. I think for someone whom is as race-obsessed as you and who apparently are not comfortable entering into a discussion with another person who can match your obsession blow-for-blow, point-by-point that you enjoy the sparring, but think you have to "win" the argument. This is not a debate that will be settled by you and I if we thrash it out from here to hell freezing over.

On to other matters: I owe JustLeaveMeAlone! a response to his question:


Affirmative action for whites was embodied in the abolition of European indentured servitude, which left black (and occasionally indigenous) slaves as the only unfree labor in the colonies that would become the U.S.

Affirmative action for whites was the essence of the 1790 Naturalization Act, which allowed virtually any European immigrant to become a full citizen, even while blacks, Asians and American Indians could not. The 1790 Naturalization Act permitted only "free white persons" to become naturalized citizens, thus opening the doors to European immigrants but not others.

Alien Land Laws passed in California and other states, reserved farm land for white growers by preventing Asian immigrants, ineligible to become citizens, from owning or leasing land.

In the South, the federal government never followed through on General Sherman's Civil War plan to divide up plantations and give each freed slave "40 acres and a mule" as reparations. Only once was monetary compensation made for slavery, in Washington, D.C. There, government officials paid up to $300 per slave upon emancipation - not to the slaves, but to local slaveholders as compensation for loss of property.

The landmark Social Security Act of 1935 provided a safety net for millions of workers, guaranteeing them an income after retirement. But the act specifically excluded two occupations: agricultural workers and domestic servants, who were predominately African American, Mexican, and Asian.

The 1935 Wagner Act helped establish an important new right for white people. By granting unions the power of collective bargaining, it helped millions of white workers gain entry into the middle class over the next 30 years. But the Wagner Act permitted unions to exclude non-whites and deny them access to better paid jobs and union protections and benefits such as health care, job security, and pensions. Many craft unions remained nearly all-white well into the 1970s. In 1972, for example, every single one of the 3,000 members of Los Angeles Steam Fitters Local #250 was still white.

A recent experiment revealed that when black and white college students were given the same resume and sent to the same employers during the study, the only difference being race; that whites received job offers 41% more than blacks and were offered wages 17% higher.

Of the nation's airplane pilots, 98.3 percent are white.
Of the nation's geologists, 95.9 percent are white.
Of the nation's dentists, 95.6 percent are white.
Of the nation's authors, 93.9 percent are white.

Of the nations lawyers, 93.8 percent are white.
Of the nation's aerospace engineers, 93.8 percent are white.
Of the nation's economists, 91.9 percent are white.
Of the nation's architects, 90.6 percent are white.

Today 1 in 4 Americans is either Black, Hispanic, or Native American; however in medical school these groups comprise only:

· 1 in 10 medical students,
· 3 in 100 faculty members, and
· 1 in 100 full professors.

This essay by Robert W. Jensen, a journalism professor at the University of Texas is quite insightful about White privilege.

when I seek admission to a university, apply for a job, or hunt for an apartment, I don't look threatening. Almost all of the people evaluating me for those things look like me--they are white. They see in me a reflection of themselves, and in a racist world that is an advantage. I smile. I am white. I am one of them. I am not dangerous. Even when I voice critical opinions, I am cut some slack. After all, I'm white.

My flaws also are more easily forgiven because I am white. Some complain that affirmative action has meant the university is saddled with mediocre minority professors. I have no doubt there are minority faculty who are mediocre, though I don't know very many. As Henry Louis Gates Jr. once pointed out, if affirmative action policies were in place for the next hundred years, it's possible that at the end of that time the university could have as many mediocre minority professors as it has mediocre white professors. That isn't meant as an insult to anyone, but is a simple observation that white privilege has meant that scores of second-rate white professors have slid through the system because their flaws were overlooked out of solidarity based on race, as well as on gender, class and ideology.

Some people resist the assertions that the United States is still a bitterly racist society and that the racism has real effects on real people. But white folks have long cut other white folks a break. I know, because I am one of them.

Sources/Links: http://www.aamc.org/newsroom/pressrel/2003/030319.htm http://academic.udayton.edu/race/04needs/affirm.htm
http://uts.cc.utexas.edu/~rjensen/freelanc...teprivilege.htm

Well, as Ronald Reagan used to say, "there you go again....".

I'm not sure I know what you're talking about with respect to "not wanting to debate". You questioned my statement about a culture that has "a 70% out of wedlock birth rate" and that this issue was spoken/written about by a number of "black" commentators.

I posted direct links to those statements and several of those people. You ignored them and the other factual evidence I have posted.

When do you intend to debate "point by point" the facts that I listed in my previous posts? I haven't seen it. You just declared it all garbage with no EVIDENCE, attacked me personally, and then ran off.

Debating things like Affirmative Action in the US can be uncomfortable for some. Adding the element of "culture" into the debate makes it even more so.

I'll keep making the following point in every post in this thread where I can. Racism is wrong. It's wrong in ALL of its forms. Affirmative Action is racism. Therefore, it is wrong. We cannot progress as a nation and address the real CULTURAL issues that hold many in the underclass in virtual SLAVERY until we're honest about those factors and stop hiding behind "race" and "racial pride". I am "obsessed" by this topic to a degree. The level of underachievement by those who cling to obsolete racial concepts is a national disgrace. And what's worse is that that behavior is enabled by those who clearly do NOT share those cultural values, but who act as apologists for it out of some misguided sense of racial "alliance".

It's wrong for a guy like David Duke to stick up for low-life, meth-snorting, wife-beating, underachieving low-class "rednecks" because of his misguided "white pride".

It's equally wrong for a person to refuse to even acknowledge the reality of the "black underclass" and the culture associated with it because of their overwhelming sense of "black pride".

Race, as a concept, is obsolete. Those who insist on clinging to it hold our nation back from progressing. They are part of the problem, not part of the solution.

Affirmative Action needs to go the way of Jim Crow laws.

I'm sure it's been tried and if these businesses were successful, they're still there. That's how business works.



Sure it is, if they do so solely because the people on screen are black or white or whatever. I'm proud to say that I have never *EVER* watched an episode of "Everybody Loves Raymond" or "Friends". I've never watched either of the others as well.



Funny, I don't see any Korean models anywhere in the modeling world, but you don't see the Koreans going out and creating Korean women's magazines and the Korean Entertainment Television network. The same goes for pretty much every other minority group. No one else sees the need to declare themselves different from everyone else around them. Are there some cultural differences? Sure. But they are trying to be a PART of the American culture, not trying to create a separate, quite racist culture while at the same time demanding that the mainstream culture be color-blind. You don't solve racism by being racist. That's not to say you can't have color-specific magazines or products where these products have a race-specific difference, but to set up two different worlds, one for blacks and one for everyone else is a bit silly, don't you think?

Just a point to add here and it is CERTAINLY not meant as a negative response to kmsouthern in anyway.

What you say is true. Affirmative Action was designed so that when an equally qualified white male, and an equally qualified minority (regardless of what the status is based on) apply for the same job, the minority gets a nudge towards getting the job in order to address historical (and in some cases current) wrongs of our society.

However, in practice it does not always work that way. I worked for a company several years ago that came under scrutiny because of a low minority representation in the work force. To address this, the company began to actively recruit in minority neighborhoods. A good approach IMHO. But, to avoid possible federal entanglements they began to fill positions solely with minority applicants, nearly regardless of qualifications.

Another area of abuse when it comes to AA type programs is with business startups. I can't count the number of businesses run by and controlled by white males that are owned on paper by their wives, or minority friends and family. Not sure how you combat that, but it is a growing issue. I know when I was in business for myself and struggling back in the mid 90s I contacted the Small Business Adminstration for information on loan programs and was told point blank not to waste my time applying because of my race (though I doubt that is the official written policy).

I think the goals of AA would be better served if we invested in the education and training of disadvantaged workers to bring them up and beyond the standards for various jobs, regardless of race. You do not have to be a minority to have been raised in a poor neighborhood with a terrible school system and useless parents. The issues we face in this country are alot more about the division of classes then the division of races IMHO. We need to look for ways to level the playing field between the haves and the have nots, not just the minority and the majority.

No offense taken at all.

I know that some companies will misinterpret Affirmative Action (and AAPs) to mean that if they have a low minority representation, they need to start hiring minorities left and right without regard to their qualifications (or without looking at other applicants). I've no doubt that this happens, but that it happens is not an inherent problem of Affirmative Action - it's a problem specific to the individual companies who don't take the time to understand what they are supposed to do in these situations.

The company you mentioned started out doing EXACTLY what they are supposed to: recruiting is a HUGE part of AA planning. Where they went wrong (and their actions would definitely fall under racial discrimination), was hiring JUST minorities with little regard to their qualifications. That's pretty much defeating the entire purpose of Affirmative Action, yes, BUT it's not the fault of AA itself. It's the fault of the company.

Affirmative Action is not perfect. People will abuse it and misinterpret it just as with anything else. But suppose we eliminate Affirmative Action altogether. My personal experience in the field tells me that this will set us back yet again. I'd say probably 4 times out of 5, a company's execs don't have a clue about the actual makeup of their workforce. A good portion of work done in AA is just getting the companies to realize what their company data looks like. If a company doesn't even realize that 95% of their workforce is white, there's a possibility of a problem that won't ever be addressed let alone even noticed.

I would love to hear ideas about alternative ideas. I just have yet to hear a feasible alternative.

Feasible alternative to what? Racism? How about not practicing it. Feasible alternative to increasing the number of "blacks" in certain job? Well, I would say that is up to the individuals involved. If they are "under-represented", then perhaps there are not many people who look like that interested in that field, studying it, or excelling in it.

Using the logic of "affirmative action", whites are currently under-represented in the science and engineering fields. And, Asians are obviously discriminating against everyone else because they continue to be represented in those fields WAY beyond their "racial makeup" within the demographics of the United States.

The problem with Affirmative action (in addition to it's racist core) is the SIMPLISTIC approach it takes. Numerical representation does not imply discrimination. Period.

I reject the notion that "it's our responsibility" to fix a falsely diagnosed issue (numerical representation in some fields) with a blatantly racist "solution".

I already presented the solution to the issue. It involves addressing the issues of behavior that are being practiced by a dysfunctional American subgroup. People in this country simply cannot continue to act in self-destructive ways, cling to a mentality of racial identity that creates a defacto self-imposed segregation, refuse to assimilate into "white America" (as "nighttimer" calls it whatever that means) and yet DEMAND to be treated "just like everyone else".

The American declaration of independence spelled out the core principles of this country. All men are created equal. They are all equal under the law.

But everyone has different talents, levels of motivation, and skill sets.

Equality of RESULT is a misguided dream and it's not possible without such manipulations such as the racist mechanics of Affirmative Action.

Come now, if you refuse to present the evidence and respond to the rebuttal against your nonsensical solution as proposed long ago there is no point in repeating your assertions now it there?

Blacks by and large are assimilated in every way that matters.

A principle opposition to racially based policies in one thing, but refusal to leave the foreign planet where that argument came from and visit Earth is entirely another.

I am glad you made that example OS- because what you have there is NOT an example of bad AA program- but bad managment, with some institutional racism. Let us say you have 100 employees in this company, 98 of which are white, none are black, yet the community around you runs about 13% black. For years, this has not bothered you, until somebody from some goverment org noticed you have no black employees- so you scramble to find some "representation" in your company, and you hire 5 black folks that are not qualified, but can be trained to do the job. Sound like your scenario a bit?

It is not the AA quotas that are the problem- it is the companies institutional racism that is the problem, and AA hopes to correct that- and is what AA is designed for.

1) Those 5 poeple were hired because of a quota-and under-qualified- how many white people that were say, the bosses friend or knew someone that knew someone were hired with even less qualifications? I bet more than five!

2) Why hasn't the company hired black applicants in the past? Are you going to tell me, a company, probably been in business for AT LEAST 10 years, didn't have a black applicant qualified, or 5, in that entire time? Do you seriously beleive that? I mean, this company wouldn't be struggling to find black applicants if it had simply hired qualified black applicants in the past- now they have to play catch up!

3) Why is it the 5 new black hires have to do better or equal than everyone else- you mean to tell me there are not 10 or more worse employees, that may be qualified, but still working there anyway, that are white- but still haven't been fired?

Do you see my point here OS? A black new hire, hired through AA, will probably have to outperform the majority of the workforce for you (not you personally, the company heads) to consider him a "qualified hire"- because he will always face more scrutiny than the "friend of a friend" that is white, unqualified, and hired anyway.

That, to me, shows the difference between institutional racism vs individual racims very clearly, and illustrates a continueing need for AA.

The black US citizen has a far more unique um, relationship, with the US than any other ethnic group- no other ethnic group was enslaved and discriminated against in such a large scale- it is the US culture that damanged the black sub-set in the US, not the other way around- and we are dealing with that now, heck, civil rights was an issue IN MY LIFETIME, and I am only 40, so AA may be inefficient, but like capitalism, it may be unfair and inefficient, but it is the best system we have, and we don't have anything better to replace it with yet!

Every now and then I come across something on this board that is so audacious, so outrageous, so "out-there-where-the-buses-don't-run" that I almost have to rub my eyes and say, "I didn't really read that, did I?"



Ran off? Ran off where? Back to my LIFE? Do you think all I have to do is sit at my computer and smash my head against the wall debating with you? And where do you get off demanding when do I intend to debate "point-by-point the facts that I listed in my previous post. I haven't seen it."

Well, golly gee, lordhelmet, maybe that's because I haven't seen ANY FACTS in your previous posts to debate. I see your thoughts. I see your emotions. I see your feelings. What I do not see is a verifiable, confirmed FACT to debate.

Debate your facts? Why don't you debate mine? Or those Kmsouthern
provided or Vermillion? You have posted ten times in this thread (so far) and besides trying to repeat your disdain for affirmative action ad nauseum and claim that other are "personally attacking" you, I fail to see where you've provided any FACT except hotlinks to columns written by two Black journalists, one Black fellow at a conservative religious think tank and one of the Right's favorite Negro conservatives. So what's to debate?

You found a couple of columns to support your unsupported statistics and fervid belief of Black pathology and dysfunction. I'd like to say I'm impressed, but your research is somewhat....(well, why be polite?)...it's SPARSE. That's the nicest word for it.

But perhaps you've forgotten what you've written, LH? No problemo. Let me take you back to some of your Greatest Hits (edited for clarity and relevancy).

Affirmative action should be abolished immediately. It's time to grow up as a nation and stop obsessing on something as meaningless as "race". I know that some race obsessed individuals will have to be dragged kicking and screaming into the future; but our progress depends on this change. I say pay the cost and move on.

(6/15/05)

kmsouthern replied. You responded:

Affirmative action is institutionalized racism. That is true when it comes to college admissions and hiring. Less qualified individuals are selected based on their "race" instead of their qualifications.

Stating it isn't so doesn't make that not true.

(6/15/05)
kmsouthern replied. You did not respond.

Vermillion posted and quoted statistics from the U.S. Department of Justice about the racial disparity of Blacks in prison. You responded:

The prison statistics you reference are indicative of individual "behavior", not discrimination. Yes, I ask the same question all the time. WHY in the world are "black people" so heavily over-represented in the criminal justice system. I think that a recent study also showed that nearly 70% of black males, age 18-25 had been one way or another involved with the criminal justice system.

These statistics show a pattern of racial discrimination by "white people"? These statistic are proof that Affirmative Action is needed?

Hogwash.

These statistics are indicative of an American sub-culture that is dysfunctional. As I have stated in this forum many times, the most pressing problems facing many "black people" in America today have nothing to do with "race".

(06/16/05)

You did not attribute the source of your “study” that alledged “nearly 70 percent of black males, age 18-25, had been involved with the criminal justice system. Further in your post you quoted a statistic that over 70 percent of black births are out-of-wedlock. Again, without any attribution. You summed up:

It ends when the concept of "race" is replaced and when being an "American" is considered far more important than being an "African American".

One of the first steps is to abolish Affirmative Action.

(06/16/05)

Vermillion responded:

Black TEENS have a 70+% out of wedlock birthrate, not blacks as a whole. Now this may still seem high, except when you consider that white teens have an out of wedlock birthrate of 63%. Not such a big difference now is there?

These numbers apply to teens. Furthermore, while out-of-wedlock births to black teens have been decreasing over the past 6 years, out of wedlock births to white teens have been increasing.

Vermillion attributed the source of his information to a 1997 study entitled “It Takes A Nation.” You did not counter his repudiation of your statistics but responded:

I'm ignoring the rest of your post because it is a blatant personal attack on me, my character, and the intent of my post. I won't dignify that part of your post.

My post was provocative for a reason. American NEEDS to address the race issue once and for all. It's an issue that my nation needs to come to grips with in order to progress. In my view, destructive behavior patterns have been shielded by the "racism card" and allowed to fester instead of being addressed. I'm hardly the only person commenting on this issue; from any wide range of "racial backgrounds".

(06/16/05)

The board administrator cautioned Vermillion about being condescending in his post and Kmsouthern made a plea for civility and addressed your posts specifically:

As for LordHelmet's post, I have to say that while I was extremely disappointed with his beliefs, it's not at all uncommon. People think that becuase some groups of people have been able to overcome prejudice, that everyone should have an easy time with it.

It's just one of those things that you really should experience in order to fully understand. No amount of research or statistics is going to get the point across in the way that a 'walking in your shoes' experience would.

I don't want to dignify some of 'arguments' made in lordhelmet's last post with a response, because I've already done everything I can do to put the FACTS out there for all to see if they so desire. There's only so much arguing you can do before it starts to get frustrating.

You responded:

Every single argument that I made can be (1) backed up with factual evidence and (2) is being commented upon by progressive "black leaders". I don't confuse those individuals with the racist reactionaries who have captured the lion's share of attention from the "elite media" by the way.

What I advocate is a race neutral future and the end of racism of all stripes including "Affirmative Action".

How can anyone possibly oppose this ideal???

My ideals represent progressive thought. Reliving the past is by definition "reactionary". Thus, "affirmative action" is not only "racist", it's "reactionary".

(06/16/05)

I concurred with Kmsouthern and wrote: Kmsouthern, I'm feeling you and I agree that it is frustrating when one poster tries to apply logic, reason, statistical evidence, supporting documentation, and just plain common sense and in response there's only hyperbole, anecdotes, and numbing repetition of an already discredited opinion as if saying it over and over will make it so.

I related the story of the U.S. Senate this week passing a resolution apologizing the role of the institution in blocking legislation banning lynching in America. I excerpted and linked to the original Washington Post article and concluded:

Not all, but some of those opposed to affirmative action are no different that those who deny the Holocaust happened to the Jews at the hands of the Nazis. They are sentimental for a revisionist, whitewashed version of race relations that never existed.

You responded:

Nice strawman, nighttimer. However, it doesn't relate to the topic of whether affirmative action should or should not be continued.

Even some leftists in here agree that "affirmative action" is racism. It clearly is in my eyes and the eyes of most people. And as my mother used to say, "two rights don't make a wrong".

The history of the United States is not being denied by anyone in this thread. If you can point to a specific post or poster, please do so instead of just painting your insinuation with such a broad brush.

The issue is whether moving forward requires affirmative action (i.e., legal racism) or if there is a BETTER way to move foward.

I already put forth my thoughts related to that. Trying to impugn those who disagree with you by implying they are Nazi revisionists is NOT helpful.

Perhaps you need to look beyond your own strong biases in this case?
(06/16/05)

I responded:

You pull out of thin air a figure of a 70 percent out-of-wedlock birth rate. Where does that number come from? Who are these "progressive black leaders" whose are commenting about these things and supposedly supporting your weak-as-water generalizations, exagerrations, half-truths and stereotypes? Vermillion did a superlative job of taking a blowtorch to your rancor-filled rhetoric and blowing holes through the staggering lapses of logic.

You can dismiss the critiques by others of your half-baked theories as "personal attacks," LH, but by ANY standard you haven't put in the time or effort to refute with facts Vermillion, Kmsouthern or my responses to your race-baiting rhetoric. You merely repeat them with added force as if that will make them so.

You apparently want to debate our supportable facts with your heartfelt emotions. That's a waste of both of our time and the board's bandwidth.

You responded:

In order to "save bandwidth", I just post a few references.

1. Luther Keith

Anthony Bradley

Clarence Page

Jesse Lee Peterson

Here are a few of the commentators I referred to. There are many, many more. Thomas Sowell, Larry Elder, Walter Williams, Bill Cosby, etc., etc., etc. As I stated, I can back up every assertion that I posted. If you demand that I do, I would be happy to oblige.

I suggest that your thinly veiled personal attacks are neither helpful or add anything to this debate.

(06/17/05)

I responded to a post by Cephus. You posted 15 minutes after your previous post:

First off, nighttimer, you consistently mix and match the concepts of "race" and "culture".

I'm blue in the face from stating that "race" doesn't matter. Culture does. And you CLEARLY are not part of the culture that I'm referring to. You've apparently assimilated into the broader American culture as have your children.

You also cling to this mythical perception of "equality". Equality under the law and equality of opportunity is all that is guaranteed. Not equal results. "We" don't need to "do something" to guarantee you and your children will succeed equally. That's up to them. And you.

You don't end racism by perpetuating racism. Affirmative action is racism. It doesn't help. It hurts. And it hurts in profound ways because it taints the achievements of those who have rightfully earned them.

I think we should do away with the concept of "race". Your posts use "race" as a rhetorical weapon to pummel those who don't see the world through the same racial lenses as you.
(06/17/05)

I responded:

And I suggest that if you have something a bit more substantial than your feelings, lordhelmet that I have personally attacked you, why don't you refer the matter to a board Moderator? Maintaining decorum is one of their responsibilities I believe.

I have told you before there is a difference--subtle, but a difference nonetheless---between attacking a poster and attacking a post. I don't attack posters or the content of their character. Now, on the other hand, I have no reluctance in attacking the content of their posts and yours offer ample opportunity to do so.

I think for someone whom is as race-obsessed as you and who apparently are not comfortable entering into a discussion with another person who can match your obsession blow-for-blow, point-by-point that you enjoy the sparring, but think you have to "win" the argument. This is not a debate that will be settled by you and I if we thrash it out from here to hell freezing over.

I then replied to a previous query from JustLeaveMeAlone and posted several examples of how affirmative action benefits Whites and introduced the concept of White Privilege. Today, you responded:

I'm not sure I know what you're talking about with respect to "not wanting to debate". You questioned my statement about a culture that has "a 70% out of wedlock birth rate" and that this issue was spoken/written about by a number of "black" commentators.

I posted direct links to those statements and several of those people. You ignored them and the other factual evidence I have posted.

When do you intend to debate "point by point" the facts that I listed in my previous posts? I haven't seen it. You just declared it all garbage with no EVIDENCE, attacked me personally, and then ran off.

I'll keep making the following point in every post in this thread where I can. Racism is wrong. It's wrong in ALL of its forms. Affirmative Action is racism. Therefore, it is wrong. We cannot progress as a nation and address the real CULTURAL issues that hold many in the underclass in virtual SLAVERY until we're honest about those factors and stop hiding behind "race" and "racial pride". I am "obsessed" by this topic to a degree. The level of underachievement by those who cling to obsolete racial concepts is a national disgrace. And what's worse is that that behavior is enabled by those who clearly do NOT share those cultural values, but who act as apologists for it out of some misguided sense of racial "alliance".

Race, as a concept, is obsolete. Those who insist on clinging to it hold our nation back from progressing. They are part of the problem, not part of the solution.

(06/18/05)

Then you posted:

The problem with Affirmative action (in addition to it's racist core) is the SIMPLISTIC approach it takes. Numerical representation does not imply discrimination. Period.

I reject the notion that "it's our responsibility" to fix a falsely diagnosed issue (numerical representation in some fields) with a blatantly racist "solution".

I already presented the solution to the issue. It involves addressing the issues of behavior that are being practiced by a dysfunctional American subgroup. People in this country simply cannot continue to act in self-destructive ways, cling to a mentality of racial identity that creates a defacto self-imposed segregation, refuse to assimilate into "white America" (as "nighttimer" calls it whatever that means) and yet DEMAND to be treated "just like everyone else".

Equality of RESULT is a misguided dream and it's not possible without such manipulations such as the racist mechanics of Affirmative Action.

(06/18/05)

When confronted with facts you cannot dispute, you duck, dodge and evade the issue and then come back with more of the same "affirmative action is racism" blah-blah-blah without once offering anything more than your firm opinion that it is.

When you cannot challenge the facts you fall back and say that you are being personally attacked.

When asked to respond you seemingly develop amnesia and once again repeat the same statistics about Black birth-rates and incarceration in the prison system and more of how you really, really don't like affirmative action because it's racist (though you never quite get around to demonstrating how that racism is applied and how it effects you).

Since you seemed so outraged that I had not responded promptly to your links to Blacks who seemingly share your sentiments about how screwed up Black folks are I took the time to check them out. Here's what I concluded.

Luther Keith wrote an interesting column about out-of-wedlock births in the Black community. But that's not the topic of this thread now is it? Mr. Keith also wrote this about affirmative action:

You don’t hear much about the rest of King’s Dream speech, probably because it would make a lot of people uncomfortable. Even accounting for the fact that voting rights and public accommodations issues have largely been addressed, it is still relevant.

King said: “America has given the Negro people a bad check which has come back marked “insufficient funds.” ... So we have come to cash this check — a check that will give us upon demand the riches of freedom and the security of justice.”

Personally, I am not interested in divining the motivations of those who want to eliminate government-based affirmative action.

I just don’t think they should hide behind Martin Luther King Jr. to do it.

http://www.detnews.com/2004/metro/0401/19/a02-39282.htm

Funny that you missed that one, LH.

Then I checked out Clarence Page. I've met him and he's a nice guy. He even worked at the same Black newspaper I was the editor of . Hmmm....guess he doesn't like Nelly's "Pimp Juice" energy drink. What a surprise. Neither do I.

But that's not the topic of this thread now is it?

So did you enjoy these remarks by Mr. Page as well about affirmative action?

I've actually heard some affirmative action opponents criticize it as "reverse discrimination."

If by that they mean "reversing" the legacy of past "discrimination," they're right. But instead of opposing such action, they should applaud it. Before you can pull yourself up by your bootstraps, it helps to have boots.

http://www.racematters.org/raceisrealitynotillusion.htm

In the meantime, affirmative action, always under attack, survives another day. The Bush administration joins a long line of critics who found affirmative action to be troubling, yet, as a way to open opportunities to those who have been shut out, very hard to replace.

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0801/page081601.asp

As regards Anthony B. Bradley of the Acton Institute for the Study of Religion and Liberty, I don't usually patronize conservative religous website. I definitely don't when Mr. Bradley writes dumb stuff like this:

....abortion ravages the black community at rates worse than slavery or Jim Crow ever did. According to the Allan Gutmacher Institute, over 43% of all black pregnancies end in abortion. Although blacks represent only 12% of the American population, we account for almost 35% of all abortions. Since 1973, over 13 million blacks have fallen victim to abortion. Blacks in America are disappearing.

http://www.acton.org/ppolicy/comment/article.php?id=247

Abortion is a bigger threat to the Black community that slavery or Jim Crow? Ohhh-kay. What planet is this brother from because it's not the same one I'm from.

Last, and certainly least is Jesse Lee Peterson. I'm familiar with Mr. Peterson. He's one of those Negroes that have zero-minus-zero juice in the Black community and even less credibility among national Black leaders of any note. He's just one of those guys White conservatives trot out when they want a Negro to say, "Hey, I'm a conservative TOO and I hate affirmative action just as much as you do."

Mr. Peterson is talking to you. He has nothing to say to me.

Okay, lordhelmet, I've replied to you. Satisfied?

I voted for Dr. Color. Affirmative action encourages hiring minority candidates on the basis of qualification first - and only in relation to representation within the local community. If a doctor of color has been hired, it is because he or she is at least as qualified as every other candidate. Dr. White, on the other hand, could be as qualified as Dr. Color, but he or she could also be any bum who just barely managed to coast through med school, who happens to be part of the 75% majority in the area. Given the choice, I would always opt for Dr. Color. Even without affirmative action, due to the inherent prejudice that permeates our society on every level, Dr. Color will have had to have worked harder, studied more, and done better to have got to the place where he or she could even apply for a position with this hypothetical hospital.


Does affirmative action cause a mistrust of the abilities of minorities? If so, is it safe to conclude that affirmative action is actually a cause of racism?

Not to me - not in the least. Quite the opposite, in fact. So, no - that is not a "safe" conclusion by any stretch of the imagination.

Is affirmative action tarnishing minorities who have in actuality achieved everything on their own merits, even so far as to create doubt in the minds of those minorities about their own abilities?

The only thing that is tarnishing the achievements of minorities is racism. And, in my humble opinion, the only reason people really oppose affirmative action is because they are racists. They can dance all around the subject and devise all sorts of rationalizations and justifications, but I'm sorry - I have never met anyone who could convince me that their opposition to affirmative action was based on anything other than racism.

Now, if people want to argue that there's no reason why racism shouldn't be a factor in determining who an individual decides to hire, fire, or promote - or that, in a free society, an employer has the right to discriminate on the basis of minority status, that's a different argument. But to try to pretend that race is not a factor in blanket opposition to affirmative action is, to my mind, delusional.

We are not a color blind society and I doubt we ever will be (at least not until that caramel-colored idyll many generations in our future). If anything, the racial divide has been widening in this country over the last several years. Like it or not, race does matter in this country. It matters more than anything else. And racism is ubiquitous, affecting all of us, regardless of ethnicity. The only thing that has made any inroads into chipping away at racial barriers in the US is affirmative action - and it is the only thing that will continue to effect any change for the foreseeable future. Characterizing affirmative action as "racist" is... racist.

LH probably exemplifies best as to WHY we need affirmative action- they see no problem, blame it on the victim, and then claim to be a victim themselves.

I drag race hotrods- we have a concept called "bracket racing"- where the slower car gets to leave first in order to make the race more even, so all can compete on a level playing field, and everyone has a chance to win. There is no guaruntee of EQUAL RESULTS- just that everyone gets to play the game-

in the end, that is what affirmative action is all about.

The employers that complain that they have to hire under-qualified minorities to "meet a quota" are just lazy, unimaginative, bad managment and looking to pin the blame on others. If you have a community where 15% of the population are black, and you have 95% or higher white employees, just get over it- you are a racist company, and that is the be all and end all of the conversation. There is no reason on God's green earth that you have that kind of lop sided race representation other than your HR department is screening out blacks.

Your histrionics aside, perhaps you should see an Opthamologist?