I would like to propose a scenario to AD members and get their responses. A loved one of yours is going to have important surgery next week. You have the choice of two doctors, who you have never met, to perform the surgery. Both graduated from Yale. Both are 39 years old. Both have risen to the same position within the same hospital. One doctor is a person of color, and one is not. That is all of the information you have on the doctors. They may have had the same grades and test scores, they may not have. They both may have had friends at the hospital that got them positions there. Or maybe not. You don’t know. Knowing what you know about affirmative action, which doctor do you choose to perform this vital surgery on your mother/spouse/daughter?

I will readily admit that I would be more comfortable with the white doctor because I know that there is a chance that the doctor of color may have been given preferential treatment to get into Yale, and/or to achieve their position at the hospital due to affirmative action or quotas. This is a rational response to the possibility of an underqualified doctor performing surgery on a loved one. It is also, unfortunately, a racist response. The white doctor may have gotten the job because his/her father worked at the same hospital. The doctor of color may have earned everything that he/she achieved. Affirmative action has created a calculated risk though.

Questions for Debate:

1) 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?

2) 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?

** To preface this statement, if I were to be given the choice of doctors, I'd probably ask to personally meet the gentlemen. We all know that grades and stats aren't nearly as important as bed-side manner and experience when it comes to Doctors. Who cares about race if we're talking about life/death???**

1. I believe that there are some situations/industries where race does cause mistrust. This happens constantly in the military. There are officers of color whom were/are promoted with inferior reports. There are NCO's whom are promoted with inferior records and test scores. Why? Being a recent combat veteran, I don't care what color you are... but if we're going into battle I want the best of the best... I do believe that in some cases that it causes animosity, but racism is a harsh word. I'm confident that in some cases officers of color are treated with contempt, especially if they have a sorted past/record. That has nothing to do with people of color in general. Hence, racism probably doesn't evolve from Affirmative Action, but it surely promotes hostile working environments. Being a reservist, I've seen it happen in both the public and private sectors. I can say that in my experience, it happens far more in the Military. Many (if not most) people of color in the private sector are hired/promoted based upon merit and very capable.

2. Affirmative action does tarnish the accomplishments of anyone who has earned anything on their own merits. This is true in the military as well as in my corporate life. there are plenty of perfectly capable and successful business men/women (and officers) whom have done well for themselves without the aid of mandates or gov't policies. This often has caused tension among black colleagues in the civilian world whom have done well, and end up being peers of less proficient employees. Not to mention that they feel like it reflects poorly on themselves as people of color.

Affirmative action has only proven to produce apathy, cynicism, and condescension.

There are no statistics that show that Affirmative action causes racism, nor will there be. Who would volunteer that kind of information?? However, I believe that in many cases that it does support racist/prejudiced claims and ideologies.

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?
Racism is an irrational belief in the superiority or inferiority of a race as a whole in an area in question.

If a person believe that all or even most professionals of a certain race owe their success to Affirmative Action and not their own merits they are:

A) Hopelessly ill-informed
B ) Likely racist to begin with
C) Both

If I had to pick....

AA may be an excuse for mistrust, but when a person considers that a professional of any race may have been offered advantages/disadvantages they may never know about it becomes a silly one.

Would you be wary of doctors whose winning smile may have swayed interviewers?

"He's clearly too pretty to perform surgery."

It may engender mistrust, this does not mean the mistrust is justified.

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?
I can say with almost perfect certainty, no.

Minorities know better than most what extra challenges they face in today's America and most do not doubt their abilities when the government attempts to level the playing field.

I've been offered "minority incentives" although I haven't taken one just yet, if it became expedient at any choice I would be able to do so with zero doubt of my own abilities.

It is best not to measure one's own abilities against one's peers, it engenders complacency.

I have no interest in answering the poll questions because they are based upon a flawed and disingenuous premise. I will answer the debate questions but first let's address this statement.



The first problem is why should the skills of a doctor be called into question based on their color? What about gender? What if the doctor benefited from affirmative action based on her sex, not her race? One of the major beneficiaries of AA programs are white women, but apparently white men find it harder to justify their discriminatory beliefs when it's their own wives and daughters who are using AA to smash through sexist barriers than people of color doing the same thing based on race.

The second problem is obvious. The premise is the white doctor achieved the position through merit, hard work, skill and smarts. The doctor of color? Oh, that's an affirmative action hire. There are other kinds of affirmative actions than merely the academic kind. There's the kind of affirmative action where the Old Boy Network passes over more qualified individuals in favor of those who (a) look like them ( b ) golf at the same private clubs as them © are the son or daughter of the hospital's biggest charitable contributor.

White people benefit from affirmative action based on nothing more than the whiteness of their skin. Apparently that's not the kind of AA they're opposed to. But it's stupid to presume because the white guy didn't have a legally enforced affirmative action program in place the wheels weren't already greased for him.

I am an Affirmative Action Baby! I am grateful to God that I lived in a time when it existed. Because without Affirmative Action I would not have been a college graduate from a predominant white institution, a nurse, a lawyer or a law professor. Without affirmative action I would not have been able to give my kids the opportunities they had. --- Dr Vernellia Randall

I'll break it down really simple; not every white person rises to wealth, power and influence based on merit. Our current President is the living embodiment of how connections and influence can trump a complete lack of a work ethic. [U]Racial preference based on white skin /U] has always existed but where's the outcry against that? Where's the white guilt and shame over that?

Personally, I'm a little less concerned about what hurdles Doctor White and Doctor Color had to clear and a little more concerned about things that are more important since I'm supposed to think my loved one's life is safer in the hands of the supremely competent Dr. White instead of the socially promoted Dr. Color.

1. Has Dr. White performed this type of surgery successfully or have his colleagues in the medical community successfully covered his tracks of dead patients and having his license to practice medicine revoked in the last three hospitals he's worked at?

2. Does Dr. White throughly scrub before he puts his hands in a human body or is he somewhat casual about disinfecting and avoiding nasty infections?

3. Has Dr. White completed that 12-step program for his alcoholism or did he stop at Step 7 and figure he'd fake the rest of it and is that why his hands are shaking as he prepares to make the incision into your loved ones body?

To the questions for debate:



This is standing the question on it's head and looking at the world from a distorted perspective. It is silly, not safe, to conclude affirmative action is a cause of racism. Anyone with an iota of historical perspective should understand affirmative action came into being because of racism. Affirmative action came about as a response to America's long sad history of entrenched institutional racism. It is a perverse warping of the reasons that necessitated affirmative action programs in the first place to imply, "Well, if it weren't for the affirmative action, I'd trust that Latino or Black surgeon knows what the heck they're doing. But I don't so give me Doctor Good Ol' Boy because I know a white doctor has to be qualified."

But I would hope anyone so monumentally dumb would choose their surgeon based on the color of their skin rather than their skill. It would hopefully mean there soon would be one less racist idiot in the world.

As for the issue of trust, who are white people that people of color should feel a need to cater to their fears and ignorance to win their trust? You should choose someone because you think they're the best person for the job and if that means an affirmative action program enabled a brilliant black scientist to graduate first in her class at MIT, then who's the fool if she is passed over because the hiring manager of HR department doesn't like Affirmative Action babies.

White people who oppose affirmative action based on the unproven belief that it means unqualified individuals are being artifically elevated over better qualified whites are looking for a rationalization for their racism have a tough case to make that these AA programs diminish the accomplishments and achievements of the recipients. Thus far, no one has even attempted to offer any evidence of this.

I have benefitted from all forms of Affirmative Action. I do not suffer from stigma or shame. When white people look at me and say " you are an affirmative action hire" my answer is you are so right. . and aren't you ashamed that . . . a person as talented, gifted and as qualified as my self . . . still needs assistance to have access to jobs, and educational opportunities." Aren't you ashamed . . . that African Americans, Hispanic Americans, Native Americans, and Asian Americans are still limited in their access to jobs and education solely because of the color of their skin". ---- Dr. Vernellia Randall



That's such a ridiculous premise that I'm trying hard not to spit my Diet Coke all over the keyboard.

Affirmative action does not tarnish "minorities." It tarnishes those who would prefer to keep "minorities" in a secondary and subservient position and who bitterly oppose their progressive and aggressive upward mobility.

Affirmative action may open a door that was shut, but only effort and actual achievement will keep it open. I do not believe for one second there are hordes of attorneys, physicians, educators, cops, firemen, politicians, entrepreneurs or janitors that are screwing up the works based on being Affirmative Action babies. Or don't the beneficaries of affirmative action programs face tests, grades, peer reviews and performance evaluations just like EVERY OTHER STUDENT AND EMPLOYEE?

The question posed swims in an illusionary sea of self-sufficiency that only Whites splash around in the deep end. Whites have benefited from the rewards of racial preference for decades. Now, feeling put upon and at risk, they have suddenly embraced the concept of a color-blind society.

Just a little too late and for specious reasons absent of morality, decency or fairness.

Well for starters, IF there is a mistrust in abilities, then it's an unfounded one and it's probably based upon misconceptions about AA in general. Now, I'm not going to bother going into my big long spiel about Affirmative Action and what it is and what it is not (if you're interested in reading it, it was my first post here at AD some two years ago - can be found here), but I'll say that I wouldn't discount the doctor of color as a result of Affirmative Action...not in the least.

There is simply no grounds for doubting the achievments of non-white doctors (or any other profession). As far as I know, the MCAT doesn't take one's race into account, nor does any schooling past undergrad. Someone is NOT going to become a doctor through this notion of Affirmative Action where a person of color (or woman...we always seem to leave women out of the equation even though they are by in large the group that has benefitted most from AA) somehow gets to slip through the cracks without having the necessary requirements. It just doesn't work that way. AA is NOT a handout. If you want more specific info on AA, read the post I linked above.

As for who I'd personally choose, I'd go with bedside manner and/or the overall impression I get from each doctor.

1) 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?

2) 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?

I saw this scenario floating around on the net several years ago. In my opinion it is obsolete.

Fort Worth is home to the Texas College of Osteopathic Medicine. Until recently recruiters brought those applying to medical school into my favorite coffee shop for lunch. What struck me was the diversity within the group of recruits. There seemed to be about an equal mix of male and female applicants and a rather strong international flavor to the group. My guess is that the meaning of doctor will, if it it’s not already the case, have an entirely new--more cosmopolitan meaning--than what we now see in our mind’s eye.

Well stated. Our definitions of racist are a bit different. I consider treating someone differently because of their race, racist. I have also known it to mean beliefs, practices, and institutions that discriminate against people based on their perceived or ascribed race. I was not intending the KKK definition of racial superiority complexes. Just to clear that up.

I do not believe that all or most people of color are where they are because of race. I do believe that some people of color are promoted over more qualified people because of their race. It happens, and with only the knowledge above - I wouldn't be willing to take the risk that this particular doctor of color was one of those people. Would you? And no, I wouldn't be wary of a winning smile(unless I saw something sinister in it). A winning smile implies confidence and well...winning, which is exactly what I would want in a doctor. A person's color tells me nothing about them in and of itself. Affirmative action tells me that there is a chance that the person of color was promoted unjustly.


Fair enough. I would be interested to know what extra challenges minorities face in today's America. I probably just don't understand. I would also be interested in whether affirmative action is a permanent need to level the playing field, or something that will eventually become outdated?


Sure the scenario is just that, a scenario. It's purpose is to get people thinking. Bedside manner, etc. would be nice to know. We all would want more information to make an educated decision. If you didn't though, you would have to make a calculated choice.

1) Women do benefit from AA. The scenario could be changed to women doctors and the discussion could be on sexism, but this is the race debate folder.

2) I did not discount the possibility that Dr. White could have achieved his position through other means than merit. Is the likelyhood that Dr. White was a legacy greater than the likelyhood of Dr. of Color being promoted on the color of his/her skin? I think this is where our views differ. I do not see it as likely. I imagine that you do, and I would consider that view just as paranoid and ridiculous as you view mine. We are both entitled to our opinions.

I'll tell what though NT. You brought up a good point about evidence. So I'll make a deal with you.

For every specific 21st century example that you provide showing evidence of white favoritism for admitance or promotion, I will do my best to respond with an example of favoritism for people of color(you have already done a great job of showing the inequality and atrocities of the past - I do not condone those actions and I do honestly believe that AA was/is necessary to help make up for that - I am trying to examine possible adverse effects of the program today). This way we may be able to open both our eyes to each other's perspective.

Example that makes me think that some people of color are unfairly promoted: Jayson Blair. Getting promoted too quickly, something Blair himself claims the NYT did, could IMO have been detrimental to Blair. He may have doubted himself.

Let me cut and paste an earlier post of mine



The fact is that relying on test scores alone will lead to discrimination against blacks, if potential for success is your admitting, or hiring, standard.

Sorry, Just Leave Me Alone!, but your offer is one I'll have to decline.

There is absolutely no way that 30 years of Affirmative Action is comprable to the over 400 years of slavery, Jim Crow, segregation and systemic racism that has afflicted Black people in America.

I do not doubt your sincerity, JLMA but I cannot equate the relative discomfort that a relative few White Americans may experience from AA programs with the struggle for civil rights that Black Americans waged (with the support and approval of the vast majority of White people).

The best evidence of how well civil rights and affirmative action have benefited Blacks is the growth and development of the Black middle class, Black business enterprises and Black academics. That is proof beyond debate.

As regards Jayson Blair, I agree that he was a failure of affirmative action, but it was based more on his own dubious character than the color of his skin. For every one Blair there are far more plagarists like Stephen Glass. I don't think his fraudulent behavior is a reason for newspapers and magazines to stop hiring white male journalists. Why should hard-working journalists of color suffer a stigma against them all for the idiocy of one?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journalistic_fraud

The short answer is: They Shouldn't. Bob Herbert, the only African-American columnist on the New York Times op-ed page wrote in response to Blair's flame-out: "There’s a real shortage of black reporters, editors and columnists at The Times. But the few who are here are doing fine and serious work day in and day out and don’t deserve to be stigmatized by people who can see them only through the prism of a stereotype.”

“The problem with American newsrooms is too little diversity, not too much. Blacks have always faced discrimination and maddening double standards in the newsroom and they continue to do so. So do women, Latinos and many other groups that are not part of the traditional newsroom in-crowd.”

Blair was the exception that those who want to end affirmative action bring up as the rule. This fool was an aberration. A freak of nature and a mistake of journalism, but not a indictment of increasing racial diversity in this country. Not at all.

There’s a widely held assumption that the media has a liberal bias. For those of us who have worked in journalism or sought to rise within it, we know this to be a damnable lie.

The truth of the matter is whatever other problems journalism has, a surplus of unqualified people of color taking jobs away from more qualified whites isn’t one of them. If newspapers reflect the communities they serve, what’s looking back in the mirror is a white reflection.

According to an survey conducted by The Boston Globe the newspaper industry had a net increase nationwide of four minority journalists in 2002. The percentage of minorities in newsroom “increased” to 12 percent. Almost half of the nation’s newspapers employ no minority reporters, artists or photographers.

When a black journalist gets a hot job, wins a Pulitzer Prize or otherwise does something noteworthy, their personal accomplishment feels like a win for all those others trying to get on the elevator to the top

So when former New York Times reporter Jayson Blair betrayed his employers, his readers and his profession he brought shame on journalism in general, but made life immeasurably more difficult for black journalists in particular.

When I wrote that in 2003 I believed the rightness of my position and I still do.

Let me just say first that I do oppose affirmative action. I believe it is racism and I think it unfairly tarnishes the reputation of blacks in general because the assumption is that they got where they got through AA.

That having been said---

The color of the doctor in the hypo would not make a wit of difference to me and I will tell you why.

I suspect that medical school and profession is a lot like the law. AA gets some into medical school over others. However, once a person is in medical (or law) school and especially when someone is in practice-- the "market" sorts it all out in these professions. In other words, there is no way in heck the specialist in the hypo, whether he is black or white, could have reached that position unless he was pretty darn exceptional. So I would have no concerns about affirmative action or about the person's money or charm getting them there.

Finally, if I need professional, medical or legal help for an extremely important problem-- the first thing I would do is check out the reputation of the professional in his field. That will tell me everything I need to know. And bedside manner helps a lot.




Kmsouthern-- yes, the MCAT, like the LSAT is an objective test. However, what happens is that admissions committees (and I have sat on admission committees to law school) will take factors such as race into consideration. I.E. if the person has self identified as african american, a lower LSAT score will not necessarily disqualify them, where such a score would disqualify a white male. HOWEVER, and this is huge. I have also taught in law schools for going on 10 years, and I can tell you that race makes absolutely no difference in the grades once these students are actually in law school. I believe it must be the same in medical school. I wholeheartedly believe that AA makes no difference in the ultimate skills of doctors and lawyers for this reason. And as I said earlier, it is even more competitive once students graduate-- the market truly does sort it all out.

This is where you lose the majority of hard working/educated white men in America. The frank reality is that being a young professional in a large metropolitan area, a member of our nation's military reserve force, and growing up in Louisiana, I believe that I've got a STRONG understanding of how race interacts with socio-economic conditions in our society.

You're talking about Slavery and segregation that happened fifteen or twenty years prior to our births. Men of my age and income bracket grew up, were educated, lived next door to, played sports with, and went to college/work with men of all colors. We are the next generation (if not current) of hiring managers, decision makers, and small business owners. The only color we genuinely care about as a whole is GREEN. As a general rule, Generation Y is extremely financially conscious and hiring and promotion is about the bottom line, not pre-concieved notions.

The sincere fallacy with your logic is that at some point in the 20-30 year old black male's/female's lives that there will be road blocks to their success due to the amount of pigment in their skin. I believe whole-heartedly that society's apathy is an impediment, that economic status is an impediment (as you mention GW, who came from extreme wealth... lest we not forget that Clinton and nearly all of his successors excepting Reagan came from at least relative wealth), and that affirmative action does cause a division in percieved competence.

What I'm saying is that AA could be a long-term detriment to the cause you wish to perpetuate. The military is a great example. There are officers whom have inferior records that are promoted over white officers, simply due to their minority status. That being said, when it comes to promoting Generals, or Colonels, simply into the highest echelon of this community, AA will close the door right on further promotion (unless of course we stoop to promoting inferior officers into these positions too). Finally, the people that have it the hardest in military circles are women. Their physical prowess and lack of combat experience force them into a different class in military circles. Heck, I'm a reservist and I can see it as clear as day. These women are treated as second class, while officers/NCO's of color are treated as peers.

This also works strongly in medicine. You mention the good ol' boy network, which is EXTREMELY strong among Doctors. This is very true. The problem is when it comes to hiring into private practice, giving coveted surgical positions, etc, it's tough for a staff doctor to know whether his peers of color were socially promoted. Hence, getting into the good ol' boy network is far more difficult. Know who else has it tough in these circles??? Women. Ask any female surgeon about how this works. One of my closest friends is of Indian decent, and a Doctor in Louisiana. You think black people have it rough? Middle-Easterners here in the US are sincerely 3rd class, followed only by Women in the medical profession. One of his closest peers is always referred to as nurse, as if a woman couldn't be an anesthesiologist.

Finally in summation, true equality is never going to be acheived until it is done through hard work and dedication. Take a look at Asians in America. They're perceived as harder working and more intelligent than their American counter parts. Why? This is a no brainer.

Apathy and cynicism is no anwser to any social woes... the only true concern that I have is that children reared in an AA environment, where it is perpetuated and condoned, will become accustomed to mediocrity and see their skin as an impediment to their success. It's like telling a child with learning troubles that he/she is stupid or telling an inner-city youth that criminal activity was ok due to their poverty... it's a cycle that could become self-perpetuating.

Well, it works both ways in the military. Despite the fact that the military was desegregated before most of the rest of the country, there are HUGE racial lines drawn within the military - most especially when it comes to promotions. It's quite easy to hold someone back from promotion in the military for absolutely no reason without any real recourse. It's happened to my dh (and yep, it was racially motivated...there is absolute proof of this and the guy in question - he was a 1SG - was eventually punished for it). My dh is up against another NCO right now who is notorious for promoting white males over minorities and women - and it's not as a result of their superiority. In the military, it's very divided along racial lines. I know it works the same way for blacks (my personal experience has told me that this is more a reaction to them being held back, but I don't know this as fact). DH has had fantastic jobs in the military (worked directly for the SACEUR in Belgium, has worked directly under 3 generals, as a matter of fact - all within 7 yrs in the military) and has an excellent record on all accounts. He gets excellent NCOERs every time. Yet, here he sits - waiting. It happens every day on both sides of the coin. I'm sure there are less qualified officers of color who've been promoted before they should have. But the same goes for the opposite (dh saw this sort of thing all the time with one of his old positions were he dealt directly with the promotion of officers). That's just how the military works. I have my own theories on why this happens, but the important thing is that it happens.

As for AA in general, there's a large (incorrect) belief held by the masses that AA is about people of color getting jobs they're not qualified for. While I know that DOES happen in some sectors (the military is the main one) and in the private sector it definitely happens because private companies (those that don't fall under AA/EO regs) don't have to comply with AA, in almost any job situation in the public sphere, you're not going ot magically get a job if you're not qualified or less qualified than someone else. That's just not how it works (I worked in AA about 4 years ago...know EXACTLY how it works inside and out) and AA is about lot more than just 'who gets the job'. AA is about monitoring promotions, pay, firing practices, and even the ways in which the company advertises its open positions. There are just so many misconceptions about AA out there thanks to the media's sensationalism about it (making it into a black/white issue, for starters).

You are absolutely correct km. Affirmative Action by definition is not meant to be racist. Affirmative action is the set of public policies and initiatives designed to help eliminate past and present discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. If it were being used solely in that manner, there would be no issue. The Supreme Court decision allowing Michigan to use a points system that gives minorities a large advantage in terms of admitance is what has tarnished the system. The Jayson Blair examples have tarnished the system. The media just report it. These blatant examples of reverse racism may have been needed in the past to help minorities climb the economic ladder. They may still be needed. I was raised to believe that two wrongs don't make a right(although multiplying two negatives creates a positive ) though. Until the courts start interpreting the law as it is written and deny ALL forms of discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or nationality, then AA is going to be a cause of racism IMO and a long-term detriment to the cause of equality.

While I appreciate the anecdote that you gave about someone promoting white officers/NCO's, the point you didn't make well was that he was/is getting punished for said actions. These types of things can get you kicked out of the military (or any job really) and ruin your career. The reverse is not true at all. No one raises eyebrows in reference to people promoting/hiring other people of color. There are other cultural concerns that arise from that conversation, but this is generally the case. There is no raw or objective data on reverse-discrimination, as rarely are these words taken seriously.

The frank realization that any hiring manager makes, is that AA doesn't necessarily cause us to hire based upon quotas, but it does make us aware of race during the hiring process. Our fear of race-related doctrine has caused an inherently detrimental atmosphere that revolves around "protected" demographics.
Race related laws protecting discimination and promoting diversity have caused race to be discussed on a regular basis during the hiring process, predominantly when hiring above entry level positions. The problem with this is that capitalism and world-market-economies rely on exploiting the core competencies of your organization. Foreign competition doesn't make allowances for "racially centered hiring" here in the US.

Well, the education system operates on a different system than the one I'm familiar with (what falls under EO 11246 and 'government contractor/sub-contractor' status). But as far as my understanding goes (we had a pretty big debate about the UMich case at the time), universities have a variety of options used in their 'points systems'. Even as a BIG proponent of AA, I think UMich's points were too high for race (and the other factors that were within that category should certainly have more weight than race...for example, income, school ranking, etc.). I think it was 20 points on a 150 point scale. I remember that income, school ranking, and a few other things were in the same category and you could only get points for one of those areas even if you qualified for all of them.

I beg to differ on the idea of the 'media just report[ing] it'. THe media has for a LONG time reported AA in a VERY black vs. white light. Why on earth do most people think that AA is about blacks getting jobs over more qualified whites? It's certainly not because that's what's actually happening on a regular basis, because it's not. Not in the least. It's because of sensationalism. It's a case of the extremes making the rest look bad. There's always going to be people abusing the system in any situation. Does that mean the system should be thrown out with the bathwater as a result of a few bad situations? I don't think so. Affirmative Action is a hot-button issue and it was made so by the notion that it's giving one group some sort of free pass. I can't tell you how many stories I've heard about "my uncle's neighbor's sister got passed over for a job/promotion for a black person who was less qualified". I always wonder if these people are somehow able to turn themselves into flies to sit on the walls of interview rooms. I suck at interviews. I'm sure I've been passed over for jobs that I was more than qualified for as a result (I get nervous around authority figures). There are a zillion factors used in determining who's the right man/woman for the job. Race is one of the very LAST factors (and it only comes into play when all other things are equal or almost identical...really and truly that's the way it works and if companies are doing otherwise, they are doing so illegally...I personally haven't seen it happen, but I'm sure it has).




My point about him being disciplined for it was (which I now realize that I didn't make clear) that it took a LOT of evidence (blatant proof) to get any sort of punishment. There hasn't been any sort of action taken against any of the other people who've stood in the way of my dh or any other black soldiers. I've got loads of stories to tell about the racism within the military (one really disheartening one about white soldiers who repeatedly fail heroin/cocaine drug testing getting nothing more than a mandatory counseling while black soldiers who fail a pot test once are sent packing with dishonorable discharge...and this isn't an isolated incident, either. My dh is going to Iraq in 6 weeks with some of these high white guys...yep, I sure feel really safe knowing that he's out there - life depending upon someone having coke/heroin withdrawals or worse, high). There is so much bureaucracy in the military (going both/all ways) and the racial lines are definitely set in stone as far as I can see it. If you have a Black superior and are Black, chances are you'll have an easier time than if you are white. The reverse is true. It's part of the culture of the military. It's silly and I think a lot of it is a result of a lack of cultural awareness of these guys (and gals to a much lesser extent, it's not very prevalent with the gals from what I've seen) when they first join the ranks. White boys from the country, black kids from the inner city - both with preconceived notions of the 'other side' when they join...then all of these things are reinforced in basic training when the guys segregate themselves by color...and it just continues on up the ladder.

And there is data on so-called reverse discrimination (an oxymoron, IMO - discrimination is discrimination and I hate the idea that discrimination is somehow special and worthy of a new ridiculous term when it happens to white men...not knocking your use of it, just the idea of the term itself) - it's just not abundant. I know I linked to some of that data in my post from two years back about AA and the 'reverse discrimination' thing...I'll see if I can find the info when I get a minute.

I could go on and on, but I'll spare you all

I hate to tell you, but I'm pretty sure that your experience is particularly isolated. People that fail drug testing in Marine Corps better be the best officers/NCO's in the Corps, or they're gone. Read this:
http://www.cleartest.com/testinfo/barracks_and_warships.htm

Maybe the Army or Airforce works that way, but postive drug tests get you right one out in the Marine Corps as a general rule.

I'll agree to the "good ol' boy" system ideology, but you have to understand the fact that non-commissioned ranks are over 60% black (not sure exactly this year). The commissioned ranks are exactly the opposite. However, you're still negating military policy for promoting officers. This shows that the policy clearly dictates that the military was looking to have national demographics mirror commissioned ranks;
http://clinton2.nara.gov/WH/EOP/OP/html/aa/aa07.html

These are doctrine, not rhetoric or opinion based information sources. If there aren't enough officers of color in a unit, how do you get them?? Hmmm..
You mention getting promoted by officers of similar race, but that's a different discussion all together. That happens among Northern/Southern officers, among genders, among college alumni, and definitely happens in the private sector all the time. It's the nature of people to favor those whom we are most like.

Most military men and women never anticipated combat, but it definitely brought up questions about who is most qualified to lead, etc. It's sad that anyone even had to consider race, but Affirmative Action caused just that.

Technically, the companies are doing so illegally if they do this. Find a court that would convict though. That is what tarnishes AA, the fact that the law is not being enforced when it involves people of color getting preferential treatment over people not of color. I also contend that it tarnishes people of color's reputation as whole when the court refuses to act fairly. I am not saying that it happens all of the time. I am saying that it happens more than it should, and it happens more often than preferential treatment given to whites by the courts today.

That's a great and very informative link! Thanks.

It sounds a lot like a typical AA program...you are basically encouraged to strive for equal representation (i.e. mirroring the national demographics), but not at the cost of the legitimacy of the job/position. And one other thing to note...just because you're in compliance (legally) with AA standards does NOT mean discrimination isn't present. There is still a LOT of discrimination, in particular with promotions and pay. It's actually quite easy to be compliant with AA regs (all one has to do is show a 'good faith effort' toward NOT being discriminatory). I'm sure there are some companies who fear punishment for not having enough minorities or something, but if they actually took the time to understand the system, they'd know that it's NOTHING like that...and that's why I get so frustrated with this topic!

As for the military stats...I don't think the number is anywhere near as high as 60%...certainly not just for Blacks (possibly all minorities, but I've never heard any statistic that says Blacks are the MAJORITY in the enlisted world or any other for that matter).


Okay, I found the most recent demographics on this (2003) here:



Not even close to 60% (unless you were specifically talking about NCOs, in which case I have no idea where to get this data).

Actually, minorities constitute 41% in the Army, and slightly less in the other branches. (see link)http://clinton2.nara.gov/WH/EOP/OP/html/aa/aa07.html

My numbers were skewed.
On the other hand, 7.5% are commissioned officers in active duty service across the Armed Forces. This is a socio-economic discussion better left for another board (which, none the less will probably beaten to death!).

That being said, the point we're not addressing, and why I originally replied to Nightimer's post, is that officers in the military (especially the corps) have minority goals to hit. Hence this sentence;
"The Navy and the Marine Corps, historically less successful than the other services in this arena, have responded in recent months by setting explicit goals to increase minority representation in the officer corps"

Anyone who has spent a day in the military understands what a mandate of this nature means. Basically, it means that you'd better find someone to fill that "goal". The military, as are nearly all gov't run institutions, is a political machine.

Hence, quotas are filled in a fashion pleasing to the politics of the day. This also holds true for women.

Now in my experience in the business sector, these policies aren't nearly as important or straight-forward. However, working for a large/high profile company does lend itself to being sensitive to these issues, regardless of it's impact on productivity.

Oh I understood what you were saying, and to some extent I agree. There shouldn't be arbitrary numbers and quotas just to fill some goal. However, part of AA is taking into account the POOL of potential applicants. This basically means the pool of qualified people. If only 7.5% of the military's qualified officer applicants are African American, then there is not and should not be an issue. The issue arises, however, if the percentage of qualified applicants greatly exceeds the number of people who are actually represented. If (for example) it was more like 30%, yet the actual officer numbers were 7.5%, there's a good chance that something funky is going on. I would be willing to venture a guess that any sort of goals made were done based upon the pool of applicants. Of course it's just a guess, but that's how it works in other sectors (the only difference is construction...there's a 'quota' of 6.9% for women in construction fields, but this is the only field that employs set quotas like that).

If you believe affirmative action is racism, Hayleanne, then I would call into question your understanding of what racism really is. As to whether or not it "tarnishes the reputation of blacks in general because the assumption it that they got where they got through AA" is not the problem of the Black person who the assumption is being made of but of the person making the assumption.

I am not here to confirm or deny anybody's assumptions about anything. If a person chooses not to hire me based on something I can do nothing about, that's their cross to bear, not mine. And before you say, "Yes, but you won't get that job," I submit I would never be happy working with such an overtly small-minded bigot in the first place.



And this is important to me....why?

I'm not attacking you personally aevans176, but I never lost a minute of sleep worrying about what "the majority of hard working/educated white men in America" thought about Black people. Not. One. Minute.

What it is exactly that White people such as yourself, Hayleanne, Just Leave Me Alone! or anyone else think Black people want from you? Your approval? Your support? Your love? No, no, and no. There's nothing that Black people want from you because there is nothing you have to give that we need. Perhaps you are more enlightened that your forefathers on matters of race. But you've not yet established that you understand the souls of Black folk any better than your predecessors.

There seems to be this fallacy that the freedom and rights and dignity of Blacks can be doled on like so much candy by our White betters as a parent to a unruly child. This is nonsense.

The novelist and essayist James Baldwin understood this very well and wrote in a letter to a nephew, There is no reason for you to try to become like white people and there is no basis whatever for their impertinent assumption that they must accept you.

They are, in effect, still trapped in a history which they do not understand; and until they understand it, they cannot be released from it. They have had to believe for many years, and for innumerable reasons, that black men are inferior to white men. Many of them, indeed, know better, but, as you will discover, people find it very difficult to act on what they know. To act is to be committed, and to be committed is to be in danger. In this case, the danger, in the minds of most white Americans, is the loss of their identity. Try to imagine how you would feel if you woke up one morning to find the sun shining and all the stars aflame. You would be frightened because it is out of the order of nature. Any upheaval in the universe is terrifying because it so profoundly attacks one's sense of one's own reality. Well, the black man has functioned in the white man's world as a fixed star, as an immovable pillar: and as he moves out of his place, heaven and earth are shaken to their foundations.

http://www.northpark.edu/history/Classes/S...es/Baldwin.html

Affirmative action offends some Whites because it represents a change in the natural order of things. They cling to the damnable lie that America is a meritocracy and through wit, pluck and a strong back, any one can become a millionaire and every boy can grow up to be President. That wasn't true then and it's not true now.

Those opposed to affirmative action never offer any realistic replacement for it. They just seem convinced that what exists is more damaging than nothing at all.
Affirmative action is moving America forward. Slowly, but inexorably. It is unfortunate that some must be dragged along kicking and screaming, but no real change comes without a cost being paid. If the cost is losing the majority of white men in America, then pay the cost and carry on.

1) 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?

2) 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?

I believe the stated intent behind Affirmative Action is noble and just, but the act of actually carrying out the policies is repressive to a free society.

The ideal that inspired the civil rights movement, that all people should be treated equally under the law, contradicts the argument for racial hiring or admission policies. There is an obvious stigma attached to Affirmative Action, despite the arguments from its most vocal supporters.
Affirmative Action theoretically stands for 'leveling the playing field', of course, the supporters of AA believe that they are the entity that gets to decide at what point, if ever, that field becomes level.
At it's core, it's intellectual core, Affirmative Action stands for saying it is right to do wrong to correct a wrong. And in the end, AA, rather than uniting people of good will in the common cause of justice, tends to balkanize us into segregation-thinking.

The ultimate irony in the debate over AA, is that supporters must downplay black achievement. To help blacks continue to advance, supporters must repeatedly remind everyone how poorly blacks are doing, when virtually the opposite is the case.


This may be true in some instances, but it logically also has to be true in other instances that whites oppose AA on intellectual, rather than emotional grounds.


It's too bad that you feel that way, do you instead prefer a society where merit and determination mean nothing, when the government is expected to create and control jobs and benefits through massive entitlement programs? Where professional victicrats think nothing over re-allocating taxes and spending in an attempt to create the appropriate level of diversity, excepting the fact that it would only pertain to one segment of the political spectrum........

Oh, I don't know if it causes racism, I could definitely see how it could, but I think it's unfair to lable the whole thing as something that causes racism. Ignorance, close-mindedness and often times stupidity cause racism, not government programs. However, the program in and of itself is, by definition, racist.



I'm sure that to a certain extent it is...But again, AA only causes racial hatred or tension between people who are racially insensitive to begin with...I mean to say, that if you blame a whole race because of something the government gave to them, then the program only pushed your racism over the cliff.

CP

I'm not attacking you either nighttimer, but the reality is that if you want to perpetuate the mediocracy caused by this blatently racist notion of Affirmative Action, then you must have the vote of the hard working/educated white man such as myself...

The idea that you want to hold onto this archaic notion of AA, but negate the beliefs of "the man", is like cutting your nose to spite your face. You will have to accept the fact that this idealism hangs in the balance of a vote. A vote of which is polarized and will eventually be decided by the very people whose ideas you repudiate.

You harken to a civil rights activist whom has to fight an uphill battle based solely upon the color of his skin. You act as if being black makes you a member of another society and that the "culture" inherent with being black makes you nearly completely seperate. Go ahead and spew the "you just don't understand us" rhetoric. It's a worn and tattered argument that every demographic in the US could use as a moniker.

Let me argue that I'm a Southern Male from a middle class family, educated in a state institution, a Marine Reservist, a young professional, and live in Texas. What in the world could a Politician who is a Yankee from Boston (or New England in general) know about me as a person? How could he/she relate to me or my needs as a constituent?
Furthermore, what do you really know about me? What was it like being raised middle class in the South? What do you know about being a veteran? What's it like to be a young white man in an international company? etc, etc, etc.... But that's not a crutch I choose to hold on to...

Fantastic topic! However, some factors are left out. Do they both cost the same for the procedure? Are they both on the loved one's insurance? Do they both have equally successful practices outside the hospital? Which one was easier to get in touch with, more personable or more frank when discussing the procedure? I realize you limited what was available for the question but these extras are pretty easy to answer if you look into the doctors at all and of course the all important issues is whether or not they are both on the loved one's insurance plan.


1) 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?

This is definitely a problem in America. There are those who wonder if a "person of color" is only successful because of Affirmative Action. Really, the only way to know the answer, or at least a good hint at it is to know the person. SHould we assume they achieved their position on merit and only change that view if experience with them proves us wrong. Ideally, yes. However, the world doesn't work that way.

In the situation listed above, I admit that my choice would be strongly influenced by the doctor's last name. An "American Sounding" name would be a more likely choice for me then a "Foreign sounding" name because I feel there would be a better chance that I could communicate effectively with the doctor. That is not to say that a name is really a good judge at all, but when I had to pick a doctor for my insurance at work, and I knew none of them, that was how I made my choice. First I looked at the ones that were closest to my home, and then I choose the one with a name that did not suggest a possibility of a communication issue. I also limited my choice to a male doctor because I personally am not comfortable with seeing a female doctor (NOt because I think them less qualified, but because of some insecurities I have with my "Lower-case B" shape). Funny thing was, that Doctor retired, and my new Doctor (DR. Mai) speaks better english then I do.

2) 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?

It has that ability. You do not need to be a racist to wonder if someone got a position for a reason other then merit when the possibility exists. When I meet a successful person who has extremely wealthy parents I tend to assume that they are successful because of their parents money and influence Sometimes the individual proves me wrong, other times my initial impression turns out to be correct. In the case of minorities, I believe everyone naturally wonders about this because of affirmative action. That is not to say that there are not brilliant "people of color" or minorities who have succeeded on their own merits, of course there are. But since the possibility exist that someone could have had preferential treatment because of their minority status, parent's wealth, or whatever, we naturally tend to wonder if they are where they are because of their background, instead of their ability.

In the case above, all things being equal, faced with a life of death decision for say my child, without any recommendations from my personal, trusted doctor, or any insurance issues I guess I would likely choose the white doctor to avoid the possibility of the other being less qualified but in an equal position because of preferential treatment. I doubt I would ever have to make such a decision, because there are many other factors that come into play and are easy to research. However, if that is all I had, that is what I would choose. I would probably not feel very good about it, but we are talking about my daughter's life here.

Interesting note: My Wife's response to this is the opposite. She would choose the "doctor of color" over the white doctor because she would assume he had to work harder, and be better at everything to achieve the same position at the same time.

1) 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?

If one already has dormant racist feelings, then affirmative action merely would be a reason to bring those racist feelings to a forefront. It would not be the cause of creation of such feelings. .

2) 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?

I would say the degree to which it tarnishes a person's achievements in someone's mind is to the degree that the "someone" is racist.



Why must someone be ignorant of their shortcomings in order recognize achievements. Maybe the Sean Hannity's and Limbaugh's and their followers think like such, (which explains why a person must hate America to criticize it) but this is not the case for us all. One might ask why the shortcomings in comparison exist. Would you say it is genetic??

1) 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?
Affirmative action is not only a cause of mistrust in minorities' abilities, it is rooted in the mistrust in minorities' abilities. Affirmative Action is paternalistic racism. It carries the same premise as Segregation - the belief that blacks are inferior - only instead of suppressing the inferior peoples, we now have to prop them up.

The argument, of course, is that Affirmative Action seeks to correct the injustices of the past. But Affirmative Action is itself an injustice (unless it is done voluntarily rather than by government mandate.) With this "two wrongs make a right" reasoning, there is no end in sight.

2) 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?

Of course. Affirmative Action is based on the idea that blacks need to be propped up because they are inferior. How could this be anything but degrading to black people? And even when qualified black people get good jobs, they cannot be satisfied with them, for they did not get their jobs honestly - they got their jobs by the government threatening their employers with guns and bludgeons.

I won't deny that the blacks are suffering economically from past discrimination, but state intervention is not the solution. Rather, we should create equality by removing the barriers to self-employment. This can be accomplished by removing regulations that discourage entrepreneurship and ceasing to enforce ridiculous claims of private property over unoccupied land.

I'm sorry, but this couldn't be further from the truth. AA is hardly based on the notion that blacks are inferior. That you or anyone else thinks that Blacks (or women, or other minorities, or persons with a physical disability, or Veterans - ALL protected classes under AA) are getting jobs because the government is threatening companies shows your lack of familiarity with Affirmative Action in the real world. I was an AA consultant for four years...I'm extremely familiar with the inner workings and what does and does not happen. AA doesn't have anything to do with your so-called 'guns and bludgeons' and any company that acts out of this sort of fear is breaking the law and, frankly, not well-versed in AA laws/regs.

AA is based on the notion of making sure that companies aren't NOT hiring/promoting members of these protected classes simply on the basis of their race. There is a HUGE difference between being singled out and rejected SOLELY because of your race and having a program that encourages companies to be aware of their own demographics and to make sure that they are making a 'good faith effort' to not exclude anyone based solely upon one category. Basically, without AA, white men would likely have continued to hire other white men (that's the premise behind the original legislation/action), thus AA was born.

I think people would greatly benefit from reading up on AA before jumping to conclusions based on talking points and media misrepresentations. It's easy to not feel the need to research AA, though...unless you work in the field, it doesn't effect most of us on a regular basis and we tend to think we know how it works because of anecdotal stories and media blurbs. Not trying to knock anyone here at all, I'm just saying it certainly helps when you have a working knowledge of what Affirmative Action is about.

Well, it only stands to reason the person who has been injured is a better judge of when his foot no longer hurts than the guy who stepped on it. Certainly the supporters of Affirmative Action would prefer to be the one to decide when it is no longer needed instead of the opponents.



No, I do not prefer a society where merit and determination mean nothing, Dontreadonme. I believe in the idea of a meritocracy and hard work winning the day. But that's not the reality of American life. I don't buy the hype that people progress primarily due to the sweat of their brow and all that jazz. I'd love to see an America where this is the case, but that's not the way of the world.



aevans176, if the way to win the vote of the hardworking/educate White man such as yourself is to surrender my principles to placate you then that is a vote I neither want or need.

What you call "archaic" I call "necessary." Now maybe there's a middle ground between our two positions but to find it requires both of us to show a willingness to move toward a compromise. I'm interested in finding that happy place between your beliefs and mine, but I'm not interested in a one-way debate where I give all and you give nothing. I'm not interested in any notion of brotherhood with anyone who doesn't want brotherhood with me.

The reality of the situation is that though under attack and receiving heavy criticism from its opponents affirmative action is a fact of life in this country. It was created in response to America's long and shameful history of institutional racism. Now that may not sit well with you, but that is the undisputed truth.

I do not accept your assertion that affirmative action hangs in the balance of a vote. If the Supreme Court abolished affirmative action today, America would not suddenly become a true meritocracy and the racial progress of people of color would not vault backwards to the pre-Civil Rights era.

You are making the rash assumption that the status quo will remain tomorrow as it has yesterday. To quote James Baldwin once more, The only thing that white people have that black people need, or should want, is power-and no one holds power forever.

I am not negating the beliefs of "the man" but I'm not trembling in fear of his anger and wrath either. Just as the contemporary White men are no longer slavemasters, the contemporary Black man is no longer a slave.

We must respect and deal with each other as equals or we don't have to respect and deal with each other at all.

People oppose affirmative action because it's institutionalized racism. It rewards people for the "color of their skin", not for the content of their character or their qualifications as an individual. It represents a change in the natural order of things all right. It forces hiring practices that don't use the qualifications of the individual and instead makes the primary qualification an irrelevant physical characteristic. This isn't about "growing up to be president". That dream is beyond nearly every "white" person too. This issue is about eliminating racism in ALL of it's forms. One can't decry racism and then happily employ it when it suits ones selfish aims.

On top of it, Affirmative Action demeans those who it pretends to help. The "cost" of affirmative action is creating a false sense of "progress" that is not based on anything concrete. It artificially rewards those who have not necessarily "earned" their position and taints "minorities" who are highly qualified. All affirmative action does is create an expectation that inferior performance can get one ahead in life and it also focuses attention on "race" which is something we should be de-emphasizing, not making the primary focus of an individual's worth. Ultimately, it's hurt, not helped minority progress.

Finally, the above post is yet another display of a stark white/black worldview that I find both reactionary and anthropologically incorrect in 2005. There are very few "pure" whites or blacks left. Our country is a melting pot and "racial" differences are decreasing with each generation. The lines that divide our country are not "racial"; they are "cultural". And the cultures that consistently find themselves on the bottom of our social-economic scale are those that cling to values that are heavily dependent on "race".

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.

I really don't know how many ways I can attempt to explain this. The above bolded comments are simply untrue. Period. lordhelmet, I don't know how familiar you are with the workings of Affirmative Action, but based upon your above assertions, I can only assume not at all. Race is NEVER the primary characteristic used to determine one's qualification. The ONLY time that a person's 'protected class' status might override other qualifications is in the construction field as a result of actual quotas (not perceived quotas) for WOMEN.

Affirmative Action is not just about race. I honestly don't understand why we're still of the mindset that it's a black/white issue when that's just not the case. I'd urge everyone to read the following AA fact sheets/informational links:

EO 11246
EO 11246 Fact Sheet
AAP (Affirmative Action Plan) Regulations
Affirmative Action Fact Sheet

One scenario I'd like to offer...

Suppose there's a company in a city with a Black population of 17%, a Hispanic population of 10%, an Asian population of 4% and an American Indian population of 3% (btw, 'American Indian' is the group title used for AA purposes). This company's workforce is 94% white (and it's a company with more than 100 employees). It might appear on the outside that there is some discrimination going on. But there is absolutely NO way to know this without taking a closer look at what goes on within the company's hiring/firing practices and then some. Often times, it's as simple as poor advertising to minorities that creates these disaparities...that's ALL a part of AA. Sometimes the 'pool of qualified applicants' (more AA terminology) does not equal the demographics of the region (actually, this is often the case). So (for example) you might have a pool of qualified applicants in the very same region that is 9% Black, 4% Hispanic, 2% Asian, and 1% American Indian. The 94% white workforce doesn't appear so discriminatory when you have these more in depth numbers - and that's EXACTLY what AA entails. The pool of qualified applicants is one of the most important aspects of AA planning. Now suppose this company has an interview for a position that requires a bachelor's degree in Communications and 3 years experience in the specific field (HR). The company has three applicants that meet all of the job requirements: a white male, a Black male, and a woman. Now suppose the white male has 7 years experience but has a poor interview. The black male has exactly 3 years experience but has a wonderful interview. The woman has 4 years experience and has a good interview. ANY ONE of these individuals is qualified for the job. The company decides to hire the woman since she has both additional experience AND a good interview (which happens to be important for this position). She didn't get the job because of Affirmative Action employing 'reverse discrimination'. She got the job because she was what the company was looking for overall. Now had all things been exactly equal with these three applicants, the company is basically in a position to hire whomever they feel will best represent their company.

I continue to be surprised by how many people seem to forget the importance of an interview in the job selection process. Sometimes companies are looking for a certain type of person/personality to fulfill a specific role within the company. In the actual working world of Affirmative Action, it VERY RARELY ever comes down to a person's race being a factor.

I can come up with scenarios until my fingers fall off. I know how it works because I've been right in the middle of it on a daily basis. Some people are going to believe me, some are not. I can't change that no matter how much information I provide. No matter what scenarios I offer, people will continue to believe what they want to believe, and there's really no way to debate with anyone who refuses to question what they THINK they know about something (which is usually based solely on assumptions).

I first joined AD as a result of an Affirmative Action debate. I felt the need to dispel some of the myths about AA and what it entails back then and I still feel just as strongly about it. I might not get anywhere, but I'll continue to attempt to set the record straight about AA