On this beautiful MLK day, let's talk about some laws still on the books that are openly discriminatory based upon race/gender, etc.

According to this site, there are 656 statutes that specifically discriminate based upon race and/or gender.

The states with the largest number of laws based upon race were Louisiana and Arkansas, while even California has laws on the books such as these (even though they voted to abolish such legislation in 1996).

These laws are predominantly discriminatory against whites, and most often white males. Furthermore, being a wealthy minority often allows certain discounted licensing, loans, grants, or preferential gov't treatment (i.e. the Harvey Gantt incident).

With that being said...
Questions for Debate:

1. Did Dr. King (and the civil rights movement) intend for states to classify citizens based upon skin color?

2. If you're already a wealthy minority, should you be able to do business under the guise of your race and receive preferential treatment?

3. If such legislation is appropriate in your eyes, who should not receive preferential treatment?(Is this discrimination limited to caucasian men? If so, what about Hasidic Jewish Americans, children of the rural poor, etc?)

I believe that while MLK would have (and perhaps was) in support of such affirmative action laws during his time, society has changed, and I truly believe he would be astonished at the progress that has been made. (Of course it's not perfect, but compared to where we were 40 years ago, it's amazing.)

That being said, I think MLK would be opposed to affirmative action programs based on the same philosophy some prominent blacks have recently voiced. There's only so far handouts can take you. At some point, everyone has to realize that we can't create "fairness" and expect to create a fair world for every individual. Everyone is going to be discriminated at one point or another. The question is do we give up or do we persist in the face of it?

Additionally, I think a larger problem than the facial inequality of AA programs is the message AA programs send to the younger generation.

Just my $0.02.

1. Did Dr. King (and the civil rights movement) intend for states to classify citizens based upon skin color?

Well of course King went a long way to stop the mistreatment of African-Americans at the hands of the state. I believe that there is ample evidence that he had moved beyond political discrimination to social inequalities of racism.

2. If you're already a wealthy minority, should you be able to do business under the guise of your race and receive preferential treatment?

On the day set aside for honoring this great non-violent leader, I find it unfortunate that the short-comings of our present relations are the subject of debate. To me it is akin to debating military atrocities on Memorial Day. We have done them, but that isn't the best day to start venting about them. (And yes other people to snipe at our military history on memorial day, but I don't)

I think we have not gone so far with affirmative action that being a minority with capital is a free ticket to billionaire-ville

Action needed to be taken to set up a more equal playing field for the last generations that grew up under Jim Crow. When are we willing to say that Jim Crow was eradicated? 1865? 1956? 1964? 1965? For me no to all of the above. The last two cities I have lived in had their school systems placed under long term control of the federal court system for foot dragging in implementing Brown v. Board. (and I didn't get to town until the 1990s.)

3. If such legislation is appropriate in your eyes, who should not receive preferential treatment?(Is this discrimination limited to caucasian men? If so, what about Hasidic Jewish Americans, children of the rural poor, etc?)

Of course this is a loaded question. The case of discrimination against minorities in this country is long ugly and real. The discrimination against WASP men in this country is no clearer than the existence of an assault against Christmas. Does the Senate today look like a typical sampling of 50 and over Americans to you? or does it look like being white and male seems to be a great head start to reach the highest offices in our land? How about the CEOs of the top companies?

I think it would be best to honestly pay our respects to the service MLK jr paid to our country, and if you don't see it yet, hopefully you will soon. And then, when affirmative action is a clear topic separated from the day to honor MLK, then the complaints about inequality and reverse discrimination might be more effectively wrestled with.

Why do the some of the same people who insist on proper decorum paid to our national symbol, to our servicemen, to the pledge of allegiance, seem to crop up every year on the third Monday of January and find ways to try to chip away at the significance of one of the greatest American, period, in any room?

Of course MLK, Jr, isn't here to defend himself. He was murdered in Memphis speaking on behalf of striking sanitation workers. But I find it difficult to believe that he would be referring to affirmative action as reverse discrimination and free handouts.

A little empathy goes a long way. White southerners are one of the few white American groups with a legacy colored by defeat and perceived injustice, yet it is from their ranks that the loudest complaints about the few accomplishments of African Americans recognized by the nation.

How would it feel to know your ancestors were kidnapped and brought to the country. That they were considered sub-human and controlled in a condition of slavery for centuries. That they were released from bondage into a new system of tight social control and restricted citizenship. That until very, very recently most non-African Americans considered African Americans inherently inferior. That justice could often be denied, voting rights blocked by means foul and fouler. That many companies continued clear policies of discrimination in hiring, lending, and housing at least until the end of the 20th century?

Through all of this most African American love their country. But when their greatest leader gets a national recognition, every year complaints about his pedigree as a leader and gripes about the meager social legislation that has been applied to erode the effects of institutionalized racism over the centuries. That federal day of recognition becomes not a day of empathy for the struggles of African Americans but complaints that this segment of the population that still is burdened by extremely high rates of poverty, and a clearly thinner slice of the pie of the American dream in almost all ways, gets to see this honor turned into a white gripe session.

Our society failed to make an equal playing field for its most vulnerable group of citizens and the meager remedy gets lambasted as racist preference. Of course it is, but in a federal system where minorities rights are not protected, some protections must be put in place. Watch the developments in Iraq and ask yourself why Sunni's will get some "preferences" to support the new government. Darn it all, I should have been born a black, Islamic woman and I could have rode the easy street to the halls of power and wealth in this country.

Here is another take on remaining racist laws. Believe it or not it is not an attack on affirmative action.

Still on the Books: Jim Crow and Segregation Laws

That's not a proper analogy. Bringing up My Lai on Memorial Day is a swipe against the military. Arguing against affirmative action on King Day is not a swipe against Dr. King. It's a discussion as to the meaning of the words he spoke. Having a debate about that on his day could hardly be more appropriate.


I didn't know Brown needed to be "implemented". All it said is that it's unconstitutional to discriminate on the basis of color in public education. All the school districts had to do is stop discriminating, and there's your "implementation".

What I suspect you're referring to is in fact not Brown, but some other ruling that came later, requiring forced integration. Am I right about that?

Yes you are. The decision is called Brown II. It was the implementation ruling that was delayed by Chief Justice Warren in order to get the unanimous vote he coveted.

But it is definitely connected to the ruling and its weak language is what led to the ability to delay implementing the decision for decades. The key phrase was something like "with all deliberate speed". The words that were in there were deliberate speed. Unfortunately by the dictionary that is an oxymoron because one of the meanings of deliberate is slow.

Oh and BTW, I do not find the analogy to be inappropriate but I now understand your opinion on the matter.

Just a little quibble on interpretation, Eeyore.

Deliberate speed is indeed an oxymoron if only the secondary meaning of deliberate is considered. The primary meaning of intentional makes sense, so I'll go with that meaning. Also in there is carefully weighed and considered speed.

Other than that we've beaten the AA horse to death here in threads specific to AA. I have nothing new to add.

But the reality is that giving tax breaks or discounted business ventures to people that are already wealthy does nothing for a race or the people still at the bottom. It's not like the wealthy black population is sending checks into urban/poor areas to help offset injustices done by prior generations... are they? of course not... If the loans were being distributed in urban areas and 30+ years had made a significant change, then we might actually have something to talk about.

However, preferential treatment based upon skin color in our society hasn't proven to be effective ever.



I hate to point out the obvious, but the senate is elected. The frank reality is that black-Americans are less likely to vote, and frankly less likely to become involved in politics in America. That's a socio-economic thesis waiting to happen, but you can't blame the demographics of American politics on Jim Crow legislation. That's particularly nearsighted in my opinion.

Here's the CEO argument again? Good Lord. Let's use a wonderful analogy that liberals cringe while hearing. If the NBA and NFL can be full of African Americans, whom make copious amounts of money which in many cases swamp the paychecks of Fortune 500 CEO's... why can't they climb the corporate ladder in the same fashion? If it's American racism, then why on earth is the NBA and NFL so successful... it's a fact that the largest amount of their revenues come from WHITE men.... guess we're only biggots if they're wearing a tie?

If there is no proof of discrimination against white men in America, what do you call giving preferential treatment to the tune of 656 laws on the books in the United States???? That doesn't even broach the subject of private hiring practices and "diversity" initiatives.

Being a white man in America has its advantages in some circumstances, but its disadvantages in others.

The link in your post doesn't even work, and frankly if there are segregation laws on the books, what we need to ask is what is actually being enforced.

Dr King stood for equality, and if I were in his shoes I'd be rolling over in my grave knowing that it took preferential treatment for my kids to get into schools... for military officers to get promoted... for companies to hire my brothers and sisters. Frankly, AMERICAN PRIDE should dictate that one wouldn't want a law or a policy to aid in personal success. Our current social climate only breeds apathy and cynicism, and doesn't teach grass roots motivation and ambitition.... qualities that made America the only remaining super power and have afforded us the ability to sit and argue politics at the office all day...

If you think that black people in America were/are the only people discriminated against, you're sadly mistaken. Consider native Americans, obese people, or even people of middle-eastern decent in contemporary America. How do you think the general American population treats people of Mid-Eastern decent in our current culture??? I'd venture to state with a certain amount of trepidation and apprehension at best...

Is racism dead in America??? of course not.... it's alive and well, and in some circumstances socially acceptable.

I believe that this was not the vision of the civil rights movement, but more of a generation of those that believe in pandering to apathy and a contingency of Americans that have a propensity to stand with their hands out.

There has been a recent attempt by the right and the conservative moment to coopt the figure that was once the target of so much of its previous generation's wrath.

I believe that this is the distortion and not the use of affirmative action in this country. There are many types of attempts to use MLK's legacy to put forward some elements of the conservative agenda, including using the "I Have A Dream" speech as conclusive proof the Dr. King would be against AA today. I think Dr. King would have been pleased with the progress of his Civil Rights movement in 1975 but would be disappointed with the lack of continued progress since then.

Here is a detailed and documented site that counters some of the arguments that use Dr. King to support the modern conservative movements.

Myths of Martin Luther King
by Marcus Epstein

King wanted only equal rights, not special privileges and would have opposed affirmative action, quotas, reparations, and the other policies pursued by today’s civil rights leadership.




So my opinion is that Dr. King's legacy is being coopted to try to argue that he might be a member of the Republican Party today. To me, this is the most unlikely of realities and that the arguments that attempt to do this seriously distort who MLK Jr. was.

Oh, and to AuthorMusician. Fair enough. You caught me up to a point. However do notice that all deliberate speed is open to interpretation, and those doing the interpreting at the time were to be local officials, almost universally publicly in favor of segregation and resistance to this court decision. (see the Southern Manifesto and the reason that most of the stars and bars flags became the state flags of several southern states) With this wording instead of something like immediately or by January 1 of 1960, segregationist got the loophole that made it possible to delay implementation almost indefinately. It was really a part of one of the major laws of the 1960s (Civil Rights Act of 1964 or the Voting Rights Act of 1965) that allowed individuals to file suit against their local district that got the ball moving more quickly.

First of all, I think that if you plan to not defame and malign Dr. King, I wouldn't use the Epstein article, as it takes some of the most subversive quotes of Dr. King out of context.... to include portraying him as a socialist.


It also portrays him as a plaigarist...


I hardly would consider Mr. Epstein an expert... straight from the article:


So... he's a college student that writes in a paper??

How about some really useful MLK quotes???








From Carolyn Garris...
"Today, this is the conservative message. Moral character as expressed in our social interactions is at the center of self-government, which in turn is the sustaining force of American democracy. Conservatives know that without a morally-informed sense of social obligation, we would be rudderless...In today’s parlance, Dr. King's movement would be called “faith-based.” Unlike the doggedly secular groups that now campaign for government action in the name of “social justice,” King’s coalition was explicitly religious, rooted in churches and Christian morality...King aimed to unite a divided America behind the goals of the Founders, not to shift fundamentally unjust public policies to favor different groups. Affirmative action stands outside King’s legacy because it requires the government to see Americans as members of privileged and disfavored racial groups, not equal individuals. "

I didn't say the link doted on MLK. I just said it pointed out that MLK was not necessarily the Conservative icon that some make him out to be today.

I've read the above post and I am not seeing any refutation of my points.

Yes it calls him a plagiarist, read John Locke and then read the Declaration of Independence. I never said he was an original thinker, but I would call him an excellent leader.

The quotes you point out show him at his best. The quotes in his Epstein article, IMHO, show him looking for some real improvements for African Americans in terms of economic opportunity. I don't see MLK speaking out against AA.

And I have no idea what your point is about the Garris quote. Is it to point out that many people on the left actually believe in God? Or is it to say that since MLK was an ordained minister who relied largely on other ordained Christian ministers to in his main civil rights organization (SCLC) the first C standing for Christian) that he was then faith-based. Is faith-based code for "would have obviously supported the present Republican Party?"

First off, aevans176, Martin Luther King, Jr., did lift the words of others. Michael Eric Dyson in his book, I May Not Get There With You writes, "It is now clear that he (King) plagiarized huge chunks of his dissertation and graduate school papers and that he carelessly cited sources in his seminary and undergraduate papers." (Page 139)

King ate too much. He smoked cigarettes. He had extra-marital affairs. He attempted suicide twice as a youth. He wasn't even born with the name "Martin." His birth name was Michael and was changed to Martin when he was five years old.

King was a man with all the weakness, failings and flaws of a man.

But by all means, how about some really useful MLK quotes? They just may be a little...different from the ones you know by heart.

Martin Luther King opposed the war in Vietnam:

should make it clear that while I have tried in these last few minutes to give a voice to the voiceless on Vietnam and to understand the arguments of those who are called enemy, I am as deeply concerned about our troops there as anything else. For it occurs to me that what we are submitting them to in Vietnam is not simply the brutalizing process that goes on in any war where armies face each other and seek to destroy. We are adding cynicism to the process of death, for they must know after a short period there that none of the things we claim to be fighting for are really involved. Before long they must know that their government has sent them into a struggle among Vietnamese, and the more sophisticated surely realize that we are on the side of the wealthy and the secure while we create hell for the poor.

Somehow this madness must cease. We must stop now. I speak as a child of God and brother to the suffering poor of Vietnam. I speak for those whose land is being laid waste, whose homes are being destroyed, whose culture is being subverted. I speak for the poor of America who are paying the double price of smashed hopes at home and death and corruption in Vietnam. I speak as a citizen of the world, for the world as it stands aghast at the path we have taken. I speak as an American to the leaders of my own nation. The great initiative in this war is ours. The initiative to stop it must be ours.

These are revolutionary times. All over the globe men are revolting against old systems of exploitation and oppression and out of the wombs of a frail world new systems of justice and equality are being born. The shirtless and barefoot people of the land are rising up as never before. "The people who sat in darkness have seen a great light." We in the West must support these revolutions. It is a sad fact that, because of comfort, complacency, a morbid fear of communism, and our proneness to adjust to injustice, the Western nations that initiated so much of the revolutionary spirit of the modern world have now become the arch anti-revolutionaries. This has driven many to feel that only Marxism has the revolutionary spirit. Therefore, communism is a judgement against our failure to make democracy real and follow through on the revolutions we initiated. Our only hope today lies in our ability to recapture the revolutionary spirit and go out into a sometimes hostile world declaring eternal hostility to poverty, racism, and militarism. With this powerful commitment we shall boldly challenge the status quo and unjust mores and thereby speed the day when "every valley shall be exalted, and every mountain and hill shall be made low, and the crooked shall be made straight and the rough places plain."

(A Time to Break Silence/April 4, 1967)

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article2564.htm

Martin Luther King advocated the use of "extremist" tactics to accomplish his goals:

So the question is not whether we will be extremists, but what kind of extremists we viii be. We we be extremists for hate or for love? Will we be extremist for the preservation of injustice or for the extension of justice? In that dramatic scene on Calvary's hill three men were crucified. We must never forget that all three were crucified for the same crime---the crime of extremism. Two were extremists for immorality, and thus fell below their environment. The other, Jeans Christ, was an extremist for love, truth and goodness, and thereby rose above his environment. Perhaps the South, the nation and the world are in dire need of creative extremists.

(Letter from A Birmingham Jail/April 16, 1963)

Martin Luther King was no fan of false appeals to patriotism.

Now what are some of the domestic consequences of the war in Vietnam? It has made the Great Society a myth and replaced it with a troubled and confused society. The war has strengthened domestic reaction. It has given the extreme right, the anti-labor, anti-Negro, and anti-humanistic forces a weapon of spurious patriotism to galvanize its supporters into reaching for power, right up to the White House. It hopes to use national frustration to take control and restore the America of social insecurity and power for the privileged. When a Hollywood performer, lacking distinction even as an actor can become a leading war hawk candidate for the Presidency, only the irrationalities induced by a war psychosis can explain such a melancholy turn of events.

When I first decided to take a firm stand against the war in Vietnam, I was subjected to the most bitter criticism, by the press, by individuals, and even by some fellow civil rights leaders. There were those who said that I should stay in my place, that these two issues did not mix and I should stick with civil rights. Well I had only one answer for that and it was simply the fact that I have struggled too long and too hard now to get rid of segregation in public accommodations to end up at this point in my life segregating my moral concerns

(November 1967)

http://www.aavw.org/special_features/speec...ech_king03.html

It is incontestable and deplorable that Negroes have committed crimes; but they are derivative crimes. They are born of the greater crimes of the white society.

A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual doom.

Philanthropy is commendable, but it must not cause the philanthropist to overlook the circumstances of economic injustice which make philanthropy necessary.

http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/...er_king_jr.html

I understand why conservatives would wish to convert, to hijack, to pervert, Dr. King to their cause. No other private American citizen so well encompasses the promise and potential of this nation. King occupies a special place of admiration and respect in what this country has become and where it came from. King wasn't the only one who helped to liberate Black Americans from the pernicious institution of legalized segregation. He was the moral center of a revolution fought with peaceful non-violence instead of bullets, bombs and guns.

And he liberated White Americans from the oppressive weight of their own racism as well.



I don't know who the hell Carolyn Garris is, but I do know she's talking out the side of her neck. One thing about dying prematurely as Dr. King did is that he was spared the indignity of becoming an aging irrelevant joke or a confused old man turning away from the principles and beliefs of his youth.

So the Right has tried to do an extreme makeover of Dr. King. They've tried to take the shining prince of the civil rights era and remake him as this neutered, generic, Super Negro with the string in the back that says when pulled, "I Have A Dream."

It's a nice little fantasy of the right-wingers as they try to appropriate a dead hero, having failed to create any viable live ones. I mean, really. Clarence Thomas? Ward Connerly? Larry Elder? Please.

For two decades before the King holiday flap, he fascinated Republican presidents and conservatives. Eisenhower and Nixon flattered, cajoled and wooed King to get his support for their mild civil rights legislation and to put a damper on protests in the South. He was the one civil rights leader that the GOP might gingerly court to score political points with black voters. In a perverse, backhanded way, Nixon, Reagan and Bush Sr. owed much of their political success to King. The civil rights movement fueled the white backlash that transformed the Republican Party in the South from a political nonentity into a political behemoth. More then any other civil rights leader, King was the emblem of that movement.

The GOP also capitalized on King's name to reimagine itself as the party of diversity and inclusion. Bush Jr. moved shrewdly to adopt King's mantle: In January 2004, he placed a wreath on King's tomb on the official celebration of his birth. He has hailed King in public messages on this holiday every year.

To defend their opposition to race-based programs, conservatives have grabbed at the famous line in King's 1963 "I Have A Dream" speech, when he called on Americans to judge individuals by the content of their characters, not the color of their skins. This is not a total distortion. While King continually demanded that government do more to aid black poor, and he likely would have been an advocate of affirmative action, he also demanded that the black poor do more to help themselves. In numerous speeches, he stressed personal responsibility, self-help, strong families, and religious values as goals that blacks should strive to attain. King's solution to many of the big-ticket race and class problems that plague America was a conflicting mix of idealism and hard-nosed pragmatism.

Republican presidents have invoked King's name for good reason. He is still the man that evokes nostalgia, passion and instant identification in the fight for racial justice and equality in America. And Republican conservatives still tout him as a man that might have stood with them on certain issues. They'll do it again this holiday.

http://www.alternet.org/columnists/story/30812/

If Dr. King were alive today, he would be 77 years old and probably figuring, "I've done my part. Instead of trying make me something I never was, why don't you try and make yourself the change you want to see."

"I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the starless midnight of racism and war that the bright daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become reality. I believe that unarmed truth and unconditional love will have the final word."

"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character."

"Now, I say to you today my friends, even though we face the difficulties of today and tomorrow, I still have a dream. It is a dream deeply rooted in the American dream. I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: - 'We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal."

"I have a dream that one day…the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood."

I was going to answer, but I thought perhaps Marting Luther King's own words were better for the discussion at hand...

How about you take a minute to argue the points as opposed to making "racially centered" and partisan rants without ever rebuking the facts??? That would be a great start....

Carolyn Garris is a columnist, but frankly I don't suppose that you have any idea who she is as she doesn't write for "alternet"??? lol... puh-leeze.....




Good Lord, NT, I was referring to the Epstein article used in eeyore's post. I'm sure if you go back and read it again, you'll understand what I was saying.

The bottom line is that Dr. King had some religious/faith based views that are in-line with contemporary conservative ideals.

I find it hard to believe that people get so upset when these ideas are asserted. There is irrefutable evidence on either side of the aisle with Dr. King, but you don't hear conservatives on AD making statements like...


or maybe even more rhetorically cynically remarks like...


It seems almost as if there is some resentment towards conservatives, but please don't forget that conservatives don't cause this emotion, but rather your own ideas/demons.

Moving on...I believe that Mrs. Garris said it best in this sentence...


Faith based, NT, is almost a liberal mantra for kooky and/or back-woods and ignorant. It's satirical how the same party can tout a man who obviously wore his religion on his sleeve but make case with Christianity in America...

Again, please attempt to refute the facts presented as opposed to placating Dr. King's comments listed as if he meant them for everyone except Conservative Caucasians.

I used the Garris quote because I believe she eloquently made a case for a moral standing in the United States. She made point that faith-based initiatives (often made fun of by the liberal constituency) were something that Dr. King used to champion his cause. She made the idea clear that Dr. King wasn't looking for favoritism, but moreover equality.

I don't believe any man with an ounce of pride wants his success discolored by the stain of handouts, and I'd hope that over time that Dr. King's qualities can be shared by everyone... and that laying claim to Dr. King's ideals is a shared American quality.... not just for those whom aren't white male conservatives..!!

Okay, so do you want me to rebuke or refute "the facts," Aevans176? If you had bothered to read my prior post before your rant, I tried to make it plain that Dr. Martin Luther King was not in any way, shape or form in sympathy with the objectives of contemporary conservative. Your refusal or inability to accept the counter-argument does not invalidate it.

You can spin his words any way you want. The fact remains your claim that King was a closet right-winger is laughable on its face. This is a man who questioned the status quo, defied authority, challenged both unjust and immoral racial segregation, economic injustice and the Vietnam War. He broke with President Johnson over the war and challenged the civil rights leadership to fight for the rights of not just Negroes in America, but oppressed people across the globe.

And now, in a bout of what Michael Eric Dyson calls "revisionist amnesia" the same political philosophy that challenged, confronted and sought to confound King, now seeks to claim his legacy as their own! The absolute hubris of this ridiculous notion is breathtaking in its audacity.

Sorry aevans176. You don't get to hijack Dr. King as just another parrot of right-wing talking points. Not this brother.



No, I don't know who Carolyn Garris is because you didn't bother providing a link to any of her columns. Knowing who she is though makes no difference to me. She still sounds like a moron with no understanding of who MLK was and what he stood for. Additionally, I'm quite familiar with your disdain for any publication or website that doesn't make your suggested reading list. As typical, you think snide remarks about the source diminishes the validity of the remarks. Hardly.



Well, duh. As a man of the cloth, it should come as no surprise that Dr. King might hold some views that contemporary conservatives parrot. But they sure would NOT be the anti-homosexual, pro-war, superpatriot ravings and droolings of a James Dobson, Pat Robertson or some of the other evangelical moral crusaders.
Dr. King believed and preached a gospel of love and tolerance, not homophobia, jingoism and blind allegiance to the government.



I don't resent conservatives, aevans176. What I DO resent are the weak and pathetic attempts to rewrite history by right-wingers whom failing to come up with their own heroes are attempting to body-snatch one of the nation's greatest voices for freedom, democracy and progressive thought.

Dyson's sentiments about this grave robbery mirror my own:

Indeed, conservatives must be applauded for their perverse ingenuity in coopting King's legacy and the rhetoric of the civil rights movement. Unlike the radical right, whose racist motivations are hardly obscured by painfully infrequent references to racial equality, contemporary conservatives often speak of race in moral terms gleaned from the black freedom struggle. Thus, while the radical right is open about its disdain for social upheaval in the sixties, many conservatives pretend to embrace a revolution they in fact bitterly opposed.

--- I May Not Get There With You (pages 12-13)

AMEN!...PREACH ON...

Is that what you're looking for? Because simply put, the only response that you gave to my points that Dr. King did have some things in common with contemporary conservatives was to say...


GREAT STRATEGY... insult a whole party and that proves a point??
I suppose what you're saying is that the conservative movement is all encompassed by homophobes, jingoists, and blind allegiance?

Not to mention, all conservatives are parrots?? That's what you're saying in no uncertain terms...

However, to answer your pleas... Carolyn Garris is just a moderate conservative columnist... here are a couple links.
#1
#2

Very simply put, and as I've stated previously, I don't believe that Dr. King should be "claimed" by anyone but Americans.

I don't understand why a party, or a race, or even an ideological base of people have to "lay claim" to this American hero.

However, it is interesting to see how perterbed some liberals become when we show how Dr. King had some ideas that could be construed under contemporary political climates as "conservative"....

Ok, I'll leave alternet.org alone for now... because if the name doesn't say it all... just go read some of the articles...
How about we discuss Micheal Dyson's quote??


I hate to use basic Math to break down the facts for Mr. Dyson, but frankly... most conservatives alive today (especially those in power) barely even lived through the civil rights/segregation days. In order for someone to have even been out of high school during the civil rights movement (that they bitterly opposed), they'd have to be in their very late fifties or early 60's, and moreover for them to have been out of college they'd have to be in their early-mid 60's.

Frankly, we know that the majority of the republican constituency isn't 60+ years old.

Secondly, Southern Democrats records mirrored those of the Southern Republicans, and many argue that the racism that came from said Democrats was worse. (We've argued this in a prior thread...).

The frank notion is that most voting republicans today, the majority of the Republican constituency wasn't even out of highschool until the mid 80's-early 90's... in which case the civil rights movement was long over... and sure as heck we weren't opposing anything.

IN SUMMATION... most conservatives that you're going to run into have no personal knowledge of Dr. King, as he's remembered in print and/or film.
If I were carrying the flag of it's hard for a black man... I'd be ELATED to see those whom I believe were oppressive to carry the flag of a civil rights leader so persuasive as Dr. King.

However... I guess Dr. King is hallowed ground... I guess his ideas can't be shared by anyone unless they lay at the intersection of socialism and non-caucasian??

The thread's point was to show that there are laws on the books that directly oppose the teachings of Dr. King, and oppose the whole idea of not being judged by the color of one's skin, but the content of one's character. If that's so hard to understand, no amount of factual information or quoted data will ever change such opinion...

Aevans I'm going to start with the assumption that you are not crying crocodile tears for the sake of argument and we are dealing with a strongly held conviction of yours. I think it is clear that the strong point of MLK's legacy is that he was able to speak about Civil Rights and the path ahead in an idealistic way that attracted all Americans. The most famous of these moments happened in Washington D.C. in 1963.

Of course his life and values are free for all Americans to celebrate and embrace (or not) He is not someone that only liberals are Democrats can claim as theirs, in fact his strongest enemies were Southern Democrats.

Yet to cling to one aspect of his legacy and ignore the values the man held in total to conclude that he would argue that the remains of Affirmative Action are racist laws that violate his values is not a believable argument (IMHO) no matter how many times it is repeated.



However, do not confuse my particular perturbed state in this thread does not have to do with the fact that you are identifying aspects of Dr. King's career that might be held in common with modern conservative values and policies.

I am perturbed here because I find your interpretation of Dr. King's motivations to be wholly unpersuasive.



I guess I can't hold them either then?! Dr. King is a type of hallowed ground and I see attempts to reshape him to fit a modern agenda that I think it is very easy, with careful study, to show that he would stand likely to the left of the modern liberal movement in almost all of the issues being discussed in this thread. So recasting him as someone who would likely be between the two present parties or a regular adviser and supporter of today's republican leadership does seem nearly (secularly) sacrilegious.



We often overuse the phrase, out of context. it has been done in this thread too. It has been repeated several times in this thread that the I Have a Dream Speech is not the beginning and the end of Dr. King's "teachings." You are making an unwarranted logical jump (IMHO) from the Washington Mall to our present AA system. Remember, AA began while Dr. King was still alive and after that Washington Speech. He had several years to discredit the concept and say that it was against his teachings. To the contrary we have a quote in this thread that makes the argument that in an area where 30% of the population is black than it would make since that 30% of the jobs in a local industry should be held by African Americans.

There is room for a clear amount of factual information to show that Dr. King would have gone in a very different direction than the overwhelming percentage of African Americans on this issue. We he have argued for handouts? No. Do I believe he would call the present system reverse racism and unwarranted handouts? I most certainly do not.

So to jump to the conclusion that "there are laws on the books that directly oppose the teachings of Dr. King" is to take Dr. King out of context and warp his legacy against his documented values with a string of his own words.

For example, AE you and I hold (like most Americans) a lot of values in common. You would be able to scour through my posts and find me at my best (a hard task) you may find some universal ideal I post that is commonly held by most Americans. (Something like "No matter what our opinions are about how we got to Iraq, it is vitally important that we show clear support to the troops in American uniform serving in our name overseas.")

To then show that I support the troops with this comment and later infer that I am a clear supporter of the mission of the troops in Iraq would misrepresent my feelings.

And believe me understand the "I Have A Dream Speech". But Dr. King had a long career and he did express that value that so many of us support. But too many people want to argue that that would mean that he would never support Affirmative Action. Does this argument mean that without AA today we would be in an ideal color blind utopia? If not, than don;t you think Dr. King would want to see active remedies for working out or prejudicial inequalities? And if the vast majority of African Americans seem to support AA, is the continues argument that by force of pure leadership power Dr. King would have swung the African American community away from the support of this meager remedy that is in place today?

As a student of this career, I find the argument that he would roll over in his grave because of the laws listed in the opening post to contradict what I have studied about Dr. King in my last twenty years of studying and teaching contemporary United States history.

As for the tangent of faith-based teachings. I think this wholly misunderstands the role and politics of the black church in the Civil Rights Movement. Dr. King was not an activist because he was a Christian minister. But his values were strongly shaped my Christianity. He was clearly a faith-based man. But I see no demonstrable connection between this fact and modern conservative values. We should all remember that the black minister was one of the very few roles in the black community that combined education, leadership, and independence. Repeatedly Civil Rights activists faced economic payback by their white employers if they were found out. The black minister had the fairly unique position of receiving all of his support from African Americans and therefore could be the voice of so many who could not speak out publicly without likely losing their jobs. In that environment the black preacher also was able to serve as a leading and honest political voice for his community.



Beyond christianity and faith, I see little in common with the current faith-based initiatives and the essence of the teachings of Dr. King. Dr. King was a Christian man of faith who stood up and spoke out against injustice. I still hope that you are not trying to argue that this would line him up as a conservative today because he was a man of faith and worked with an organization of ministers.

I do not see how this connects to the "stain of handouts" or what particular "qualities" seem to be put forth in this section. Because I am seeing a very parsed and distorted selection of Dr. King's qualities being argued. And it would take some clear and documented and persuasive posts to persuade me that I am misunderstanding Dr. King's legacy and comprehensive teachings.

Perhaps we are at the point where we are talking past each other in this thread. On this point I am not yet certain. I am willing to get more in depth and put more research and documentation to support my side of this disagreement. Are you? Or should we let this drop here as a presented difference of opinions?

1.) No.

2.) No. If financially well-off and perfectly capable of seeking and/or securing work elsewhere: race should not even be an issue. A minority with such qualifications should be ineligible to such benefits. Why would you give the job to a minority who is wealthy but let's say less qualified than a majority who is not with more qualification? It doesn't make sense. Race should have no place anyway in determining business.

3.) Legislation of this kind in my eyes only helps to further push racial division and is thereby pointless.

I've been doing a little research. Here are a couple of links (the Garris one may have been previously provided) that contribute opposing views on this issue.

The Right Has a Dream

Martin Luther King's Conservative Legacy

edited to add another link

Misreading the Dream

This is becoming a tedious tautological argument and there is nothing you can say, no one you can reference, and no quote taken out of context that could ever convince me Dr. King was in sympathy with the aims of the contemporary conservatives.

You contend that because many conservatives were not alive when King was killed and "have no personal knowledge of Dr. King" means...well, what does it mean exactly? Are you putting forth the novel ideal that because MLK died before you were born, you are somehow ideologically pure and free of the taint of past bigotry and White supremacist attitudes?



Well, let's look at some of the conservatives alive today and in power. There's Robert Novak (b. 1931), Bill O' Reilly (b. 1949), Bill Frist (b. 1952), Rush Limbaugh (b. 1951), Denny Hastert (b. 1942), Tom DeLay (b. 1947), Dick Cheney (b. 1941) and George W. Bush (b. 1946). The baby of the bunch, Frist, was 16 years old when Martin Luther King was assassinated. Perhaps that isn't old enough to truly understand what Dr. King meant to America, but it is old enough to know who he was.

I submit while youth must be served, the fact that young conservatives were not present at the height of the civil rights era means they (and young liberals) have to study more, not less, to grasp the significance and meaning of Martin.

Despite the fact that I generally approve of Michael Eric Dyson's book, I totally reject his theory that Tupac Shakur and Biggie Smalls share much in common with Dr. King. Dyson has a fondness for rap music and he finds a way to work rap references into his works. However, Biggie and Tupac are far more flattered by comparisions to King than I believe King would be flattered being compared to a pair of murdered rappers.

But that's what happens when the living ascribe their agendas to the dead. What conservatives are attempting to do is remake/remodel Dr. King in death in a way they never could when he was alive.

Where did I say Dr. King was only a hero to Blacks? Dr. King was an American hero in every sense of the word. However, you cannot seriously believe because young conservatives may start with a blank slate due to their youth that means they are more wise instead of merely naive. It is overly simplistic and intellectually lazy to try and tailor Dr. King's philosophy to fit a conservative agenda that runs counter to who the man was.

Having no personal knowledge of who Martin Luther King was is not an asset, aevans176. It is ignorance in its most blissful state. How can anyone be taken seriously who says, I didn't know Dr. King. I never read anything by or about Dr. King but I know exactly what Dr. King would do if he were alive today.

You can't cherry-pick what parts of King fits conservative dogma and discard the rest as irrelevant. No one doubts that King had his conservative thoughts, but it is a ridiculous leap of logic to conclude he was therefore a conservative thinker.

Modern conservatives have learned to mimic the melody of Dr. King's song of non-violent resistance, but never bothered to understand the lyrics. It is beyond bizarre how those who once violently resisted and opposed MLK as a radical troublemaker now claim he was a spiritual soul brother.

The humorist Leo C. Rosten said, "A conservative is one who admires radicals centuries after they're dead." Apparently, in the case of MLK, conservatives have moved the clock ahead.

Good job again... *clap clap*... but you're talking about people like Frist and O'Reilly violently opposing MLK?? I'd love to see the links...

This, coming from the same person that defends Mrs. Clinton in other threads even though she's made openly racist remarks....

You also are making the connection between conservatives and biggotry... which is a fine line...


I'm not sure whether to laugh audibly or get offended...

That's attempting to make the claim that Republicans and Conservatives were the biggots and Liberals ran free in the fields of diversity.

Hogwash.

We've already posted tons and tons of evidence that attitudes were more about geography than party affiliation in this thread.

For you to even assert that conservatives are biggots, which is exactly what you're doing... is as prejudiced as a statement as I've ever heard.

I'll go ahead and retract any notion that Dr. King had any conservative values... NT, because there's absolutely NO WAY he stood for Christian Morality, hard work, or family values!!! (--> insert 5lb bag of Sarcasm....)

Remember... because all Southern Democrats were spending time campaigning for equality in the 60's.... hahahaha

As I've stated on numerous occasions in this thread.... I find it hard to believe that Dr. King would've like to have the success of his children marred by legislation that points to the fact that had they not been black, they might not have been as successful. Heck- I'm sure that's the case with thousands of people. I don't know that I'd enjoy the sweet taste of success knowing that I was only 80% as qualified as my counter-parts. Is it hard for someone to see the point????.... you don't have to agree, as this really isn't a question for debate.


Moreover, that if the man who fought so much for equality wanted a generation of apathy to be perpetuated by government legislation, I imagine that he'd have said "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character, unless of course they're being considered for college admittance or a job... then we'd love for them to be favored over whoever wasn't a decendant of slavery?????

This is the basic premise of the 600+ laws on the books that I began this thread with...

I never asserted that the man had completely conservative view points... that was you... and hence, interestingly off color and off-base statements such as..


I believe that it's far too difficult for some contemporary liberals to acknowledge the idea that family values, hard work, and faith-related ideals given openly and on a regular basis would be lumped into a "less than liberal" bucket in 2006....Which is astonishing to me when we hear liberals make statements about the war on sin or the war on morality , etc, etc... all day long. What about monikers like the religious right?

I'd literally fall out of my computer chair if ONE LIBERAL would acknowledge that Dr. King held some ideals that might be construed as conservative by today's standards....

I have to mention a couple things.

I, in this post, am NOT going to talk about the value of AA at this moment.

However, I am going to deal with a couple of the silly comments that have been made in this thread: Firstly, that there is no evidence that AA has ever accomplished anything, and secondly, that NO form of pro-minority law LIKE AA is currently needed today.


In 1960, that is, just over 1 generation ago, the US was confronted with the following:

-Segregated schools based on Black and White.
-Less than 1% of all college admissions were black people. Only in the wake of affirmative action measures in the late 1960s and early 1970s did the percentage of black college students begin to climb steadily (in 1970, 7.8 percent of college students were black; in 1980, 9.1 percent; and in 1990, 11.3 percent).
-Asian Americans and Hispanic Americans were legally barred from attending most public schools.
-In some industries (the AA bill studied the canning industry as an example) In businesses such as the canning industry, Blacks and Asian Americans were prohibited by policy from promotion to managerial level, and were housed in physically segregated living quarters.
-Across the country, 96% of all municipal police departments and fire departments remained all white and all male.
-Before 1970 there had NEVER been a single black State police officer in 44 states. (In fact the July 1970 Alabama supreme court decision to force hiring of visible minorities was one of the victories of AA)
-In 1979, women represented only 4 percent of the entry-level officers in the San Francisco police department. By 1985, under an affirmative action plan ordered in a case in which the DOJ sued the City for discrimination, the number of women in the entry class had risen to 175, or 14.5 percent.
-Similarly, a federal district court review of the San Francisco Fire Department in 1987 led to a consent decree which increased the number of blacks in officer positions from 7 to 31, Hispanics from 2 to 55, and Asians from 0 to 10.
-In 1960, the 10 million workers on the payrolls of the 100 largest defence contractors included fewer than 8000 blacks, most in janitorial or menial positions.
-Prior to 1974, Kaiser Aluminium hired only persons with prior craft experience as craft workers at its Gramercy, Louisiana plant. Because blacks had been excluded from the craft unions, only 5 of 273 skilled craft workers at the plant were black. In response, Kaiser together with the union, established its own training program to fill craft jobs with the proviso that 50 percent of new trainees were to be black until the percentage of black craft workers in the plant matched the percentage of blacks in the local labour pool.


However, though there have been significant and rapid increases in female and minority employment and education since the advent of affirmative action.

are we suppose to believe this vast improvement bfollowing th enactment of AA laws is a coincidence?

But is SOME KIND of pro-minority law still needed today?


-Blatant discrimination is a continuing problem in the labour market. Perhaps the most convincing evidence comes from "audit" studies, in which white and minority (or male and female) job seekers are given similar resumes and sent to the same set of firms to apply for a job. These studies often find that employers are less likely to interview or offer a job to minority applicants and to female applicants.
(Neumark, David and Roy Blank and Kyle Van Nort, 1995, "Sex Discrimination in Restaurant Hiring: An Audit Study," NBER Working Paper No. 5024)



You also might want to look at the Glass Ceiling Commission, a body established not that long ago under President Bush and legislatively sponsored by Senator Dole.
(Federal Glass Ceiling Commission, Good for Business: Making Full Use of the Nation's Human Capital)

It found the following:
- White males continue to hold 97 percent of senior management positions in Fortune 1000 industrial and Fortune 500 service industries. Only 0.6 percent of senior management are African American, 0.3 percent are Asian and 0.4 percent are Hispanic.
- African Americans hold only 2.5 percent of top jobs in the private sector and African American men with professional degrees earn only 79 percent of the amount earned by their white counterparts. Comparably situated African American women earn only 60 percent of the amount earned by white males.
- Women hold 3 to 5 percent of senior level management positions -- there are only two women CEOs in Fortune 1000 companies.
-The fears and prejudices of lower-rung white male executives were listed as a principal barrier to the advancement of women and minorities. The report also found that, across the board, men advance more rapidly than women.

If that is not enough, then perhaps the US department of Justice might help. The DOJ has conducted nationwide testing to uncover housing discrimination. Those tests also have revealed that whites are more likely than blacks to be shown apartment units, while blacks with equal credentials are told nothing is available. Since the testing began, the Justice Department has brought over 20 federal suits resulting in settlements totalling more than $1.5 million. A particularly graphic case of discrimination occurred during a fair housing test performed by the Civil Rights Division in Wisconsin, which sought to establish whether discrimination existed against the relatively large East-Asian population there. When the Asian tester approached the apartment building, the rental agent stood between the tester and the door to the rental office and refused to allow the tester to enter the building. The tester was told that there were no apartments available and there would not be any available for two months. When the white tester approached two hours later, the individual was immediately shown an apartment and was told he could move in that same day.

Furthermore, for those foolish people who baselessly contend that Blacks place a lower emphasis on education (Something oft repeated but never once evidenced):
-Even within educational categories, the economic status of minorities and women fall short. The average woman with a masters degree earns the same amount as the average man with an associate degree. While college educated black women have reached earnings parity with college educated white women, college educated black men earn 76 percent of the earnings of their white male counterparts. Hispanic women earn less than 65 percent of the income earned by white men with the same educational level. Hispanic men earn 81 percent of the wages earned by white men at the same educational level. The average income for Hispanic women with college degrees is less than the average for white men with high school degrees.
These are number supplied by the US national Census bureau, the EEOC, Office of Communications and the National Committee on Pay Equity.


So, is this enough to convince people that maybe, just MAYBE, there is a race problem in the US that is NOT just blacks bringing it upon themselves?
If that is not enough, we can also add to that stats about blacks in the justice system:
(These are from the US Department of Justice)
-For similar crimes, black defendants are 20% more likely to draw jail time then white defendants?
-For similar crimes, black defendants are 45% more likely to draw the death penalty then white defendants?
-For similar drug-related crimes, black defendants are 74% more likely to draw jail time then white defendants?
-The United States incarcerates African-American men at a rate that is approximately four times the rate of incarceration of Black men in South Africa.
- In 1986, before mandatory minimums for crack offences became effective, the average federal drug offence sentence for blacks was 11% higher than for whites. Four years later following the implementation of harsher drug sentencing laws, the average federal drug offence sentence was 49% higher for blacks.
-Blacks represent 12% of the general population, but 38% of the prison population, and 49% of the death row population. Of all death penalty sentences upheld by the US federal courts since 1995, the number of blacks accounts for 74 percent.
-When convicted of a crime (any crime, from petty larceny to murder), when it comes to sentencing, thirty-three percent (33%) of convicted white defendants received a prison sentence, while 51% of African-American defendants received prison sentences.


So. Clearly, and I do mean clearly so long as you have eyes to see and a mind open enough to think: there is a serious Race problem in the US. And based on the stats I have shown above, in the last 30 years we can thank Affirmative action for helping START to balance the scales. Blacks are still under-represented in EVERY single white collar job in the United States EXCEPT the military.

Blacks do however form 20% of military recruits, and 13% of all officers, both above the national average percentage.




So, if we are going to argue the value of AA today, we can feel free, there is certainly a debate today. But let us avoid throwing out the tired old lies about 'AA never having a positive effect', and 'Blacks not being subject to descrimination in America today'.

So, I hate to be the bearer of bad news... but what you're absolutely postively saying is that the affirmative action laws haven't made a difference???

Simply put, if no more minorities are graduating, no more are in executive level management jobs, and the only place that blacks are well represented accordingly is the US Military (which is a different argument all together)... then why continue a failed program???

You can throw out the same old tired monikers of discrimination, but it's meaningless. We're talking about the laws on the books that... according to your statistics have made no real change.

If you're in business, and you continually aren't effective... you go out of business. Only in the government will they continue a perpetually inefficient program for the sake of satiating a demographic or special interest group.

here are some opinions from the other side...
educational affirmative action
some more good points

How about some more great stats according to Justice Marshall....
found here
-In 1978, four times as many black families lived with incomes below the poverty line as white families. Today, that ratio remains unchanged.

-For black adults, the unemployment rate was twice that of whites, and for black teens it was three times. Today, both statistics remain unchanged

-In 1978, the life expectancy of a black child was five years shorter than that of a white child. Today it is six years shorter

It's not that I'm opposed to initiatives to help minorities become more integral parts of our society... but... affirmative action doesn't do it.

I'm sure that even Dr. King would agree... that if a program isn't working, and is racially divisive and doesn't work... why demean hard-working black people???... I mean, how many Harvard students are sitting next to someone black wondering if they got there because of some "program"??? ....

Wow, you seem to have missed the entire middle of my post there, and drawn your own conclusions.

What I said, quite clearly if I may say so, is that AA has made enormous difference in the United States, a obvious, visible and spectacular difference.

What it has NOT done, is balanced the scales yet, or created parity. In other words, there is still much work to do. I don't know how you got from my post that AA was a 'failed program' or anything like that.

I suggest you go back and read over the stats of what the situation was immediatly before the signing into law of AA, its at the top of my post.

Now, some direct questions for you.

-Now, do you or do you not admit that there has been an enormous change for the better in the status of blacks and women in society since the AA laws were put into effect?

-Causality is pretty obvious here, in fact in some cases I listed it is even explicit. However, if you DENY ALL CAUSALITY between the implementation of AA and the changes to American society for blacks and women, can you give me any evidence at all, I mean any, that AA was NOT responsible for these benefits?

- Given those questions above, do you still maintain your statement that AA "hasn't proven to be effective ever".



I'll tell you what. I will accept that those statistics have relevance, if you can find me a statement made by the designers of AA who claimed that Affirmative Action was intended to solve all problems of blacks and women in society alltogether universally.

No?

Perhaps that is becauyse AA was designed to do one thing, lower and eventually eliminate racist selection and hiring practices in academic and in business. The fact that it has not increased average life expectency in black children is tragic, but not exactly surprising because that was never what it was supposed to do nor designed to do.


What is WAS supposed to do, and what it has done, was start to balance the number of blacks and women attending higher education. What it WAS supposed to do, and what it has done, was start to eliminate racist amnd sexist hiring practices in business.


You make the statement, if a program is not working, why keep it?

To you I respond, if a program OBVIOUSLY and CLEARLY has been working, why throw it out?




Aevans, here is something for you to chew on.

Maybe a white Harvard student IS sitting beside someone black, wondering if they got there on some program.

But, unlike BEFORE Affirmative Action, at least they are sitting beside someone black.

I will boil it down for you so it is not "scattershot" and an overly long post Aevens

1) NT has shown that King was not only FOR AA type programs- it was done before he died and he has publically called for such programs.

2) In vermillion's post- it has worked

3) we still have a long way to go- these so called <ahem> "unkingly" laws have actually made progress towards EXACTLY what he was wanting- so a black man, or any other race, can not be EXCLUDED as it was done in MLKs day.

In other words- the laws you are describe are certainly KINGLY.

Who gives a rat's rear end how many Harvard students are sitting next to someone black wondering if they got there because of some "program?" That's a utterly absurd statement to make, aevans176. Vermillion has done yeoman's work making the case that White privilege and power has not been diminished in the least by affirmative action and if some kid at Harvard who got in as part of a "legacy" admission doesn't like sitting next to some Black or Brown kid SO WHAT?

At the end of the day if the student who entered a school through an affirmative action program doesn't get the grades they won't be staying at that school very long. Affirmative action does not guarantee equal outcomes, only equal access. For someone who benefits from AA programs it matters less whether people question or resent how you got into college or a job, than whether or not you prove you belong there.

When you walk across the stage to get your college diploma there's no fine print on it saying you got it through affirmative action.

Affirmative action does work and if you doubt that maybe you should ask someone who has found a future because of it.

Affirmative Action has given me the access to countless opportunities. For me, Affirmative Action began in 1987 as a senior in Seward Park High School in the Lower East Side of New York City. I had an 83 average and had scored a combined 680 on my SATs. But despite these scores, I knew I was good in history and geography. Ever since my third grade teacher, Ms. Lomazo, told the class "Edward is really good at geography" I always found this topic easy. Indeed, I scored an 85 on my state history regents in 1987—without even studying! I partly thank PBS for all those nights I soaked up documentaries on history and culture from the tenth floor of my bedroom in the Alfred E. Smith Housing Projects. I knew about college. My cousin was a freshman at SUNY/New Paltz. But there was no real expectation from either my family or myself that college was required. Both my parents, Dominican immigrants, never finished the second grade. I had limited options. I definitely didn't want to join the army. And there were no jobs that I saw myself doing after high school.

"Luckily for me, some of my teachers suggested a program called EOP (Educational Opportunity Program). It was a state funded college program that recruited historically disadvantaged and underrepresented incoming freshman students (particularly African-American and Latinos like myself) and gave them the opportunity to attend college. I was a perfect fit. Bad SAT scores, average GPA, and poor and Latino.

I went in with a 680 SAT score and after almost fifteen years, got out with a Fulbright and Ph.D. For me, EOP meant freedom and liberation. Because of this program and the opportunity to go away to college, I would not have met the great and inspiring professors who today I count as my mentors and friends. I would not have met people from other parts of the country and the rest of the world.

"Not bad for a Dominican New York City kid who still lives in the projects where he grew up approximately fifteen blocks from where the Twin Towers once stood. Lastly, Affirmative Action means that I'm a better citizen. It means I don't want to burn the U.S. flag. It means I want my 401K to grow. I worry about taxes. I want to have a family I can be proud of in a neighborhood that is as economically diverse as it is ethnically. I want peace. And, I want my students at John Jay (a Hispanic-serving institution) to look at me and say, if he can do it, so can I; as they so eagerly expressed through their smiles and in their enthusiastic handshakes at the end of my last lecture for the semester. It means despite growing up poor and cynical like many Americans who lack an opportunity to attend college, EOP gave me access to a place where I could acquire knowledge and skills that I now possess which means I can contribute to society. I have a stake in this society. In this sense Affirmative Action is very democractic. Democratization through the access of higher education. Never stop learning."

http://fairchance.civilrights.org/real_peo...ail2.cfm?id=182

For this young man, affirmative action gave him an education, self-respect, made him a proud citizen and someone with a vested interest in bettering his circumstances and those of others. If not for affirmative action, he could have very easily gone down a very different and wrong path like so many others denied both opportunities and hope.

How in the world can anyone believe Martin Luther King Jr., would have opposed a policy that gives people like Edward Paulino a chance to live their American Dream?

Maybe your MLK would, aevans176. The King most folks recall and admire would not.