In red ceder's attempt at the "white hispanic- non-white hispanic" debate- I think I gathered the undercurrent of the debate. I think he was moving at a valid question, though it is hard to pose it- so I will try.

In a race-based goverment program (please, without debating on the merits of the program or it's effect on that minority, + or -) how is a person determined to be qualified for that program?

1) Is race based goverment mandated behavior, such as affirmative action, is it exclusionary of one specific race, in other words, so general that only white men of european decent do not qualify? Or would it apply to them as well, if they were to find themselves in the same racial situation?

2) In future initiatives, or current goverment programs, how does one fairly target one specific minority, and make the definition exclusionary enough to make it target the intended recipient?
- to clarify, a third generation person that classifies themselves as "white hispanic", that does not know anything about "latin" culture, that is fair skin, from a middle class nieghborhood, qualify for a program, that a euro-white person, standing next to him, you would not be able to tell visually?

3) How do you fairly define a race legally, and then pass a law that , for sake of argument, rights an institutional wrong, so that someone is not unfairly excluded?

4) Should there be a movement to better describe races in regards to language in goverment records that describe race?
Man, it was very hard to pose this question, basically, trying to narrow down the hispanic white non-white debate, and then, perhaps later, to try to determine what a demograph of America will be, if different at all, if we have a "white hispanic majority"

Not only was this a difficult question to ask, it's a difficult one to answer.

Let's look at a typical Federal affirmative action law. In order to get away from the separate issues of race and sex, I have chosen one which mandates affirmative action for veterans.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/usc...12----000-.html

Any contract in the amount of $100,000 or more entered into by any department or agency of the United States for the procurement of personal property and nonpersonal services (including construction) for the United States, shall contain a provision requiring that the party contracting with the United States take affirmative action to employ and advance in employment qualified covered veterans. This section applies to any subcontract in the amount of $100,000 or more entered into by a prime contractor in carrying out any such contract.

It should be noted here that the recipient of affirmative action must, first of all, be qualified for the position. Given that, a veteran may be given preference over a non-veteran. The intent seems to be that veterans, as a group, deserve a benefit that may give them an advantage over non-veterans. It's easy to imagine a situation where an individual veteran may benefit from this law in a way which seems unfair. (The veteran may be very rich, for example, and in no need of preferment.) However, American society seems to agree that this kind of affirmative action is beneficial overall. Other kinds of affirmative action are much more controversial, but the intent seems to be to ensure that a particular group does not hold an unfair advantage over another group.

Now let's consider the specific example of a "white Hispanic" like me. There may exist some kind of affirmative action program which is intended to correct an unfair disadvantage which Hispanics as a group have suffered. It may be unfair for me as an individual to take advantage of such a program, but the program as a whole may be of benefit to society. Affirmative action of this kind is, at best, a crude method of treating social ills; but it may be the best possible option (and it is almost certainly better than doing nothing, where genuine group disadvantages exist.)

To answer your questions for debate:

1. If there exists a situation where male European-Americans are discriminated against as a group -- where otherwise qualified persons are denied entry solely on the basis of this discrimination -- then an affirmative action program for such people may be in order.

2. This question would seem to apply only to "white Hispanics," so let me address that. As long as genuine group discrimination exists against Hispanics in general, probably the best you can do is to allow an affirmative action policy which gives an advantage to all Hispanics, including those (such as me) who have no need of it. It's not a perfect system at all, but it's better than doing nothing.

3. This is very tricky. It's easier when it comes to sex, of course. (Although I'm sure you could find a case somewhere in which a transsexual took advantage of a sex-based affirmative action program. In such very rare cases, how do we define "female" and "male" in law? The answer is not obvious.) Race is much more complex. Is someone with one-sixteenth African ancestry "Black" for the purposes of affirmative action? Only my paternal ancestors can trace their lineage back to Native Americans and Spanish colonists; am I really "Hispanic" in such a case? Sometimes I have had to fill out a form listing my ethnicity as "Spanish-surnamed American." If my maternal ancestors had been Hispanic, but not my paternal ancestors, so that I lacked a Spanish surname, would I still be Hispanic? Getting into official government racial and ethnic definitions would be very dangerous. What seems to happen in the real world is that people self-define themselves when it comes to these categories. Again, this isn't a perfect system, but it's better than nothing.

4. Most people have a good idea of what their race and ethnicity are. One thing we might do, on official government forms, would be to allow multiple categories for each individual (so that I might check off both "European-American" and "Hispanic") and to allow for a category called "other" which an individual could fill out as she liked.

Here in Michigan they are passing around a ballot to end race-based discrimination (i.e. selecting people based on race). This stems from court cases against the University of Michigan where they use race as a deciding factor in accepting students, a factor that went beyond differentiating "similar candidates", i.e. it had more weight and allowed less qualified blacks/latinos over more qualified whites.

The question also applies to wealthy black people. Should a wealthy black person, who obviously has advantages over a poor white person, have another advantage by being black as well?

The main issue with the U of M was that they claimed diversity was at the root of their discrimination. Yet, you could have a black and white individual who really were not that diverse respectively and then have a diverse white person who gets denied acceptance. I.e. simply using race is not necessarily a determinant for "diversity".

I think the ballot comes up this fall to not allow the gov't/universities/etc. to select people based on race.

Personally, I think tracking race by the gov't should be squashed. I think as a society if we stopped focusing on race it would be less of an issue.

I think we should focus more on socio-economic concerns, like being more pro-active in making the poorer of society more successful, regardless of race. Maybe blacks are historically excluded....because they tend to be less educated and poorer? I don't think a black person who has a billionaire daddy should have a leg up on a poor white person because they're black.

Red ceder- you make alot of claims here that you have not backed up

1) a less qualified person is allowed in based on race- so far, I have never seen an actual case of this- lots of claims- but no evidence.

2) Somehow, that ignoring racial issues and discrimination will make it go away.

However- that is specifically what I asked we not get bogged down in, eh?
How about answering the specific questions please? I apologize if the questions were a bit wordy- but dang, it was a tough subject to breech correctly, and I think your original question about "white hispanics" were valid, if too general?

http://www.lib.umich.edu/govdocs/affirm.html

In the UofM lawsuit, the black candidates had lesser credentials, but due to a point system that gave them more points simply for being black...they were admitted over whites with higher HS GPAs and standard test scores.



http://www.adversity.net/education_2_michu_1.htm


I guess I can't really reply to your question when I don't agree that certain ethnicities NEED to be targeted for anything. I think the gov't should DROP race as a criteria for everything, simply because it implies that race always matters when it does not. Being a poor latino vs. a rich latino is a huge difference, but being lumped together is ridiculous.

1) Is race based goverment mandated behavior, such as affirmative action, is it exclusionary of one specific race, in other words, so general that only white men of european decent do not qualify? Or would it apply to them as well, if they were to find themselves in the same racial situation?

I don't understand this question.

2) In future initiatives, or current goverment programs, how does one fairly target one specific minority, and make the definition exclusionary enough to make it target the intended recipient?
- to clarify, a third generation person that classifies themselves as "white hispanic", that does not know anything about "latin" culture, that is fair skin, from a middle class nieghborhood, qualify for a program, that a euro-white person, standing next to him, you would not be able to tell visually?

I believe it is necessary to target the appropriate group. A white Hispanic will have a different experience from a non-white Hispanic. The latter will more likely need the benefits of an affirmative action program.

3) How do you fairly define a race legally, and then pass a law that , for sake of argument, rights an institutional wrong, so that someone is not unfairly excluded?

I don't think you can. It is unfortunate that we need programs that benefit a minority group at the expense of select individuals of the majority, but we do. We aren't there yet as a society.

4) Should there be a movement to better describe races in regards to language in goverment records that describe race? [/b]

The short answer... yes and no.

It really depends on the what the records are used for. If it is to determine non-white/white demographics, then that's all that would be needed... white is not a race, it is a skin color. An Arab would be non-white (as a general rule), Blacks would be non-white, Latinos would be non-white, Asians would be non-white. Any group that is generally not considered fair skinned, would be non-white regardless of the color of the individuals skin. White/non white deals in generalities.

I think it more important to set affirmative action to support cultural background rather than color of skin. The latter will, more often than not, be considered in the former. There is an African-American culture, there is a Latino culture, there is an Arab culture, an Indian, an Asian culture. Then there is the – how do I describe it? – European-American culture which makes up the majority. Now, you may have fair-skinned individuals in all of these groups. You may also have dark-skinned individuals in all of these groups. But when it comes to race, I think if you describe it in terms of culture rather than skin color, you can be more specific and more successful in providing benefit to the appropriate group.