So, let me see if I have this right. We have affirmative action, a program put in place to address societal change. This program has been in place for decades, and its proponents here even seem to agree that it has had limited success. I think it is fair to argue that those in favor of keeping AA are claiming that we should 'Stay the Course'? Interesting.

As for not having an alternative proposal, that's poppycock. It goes to the heart of the difference between conservative and liberal approaches to such problems. The conservative approach is to allow everyone to be judged on their own merit, and succeed accordingly. Isn't this what those arguing in favor of AA want? The conservative viewpoint can best be summed up in a question: "Is discrimination really the best way to address discrimination?" I would venture that the answer to that question, at most, would be 'sometimes, yes'. Well, AA has been around for decades now, and even its proponents state that it has had limited success. For just exactly how long we should consider 'limited success' successful? Shouldn't we at some point aspire to something more?

Hobbes- you are advocating a "throw the baby out with the bathwater" approach here- no, I don't wish to "stay the course"- but, an alternative would be nice. Racism is a hard thing to beat to death, and though AA has made some headway- still along ways to go. I don't see an alternative at this point, other than allowing those racists to die out- but, they seem to be breeding, if anything.

Seriously Hobbes- you have a better plan to fix an injustice like that? I wish I did, because AA is the most common sense motive at this time.

Though, your post doesn't address the fact that Republicans use fear tactics against blacks in recent campaigns either.

Firstly, you are echoing Lordhelmet here, and thats always bad. AA has not had 'limited success', it has a great deal of sucess. The difference in the situation of blacks in the US now as opposed to the year before AA was put into place is staggering. Are you seriously going to try and claim AA has NOT been a sucess?

It has not yet cured the problem though, there is still an imbalance. So if we have a treatement which is well on its way to curing the patient, and the effects of the treatement are obvious and beneficial, what logic is there in claiming that the best possible solution is to stop the treatment?



That's NOT the conservative viewpoint, at least not the one voiced here. The viewpoint seems to be, cancel AA and let the chips fall where they may. There seems to be no willingness (at least among posters here) to admit there is still a problem with racism in terms of hiring practices and academic admission in the US, despite these being proven facts.

So there IS a problem, and there IS a solution in place.

So if you want to get rid of the solution, you had best propose something better, because if you do NOT, then you are either saying there is no problem (which is false) or there is a problem but you don't care (which is evil).

And THAT is why blacks vote 85% for the Democrats, because of Republicans telling them there is no need for such prgrams, or whining about how their middle class white kids are SO discriminated gainst, dispirte being overrepresented in every top-echelon segemtn of American society.


Taking the psudo-high ground and saying 'everyone should be judged on merit' is an outright lie, because it ignores the fact that WITHOUT AA in place, people are being judged on the basis of RACE. Thus we set up a system to allow for positive reinforcement up to a point NEAR the national quota. You tell blacks that this is wrong, or 'unfair on whites', or better still that it is all their fault, and you just come off looking silly, and losing the Black vote.



As I have said, the argument For or Against AA is somewhat academic as it is off topic. But the arguments that some right-wingers here on the board have Chosen to use AGAINST AA are the EXACT reasons why Blacks vote with the Democrats.

Yep, I do. Phase out AA programs, and strongly enforce existing discrimination laws. Put out a strong message that everyone is going to succeed or fail on their own merit. Don't have the government provide crutches, but do have it react strongly to remove any obstacles. I am not one that believes discrimination doesn't exist. However, I also strongly believe that, in the long run, more discrimination isn't going to fix it, either. I also believe that the only real way that blacks (and other minority groups) are going to overcome this problem is essentially through their own hard work. That might not be fair, but it is, I believe, the only way it will really happen. We should encourage that, and remove the obstacles that are encountered. Example: one of my coworkers was a black lady, who used to play on the Wisconsin basketball team. Needless to say, not a lot of brothers and sisters in Madison. She told me she used to call home frequently complaining to her mother about racial issues she was encountering. She said her momma wouldn't let her go there, that she wouldn't let her ever use that as an excuse for anything, that there was always something she could do to overcome the situation. Once she adopted that attitude, everything did work out. I don't think that's easy, but I do think that's what needs to happen. I think the Asians are a very good example of how it can be effective. They have been discriminated against in this country as much, or more, than any other group, yet they have achieved success--even to the point where many schools have had to discriminate against them to let other groups (including whites) in.



Nope, I didn't. Both sides use AA to achieve their goals, and I'm not a fan of the politics of the issue on either side. You think Democrats REALLY want to help blacks succeed, achieve economic success, and therefore enter an economic class that makes them much more likely to become Republicans? Who actively seeks to reduce their strongest voting block?

I did think I said about dems Hobbes is "lipservice"- that is why I am adressing the obvious reasons blacks don't go repub in the first place- and Hobbes- I did post the link to what AA REALLY IS- NOT what repubs have labeled it AS- and the biggest arm is exactly what you are talking about- handling and investigating discrimination complaints- by ending AA- you end the very thing you said would work!

And when I say campaign against blacks as a race- I am refering to Willie Horton ads, Jesse Helms as a candidate and campaigner and the Rovian push poll- NOT the actual issues themselves- all of those campaigns had no issues at all in the adds targetted against blacks- they were simply racist campaign ads that worked for republicans. Oh, and campaign tactics in the Rove example in the SC push poll. Straight up racist, no other way to put it. So, like I keep saying , it truly stupid for anyone that is black to have anything to do with a party that actively uses racism, overt racism, to frighten white voters into voting for or against candidates.

And since most of the posters here that claim to be republican (hobbes you haven't really adressed this issue- so I am NOT singling you out) know very little about what AA is, and, in fact, says to blacks "get over it" and denies there is a problem, and even worse, whine about thier middle class white kids not being able to get into college or something. Which, of course, is pure poppycock. If you have grades good enough, and you are an excellent student, then a university will accept you, especially if you can pay. Blacks don't get those same opportunities, and they get discriminated against by simply having a "black sounding" name.

So, Hobbes, I agree, enforcement is the key- but, Hobbes, my friend- that is exactly what AA does.

I again reiterate that there is an inherent difference between discrimination by private individuals and discrimination mandated by the government. Using discrimination to combat discrimination is quite a leap in logic.


No program will rectify the problem because it isnt addressing the problem, its addressing the effects.



Wow talk about ridiculous statements. I am interested in your rationalization and support for these wild theories.



CruisingRam, for someone who claims to be Libertarian, it seems that in more and more cases you think that the government should get involved with the lives of individuals. You throw around words like "injustice" as if they have some objective meaning. I think discrimination is wrong, but guess what? People should have the freedom to do it. If I own a diner and I refuse to hire a black employee does that make me a bad person? Definately. But the government should not have the ability to make moral decisions over who i do and do not hire. What if by having black employees people would stop going to my diner because of their inherent prejudices? Does this address the problem of discrimination? Now its my business that suffers.

Government should have no ability to make moral decisions. Progressives, liberals, whatever want to keep government out of people's bedrooms and social lives...and i agree with them. But its hypocritcal to say that government should use its coercive powers to force people to do things that they do not want to do. People are racist and its wrong...but they have the right to be racist.


Two wrongs do not make a right and it never will. The government should not be in the business of discriminating even if it is well-intentioned. Thats a sacrifice of principle.



Its not a solution, its the illusion of a solution. What does AA do to address discrimination? It lets kids get into some colleges or adults get some jobs that maybe they would not have gotten had they been white. Thats beneficial? I am sure some people will be able to succeed but for the most part, when people are put into situations that they are not prepared for they will fail and they will lose whatever confidence they might have had if they got the job or school that best suited them.



And for the final time...government should not be discriminating, even if it is to correct wrongs. Moral decisions should be left up to the individual and thats it. Your ideas for "fair" and "unfair" should have no place in our legislation.

Black Americans are just as intelligent as any other citizen. The reason they choose Dems over Repubs is certainly up for debate but i will not think so lowly of african americans as to think they are simply swayed by the illusion that Dem programs help them. Someone brought up the plantation system earlier, is that not what government programs are? Dependence v independence. Blacks should choose the party that they think best represent their views and the Repubs have done a poor job relaying the party ideals...but that doesnt mean a Black Republican is an Uncle Tom or a self-hating racist.

Valid points. I think the reason little is often known about AA programs is precisely because of the politics of the issue, which is why I didn't want to discuss that aspect of it. You are correct in your description of AA programs. What most conservatives (myself included) argue against is specifically the quota aspects of them. Vermillion pointed out above that even those are less than most would think. However, there are indeed times that middle class white kids can't get into schools, jobs, etc. because of AA. Not that many, and not that often, so its not that that in itself is a great crime, but still....discrimination isn't really the way to stop discrimination.

As for enforcement, what I think is needed is a process through which institutions can demonstrate their attempts to remove discrimination from their processes. ISO 9000 for human resources. Do they evaluate hiring, firing, promotions, etc. in a completely objective fashion? They should be able to demonstrate this. Win-win. Race gets removes as an obstacle, and companies get better HR practices, leading to more effective hiring/firing procedures, leading to more economic success. I've seen the studies showing how identical resumes but with ethnic names get rejected on a far higher percentage. Does an institution need to know someone's name to evaluate their resume? NO! So, their process should have that removed. Things like that. Only by truly attempting to be more color blind can we actually become more color blind. Telling institutions to pay more attention to certain colors is going in the opposite direction, IMHO.

Hobbes- point to make- quotas are specifically illegal. There are NO quotas for blacks! The only mention of quotas is for women in contruction, with no penalties for it NOT happening.

Leder- the issue of discrimination on a basis of race for jobs, housing and such CERTAINLY is a goverment issue. In fact, it is right up there with civil defense- you are talking justice here, NOT entitlement programs to Haliburton. You are talking about criminal behavior, not a welfare check.

This is one place libertarians can be so blind and silly- this is about justice, not a handout. Poeple being made whole for wrongs done to them- AA's primary responsibility is to investigate discrimination, and perhaps recommend for prosecution or some such- just like the police.

There is no quotas, there is no wide scale reverse discrimination, and certainly no institutional racial discrimination.

You confuse civil liberty and your platform a bit here.

The goverment's job, it's most fundamental core, is to provide equal justice to all it's citizens, despite race or religion. Blacks are simply not getting equal justice, not yesterday, not today. So yes, it is ABSOLUTELy the goverment's job to enforce justice. What you are asking for is anarchy, allowing a hienous wrong to go on, without protection of thier cvil liberties by thier goverment.

I suggest you rethink your libertarian point of view a bit here- what is the role of goverment? to me, the idea is the most amount of freedom FOR ALL OF IT'S CITIZENS, NOT JUST WHITE MIDDLE CLASS AND UPPER CLASS AMERICANS- we are only as free as we treat those that are in the minority- this is a reason why Britain had the IRA- 51% of the protestants treated the 49%'s problems like they were no problem.

It is the goverments job to stamp out discrimination based on race wherever it exists, and if a case of reverse discrimination is proven, then, yes, that should be dealt with as well, but, as in the link I posted- well darnit, AA investigates reverse discrimination as well! Of course- there are darn few of those cases, when light is shed, prove to be true. I have yet to have seen a single case in my life actually be true, despite all the complaining by right wingers that I hear on a fairly regular basis.

However, I do know of one specific case of a guy that was told "if you wore a skirt, we would hire you"- so one case of a job going to a woman. I would like to see real cases of this horrible plague of white folks gettin' denied jobs so minorites can get them instead, but I am willing to bet good money it doesn't make it into the thousands, while the discrimintion against minorities numbers in the millions.

Well, that's exactly the thing that Connerly's initiatives prohibit, at least when it comes to state jobs and universities. It can't very effectively condemn the practice on the one hand while engaging in it on the other.


AA has done wonders in preventing people from being discriminated against or given preferential treatment on the basis of their race?



Maybe when the Republicans actually getting around to doing that, you might be able to classify this person as such.

Okay- so you are denying the existance of the Willie Horton ads? The Rovian South Carolina push poll? Jesse Helms' compaigns, pretty much all of them?

BTW- Blackstone- did you read any of the links on AA- yes or no? Most of those claims by Ward and others have been shown to be false- in fact, it is dang hard to even show this "discrimination against white folks"- you have studies- NOT anecdotal evidence?

Okay blackstone- I wanted to post this seperately, so you can see why blacks are so against the republican party- because republicans keep repeating the AA lies over and over, and then claiming with big crocidile tears that white men are being discriminated against yadda yadda. Since some folks repeat this lie over and over- it is a good idea to dispell these myths, piece by piece. This post has less to do with the merits of AA than with the republican continuation of these lies over and over and over again, and then wandering why Blacks that actually share SOME of thier values won't come into the fold- behold, facts for your perusal, showing pretty much everything you and LH have said about things like AA to be a lie told over and over. It is not a personal slam on you, don't construe it to be- it is a slam on the republican parties use of these lies, to the point they have become a lexicon in the US language, despite thier total disregard for reality. When racism against blacks is as deep as it is in the US, it is hard to put away the lies we are told by conservative forces in power. That is why we use the word "conservative" it is the sticking to of old values, right or wrong, and in this case, very, very wrong:

http://www.conncoll.edu/is/library/courses...dent/myths.html

Myth 1. Affirmative Action rewards gender and race at the expense of merit.

No study has empirically demonstrated that unqualified women and minorities are receiving positions solely on the basis of affirmative action. There is evidence, however, which does suggest that white men get positions due to factors other than merit. The Glass Ceiling Commission found that white men with four or more years of college were 40% more likely to hold administrative, managerial and executive positions than should be expected, given their numbers in the workforce. Meanwhile, similarly educated Black women were underrepresented by 12%, and White women by 33%.

Affirmative action broadens the pool of candidates and it encourages hiring based on sound, job-related criteria. This is good for everyone, since the "old boys network" still limits access to opportunities for women, people of color, and some white men.

In fact, the National Center for Career Strategies reported in 1992 that: * 80 % of corporate executives got their jobs through networks; and * 90% jobs are never advertised, but are filled through networks of friends and associates.

Furthermore, some employers still exhibit bias in interviewing and hiring. For example, a 1991 study by the Urban Institute found clear evidence of continuing job bias against African Americans, who were three times more likely to be rejected for jobs than their white counterparts, even when having equal credentials.

* Affirmative action counteracts the inequity inherent in ongoing segregation of neighborhoods and social networks, where information on job opportunities circulates.

* Affirmative action also promotes practices that allow women and people of color to be considered despite ongoing discrimination and employers' often skewed view of what constitutes "merit" in a hiring situation.

In Washington state, public four-year colleges and universities are allowed to admit students whose test scores and grade point averages fall below the usual admissions cut-offs. These "special admission" rules were originally conceived to promote increased admission of students of color.

Yet more than half of the 978 special admissions in 1994 were granted to white students of both sexes in recognition of special talents and circumstances, as the rules also allow.

College admissions standards have always permitted various preferences that have nothing to do with affirmative action or academic qualifications. These include personal connections, alumni affiliations, athletic skill, or veteran status. Data complied by the Institute for the Study of Social Change at the University of California at Berkeley show that "far more whites have entered the gates of the 10 most elite institutions through 'alumni preference' than the combined numbers of all the Blacks and Chicanos entering through affirmative action."

Myth 2. Quotas are the backbone of affirmative action programs.

Quotas are specifically prohibited by the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Executive Order 11246, which outlines the guidelines for affirmative action, never mentions numerical targets. The only circumstance in which quotas are used is as a court ordered tool, a last resort to redress rampant discrimination uncovered in a successful lawsuit. Affirmative action speaks of "good faith goals and timetables" for diversifying the work force.

It is easy to confuse affirmative action with "consent decrees," which are court-mandated quotas imposed by judges on specific institutions after years of proven failure to end discrimination. Ending affirmative action would not affect consent decrees and the associated quotas.

Affirmative action plans do not impose quotas, but rather seek to increase the pool of qualified applicants through "good faith" efforts. Regardless, the media seems to continue to use the terms "affirmative action" and "preferences" interchangeably. The Atlanta Journal & Constitution was the worst offender; 21 of their 34 articles on affirmative action used the two terms as synonyms. For example, a January 15 story was headlined, "Anti-Affirmative Action Advocates See '98 as Theirs," with the sub-headline, "Court Decisions Bolstering Anti-Preference Legislation Movement." The article's lead sentence continued the confusion: "Amid the national conversation about affirmative action, some Georgia lawmakers vow the time has come for a statewide ban of set-asides and quota systems in government hiring and contracts that benefit women and minorities." In this story and others, little attempt was made to distinguish between such disparate concepts as "affirmative action," "preference," "set-aside" and "quota." The persistent use of the problematic terms "preferences" or "racial preferences" as synonyms for affirmative action programs underscores mainstream media's distorted, ahistorical presentation of the issue.

Affirmative action plans can include:

* Goals and timetables for hiring or promoting people from affected groups; and * Training programs and other measures. Affirmative action goals are milestones or benchmarks.

Affirmative action goals are a statistical tool. When employers find that people from affected groups are "underrepresented" in a particular job category, goals are calculated to indicate what their representation would likely be, absent past and present discrimination and its persistent effects.

Myth 3. Affirmative action is reverse discrimination

Some experts believe this myth speaks more to the insecurity among all workers. Affirmative action is not a mechanism of discrimination, but a tool for combating discrimination. Furthermore, "reverse discrimination" is illegal under existing civil rights law that that protect people of all races and both genders from discrimination. Even scholarly opponents of affirmative action can offer little evidence that reverse discrimination is anything other than a rarity.

* Of more than 90,000 complaints of employment discrimination filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in 1994, less than 3 percent involved allegations of reverse discrimination against white males.

* A recent study commissioned by the U.S. Department of Labor found that, of more than 3,000 reported federal court cases alleging discrimination from mid-1990 to mid-1994, fewer than 100 alleged reverse discrimination.

* Further, only six of those 100 were resolved in favor of white men alleging reverse discrimination.

* The courts found that the vast majority of reverse discrimination cases were without merit and that several were brought by whites who appeared to be less qualified than the minorities who were hired or promoted.

The Labor Department study report also stated:

Many of the cases were the result of a disappointed applicant...erroneously assuming that when a woman or minority got the job, it was because of race or sex, not qualification."

Myth 4. Women and Minorities no longer need affirmative action.

The good news is that women now hold 48% of all professional and managerial jobs, up from an estimated 25% two decades ago. They have started to catch up in pay too. Women currently earn 72% as much as men, on average, as compared to 60% in the mid-70's. When comparing men and women with similar education and experience, the gap is 85%.

Glass Ceiling Commission found that only 3-5% of senior executive positions in the private sector are held by women. Only 5% of those women are women of color. A 1993 study of 439 top female executives with an average salary of $187,000 had 27% of the respondents indicating that being a woman/sexism as their greatest career obstacle. According to the 1995 Affirmative Action Review: Report to the President, "Blatant discrimination is a continuing problem in the labor market."

The report cites various controlled "audit" studies in which white and minority (or male and female) job seekers were given similar résumés and sent to the same set of firms to apply for work. These studies routinely found that employers are less likely to interview or offer a job to minority applicants or women, even when their qualifications match those of whites or men vying for the same positions.

The federal Glass Ceiling issued a study report that notes: * White men, who comprise 43 percent of the workforce, have 95 percent of senior management positions and 80 percent of tenured professorships, because of an ongoing pattern of injustice. * The same study found that serious barriers to advancement remain for women and minorities, including:

* "persistent stereotyping;

* "erroneous beliefs that 'no qualified women or minorities are out there;'" and

* "fear of change."

Back to Table of Contents


Edited to reduce size of fonts - don't shout at us, CR. - Jaime

What about them? That moron Dukakis vetoed a bill that would have prohibited first-degree-murdering scum like Horton from taking part in the furlough program, and the Republicans very appropriately skewered him for it. To use your own terms, any black or white person would have to be an "idiot" to support Dukakis for that.


Allegations are not evidence. No one knows who was behind them. And I don't suppose it's escaped your notice that their target was (drumroll, please) a Republican!


You said, "when the republican party uses white fears of the black male as a campaign tool". I can't speak for whatever Helms might or might not have done, but individual Congressmen are responsible for their own actions.


Well, then that's great. Then there's no reason to be concerned about Connerly's ballot initiatives in California or Michigan, since, according to you, AA wouldn't even be in violation of them anyway. Kinda makes you wonder what the ruckus is about, doesn't it?

Okay- you deny the facts- no problem- but it is pretty obvious why blacks don't go to your party, with answers like that. Willie Horton had nothing to do with Dukakis- they could have used a white criminal just as easy. Yep, I am quite aware that McCain was a target- that is even more of a reason blacks don't go to the republican party- they will use the fear of the brown man even against thier own! Jesse Helms campaign was funded, like all national campaigns, by the RNC. So yes, Republican party is responsible for Jesse Helm's campaign, as long as they are giving him money to run it.

Man, your apologist behavior towards republicans boggles the mind- but I noticed that you still haven't addressed the very myths you brought forward about AA.

So let's discuss the term "Uncle Tom" and it's poster child- Ward Connerly, shall we?

You champion prop 54, correct? Have you read it? Examined it? Seen if it is good legislation? Checked out who the backers of this initiative was? Don't be ashamed if you haven't- I didn't until just now- wanted to find out for myself what is about this guy- I know when I have seen him on TV, his positions and statements are usually obliterated by facts, something that is sadly lacking by the republican party on issues of race-

http://www.campusprogress.org/tools/230/- excerpts_

Fact #1---On a power high from his victory with Proposition 209, Connerly helped put Proposition 54 on the California ballot in 2003. Titled the “Racial Privacy Initiative” and hyped with deceptive promises of “eliminating racial discrimination,” Prop 54 would have actually banned the state from collecting racial data, effectively making it impossible to prosecute racial discrimination claims in California. It also would have made it impossible for the state to collect racial data for determining health treatment, which caused three former U.S. surgeons general to oppose the bill.



Fact #2 -=Not only was the initiative defeated, but Connerly was recently fined $95,000 for violating campaign finance laws and was forced to reveal the names of Prop 54’s key financial backers. The all-stars (all big names from the vast right-wing network) are Joseph Coors, the beer magnate and founding partner of the Heritage Foundation, with $250,000, and Rupert Murdoch, emperor of Fox News, with $300,000. The disclosure of Connerly’s financial backers was forced under a legal settlement with California’s Fair Political Practices Commission, after the latter filed a class-action suit on behalf of six organizations, including the League of Women Voters of California and the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights. The settlement does demonstrate that conservative warriors can be held accountable. Connerly is still determined, however. Despite the fact that his top contributors to the campaign were conservative white industrialists whose wealth and power would seem to contradict Connerly’s underdog stance in the court case, his apparently unironic response to the settlement was to say, "There reaches a point where David has to give in to Goliath. That’s really the essence of it." So much for deconstructing the notion of black victimhood.


Funny- for all this "want to be equal" talk from Ward- he doesn't come out against the all whites club of , oh, say "legacy" admits to universities- basically- affirmative action for the rich? That is a system that gives over-privileged but under-smart students entry into universities they have no business being in? What about Veterans programs? There are lots and lots of programs that are basically white based preference systems (the legacy system is the most obvious)- yet, Ward has nothing to say about them- -

I stick by all statements about Ward being an "uncle tom"- in fact, being the definition of one. I can't think of a person MORE of an Uncle tom since, well, Uncle Tom.

Also- I note the MASSIVE voter fraud in Michigan over the MCRI- if he was such an upstanding fellow- why does his org need to use massive voter fraud to get his law passed?

Also interesting- he became a millionare by courting and lap dogging white republicans as well (Pete Wilson in particular) - same source
Not long after his Goldwater conversion, Connerly was launched into the lucrative real estate business with help from Pete Wilson, the future governor of California. In 1968, when Wilson was just a young legislator from San Diego and the newly appointed chairman of the Assembly Committee on Urban Affairs and Housing, he made Connerly his chief consultant. It was in this role that Connerly is accused of having gotten his leg up out of his own poverty by pushing others deeper into theirs. As one respected African-American journalist has said of Connerly, “If Ward Connerly attacks a program or institution, you can be assured that it is serving a valuable purpose for African Americans.”

Hmm- so, he basically got a position where he could screw over black poeple to get rich- yep, Uncle Tom, big time!

OK, I'm only gonna tell you this once. Don't ever make an assumption about me again that isn't backed up by anything I've said about myself. All you have to do is address my points.


Why, was Dukakis really that bad that they had a wide choice of furloughed first-degree murderers to choose from, who committed more horrific crimes while on furlough as a result of his idiotic veto? Not that it would surprise me if he did provide them with such a broad catalogue, but unless you have evidence that they specifically chose Horton for his skin color, then you have nothing to go on, whatsoever.


Which ones would those be? Quote me, please.

Seriously Blackstone, knock it off. That avoidance tactic is great for getting you out of logical tight spots, but avoiding every straight question posed to you gets transparent quickly.


Affirmative action has had an enormous beneficial effect on the situation of Blacks in the United States. Period. The effect is beneficial, direct and causal. To deny that is to take leave of reality. And let us not forget AA was also aimed at helping not just blacks, but women, andother disenfranchised group. And look at the good that has come of it.

You can choose to, if you want, argue that it isn't necessary anymore, or that it has outlived its usefulness or whatever (though all are wrong) but don't try and deny the enormous beneficial effect it has had, don't try and deny its overwhelmingly positive effect on American society over the last three decades.


In 1960, that is, just over 1 generation ago and just prior to AA, 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.


So the past effectiveness of AA is proven. But what about the current situation? Is a program still needed?

For modern stats, you might want to look at the Glass Ceiling Commission, a body established 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, Fact 1: Affirmative action works.
Fact 2: Though progress has been made, a program like this is still necessary.

Unless you can dispute either of those facts, and I mean dispute with evidence and arguments, not flippant, one-liner rhetorical questions, then you are left with only one logical conclusion.

Either Keep Affirmative Action, or replace it with another program that would be even more effective.

Otherwise, the very idea of eliminatibe a program which has done NOTHING but improve the situation of a disenfranchised minority is just silly.


Oh, but you assert 'its just wrong!', as though that extremist black and white view held any real merit. So you would advocate their NEVER having been Affirmaitve Action? You were happy with the state of race relations in the late 1960's?

Or are you like Lordhemet, and you think it was all the black's fault?

So faced with a choice of either eliminating all policies (such as actually remain) that discriminate in favor of whites, or continuing to pursue a policy (affirmative action) that legitimizes race-based treatment and classification of people, which one truly seems more appropriate? And either way, it can never be emphasized enough that lack of affirmative action in no way means that government is restricted from helping people who have been disadvantaged for whatever reason (be it racism or whatever else). There is no need at all to classify people according to race in order to help them out.

Huh- seems there is a rather large need, in light of the fact that blacks are discriminated against simply because they are black-

Not at all, unless you can say definitively that there can be no alternatives, such as a colorblind system that merely helps people who are having trouble, without concerning itself with their race. For some reason, something as commonsensical as that doesn't even seem to register on the radar screen with many AA advocates.

Again- you insinuate that AA is somehow discriminating against whites- when it is clearly NOT doing that. We HAVE to concern ourselves with race- because race is what those that discriminate against the blacks are targeting- not much "common sense" in your idea there, at all. You can't ignore race in hiring if you want to stop discrimination in hiring against blacks- that is just silly.

"Colorblind"- colorblind to whom Blackstone?

AA has been mentioned many times here as a republican issue- the issue of eliminating it- and all the pro-republican posters here spread all kinds of talking points about AA- none of which are true- yet, you don't even recognize that opposition to AA may be the very reason you would have to be a mental midget or a sell out to be a republican and black- the original question- because, the Republican party has continually lied and lied and lied about this program, and Ward Connerly- far from being a 'self made man"- is actually the embodiment of Uncle Tom-ism- he is getting paid by a bunch of rich white guys to try to tear down any program that helps blacks against an injustice commited against them-

Once again- if you are against AA- you are basically against justice for blacks and other minorities- because that is what AA does- it doesn't discriminate against whites, it doesn't set quotas, it doesn't promote blacks of lessor qualifications over whites with greater qualifications-

You keep making these statements like "oh, it should be colorblind"- so which "color" will be served by a law that makes it illegal, or impossible, or set the bar so high as to be not worth dealing with, to investigate and prosecute racial discrimination?

I direct you to this thread:

http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index...13114&st=80

where you pretty much ignore all evidence of discrimination about blacks, don't site a single study one in your observations, and have no basis to back up any of your claims, while declaring "blacks are the victims of black racism"

At some point- some research would be nice Blackstone- instead of sidestepping the question

I will ask you directly-

1) Is AA discriminatory?
2) Against who?
3) Has AA helped black poeple?
4) Is the republican party basically anti-AA


Please site your sources in your answers- I would love to see those figures?

It is not a leap to say "there is not a reason on God's green earth that any black person should be voting for a republican, unless that republican repudiates a major portion of the Republican positions on race"- Even Colin Powell acknowledged AA as a good thing - and then, he had to walk away from GW. And so do black voters, in droves, even if Dems are not helping- at least they are not actively working against them!

I'm not avoiding anything. I'm just making sure you don't wander off the point we were discussing. We both agreed that not discriminating on the basis of race should be the goal, and my question is whether AA advances that goal. Does it or does it not? If it does not, then there's no reason why we can't have a program to help people simply because, for whatever reason, they need help, not because of their skin hue.

Then again, by mentioning skin hue the way I am, perhaps I'm misunderstanding what AA actually is, as CruisingRam's been trying to tell me. If that's the case, then I'm still left with a confusion over something:


Then as I've already stated, neither Proposition 209 nor the MCRI would outlaw AA. Correct?


By the way, just as a general note to all concerned, I hope I'm not considered to be going off-topic with this exchange. I figured since this pertains to a major plank in the platform of the Republican Party, it's germane to the topic.

Yes we did. And the question I keep asking, which you keep avoiding, is do you deny the obvious and enormous practical benefits that AA has had on American society in improving the situation for women and blacks? It is a simple question, and one for which I have provided BOUNTIFUL evidence. Do you deny that the program has WORKED and worked WELL.

If you are, as you say, not avoiding anything, then I should not be forced to ask this question AGAIN.

As for your moral isue, I reject it. Absolutism is NEVER a sound policy when it comes to morality, especially when you ignore practical reality. There is no greater moral law than 'killing is wrong', but can one absolutely say that all killing is always wrong no matter what the situation period, no further discussion? Of course not. So please stop trying to pretend that an illogical absolutist view on this issue allows you to ignore practical reality.

And that reality is: There was a problem, AA was enacted and id WONDERS to help solve the problem, it just needs further to go.

As I said, would you prefer things back the way they were in 1960? That is the practical result of your comments, as if AA is ALWAYS wrong, then it was wrong then too, and you would hav preferred keeping the status quo than enacting it.



What does that mean? Help people because they need help? Gee Blackstone, I never thought I would hear YOU advocate a welfare state. Because as an 'alternative', I think you will agree a program to 'help people if they need help' is a little bit unspecific. How would you redress the existing racial inequality in the US if you would eliminate the functioning and effective system of Affirmative Action?


And as I have said many times, I think this thread, and the arguments from the right-wing in it, is a perfect example of why Blacks vote overwhelmingly Democratic.

While it's been fascinating to watch the White guys fight it out over affirmative action, I'm going to get my swerve on back to something more directly related to the original topic and that's Black Republicans.

I don't think there is a "fast track" to success within society through the choice of Political Party #A versus Political Party #B. The secret to the advancement of African-Americans within American society lies within themselves. Not any government program. Not any court-mandated ruling. Not through voting for one candidate or the other.

When I succeed I succeed for myself. Not the Black race. If enough Black people succeed that is when the Black race succeeds. Being a Republican or Democrat doesn't even factor into the equation.

Political parties are tools to power. They aren't power. There is no Republican way to light the street or a Democratic way to pick up the garbage. If you're a taxpayer you want your streets lighted and your garbage picked up. Who cares if the power is turned on by a liberal and the trash gathered by a conservative. Those are meaningless terms.

I've known Democrats I thought were total losers and Republicans whom I've pounded brews with. The most savvy guy I know on politics is a Black attorney whose columns I used to edit, lives in a million-dollar high-rise condo and proudly displays a picture of himself glad-handing Supreme Court Associate Justice Clarence Thomas.

He also is a helluva nice guy, advises both Democrats and Republicans, raises beaucoup bucks for charity and city programs, wrote a wonderful letter of recommendation for me and is a die-hard, bona-fide Republican.

That's great for him. But being a Republican didn't make him any of those things. He got to where he is by working harder, being smarter and wanting it more than his competitors---Black and White.

I think it's great the GOP has its own team of superstars. Two out of the three more serious contenders to be the nation's first Black President are Black Republicans in Condoleeza Rice and Colin Powell.

But contrary to what lordhelmet might suggest, they aren't successful because they are Black Republicans. Rather, they are successful because success runs in the Black race. Despite all the gloom and doom reports to the contrary, W.E.B. DuBois is STILL correct when he said, The Negro race, like all races, is going to be saved by its exceptional men.

I would add "exceptional women" as well, but DuBois was right when he asserted an educated minority within the minority would lead the way for the masses.

Politics is only another tool in the box to bring about the creation of a educated, employed and fully engaged African-American middle class. If more Blacks have aligned themselves with the Democrats than the Republicans it probably because that is where they have seen their issues most received and their participation most welcomed. If the same applied to the Republicans you'd see more Blacks as Republicans.

Karl Rove, Ken Mehlman and other GOP leaders have finally figured out there is a strong streak of social conservatism within the Black community in general and the Black church specifically. They have begun to find success in making overtures to Blacks opposed to abortion on demand, same-sex marriage and the decline of morality in America. The GOP still has a way to go in overcoming the strong feeling existing within Blacks that the Republicans are not the party where social justice and equality are priorities.

Have the Democrats done their best to paint the GOP as the party opposed to Black empowerment? Sure, but the GOP has made it easy for them. In recent elections, it is the Republicans whom have passed legislation, challenged and otherwise made voting for minorities more, not less difficult. That is why the sentiment is popular is that not only does the Republican Party not want Black votes, it doesn't want Blacks to vote at all.

This is not true.

The Republican Party needs Blacks. Blacks need the Republican Party.

But it has to be a joining of equals. The GOP can't abandon its core principles to woo a given demographic, but neither can Blacks abandon their core beliefs to feel welcomed in the GOP.

It's too late for the Republican Party to appeal to me. Over the passage of time and the evolution of attitudes the Republican Party may hold more appeal to my children and my children's children.

"The history of the American Negro is the history of this strife, -- this longing to attain self-conscious manhood, to merge his double self into a better and truer self. In this merging he wishes neither of the older selves to be lost. He does not wish to Africanize America, for America has too much to teach the world and Africa; he does not wish to bleach his Negro blood in a flood of white Americanism, for he believes -- foolishly, perhaps, but fervently -- that Negro blood has yet a message for the world. He simply wishes to make it possible for a man to be both a Negro and an American without being cursed and spit upon by his fellows, without losing the opportunity of self-development."

I'm not even taking a position on it, because it has nothing to do with the premise we both agreed on. AA, if it involves discrimination (something that apparently needs to be cleared up, given the discussion I'm in with another member on this thread), does not advance that goal. It hinders it. If our society wants to be able to effectively condemn discrimination, it can't practice it. It's just one of those mathematical impossibilities.


Ad hominem duly noted. But my point was if the "welfare state", as you describe it, exists, it shouldn't be race-based. Not if we want to do away with racism. That road simply will not take us there.

Well, I already dealt with that, though you apparently missed it. I reject your silly absolutist assumption regarding discrimination. You refuse to 'deal with' the tremendous benefit this program has had, the enormous tangible and practical benefit to American society, because it is inconvenient to your case, whereas it is the very crux of mine. Not only do I reject your absolutist version of this morality, but of all morality, and I bet you would too, in almost any other circumstance. In fact, I'm willing to bet you have many times on this board.

Your assertion that your absolutist version of morality is so important that it ignores enormous practical benefit has never been explained or justified, just asserted. I never agreed to that at all despite your attempts to make it seem so. I agreed that it would be ideal if we lived in a world where there was no discrimination whatsoever, but we do not, so we make practical reasonable choices to fix the problem. Like AA, which has been suceeding brilliantly.



You mean like condemning killing, yet having state executions? I thought you were in favour of that.

Or is morality only absolutely absolute when it is convenient?


besides, I can't helkp but notice that you once again failed to answer my direct questions. I shall assume you just missed them in your haste, and ask again:

"As I said, would you prefer things back the way they were in 1960? That is the practical result of your comments, as if AA is ALWAYS wrong, then it was wrong then too, and you would hav preferred keeping the status quo than enacting it."

"Because as an 'alternative', I think you will agree a program to 'help people if they need help' is a little bit unspecific. How would you redress the existing racial inequality in the US if you would eliminate the functioning and effective system of Affirmative Action?"





Oh please. In what world is THAT comment an ad hominum?




Except that it has. Remember those 'practical realities' you said you refuse to discuss? You keep saying AA just Can't help, and yet it has, enormously. Indesputably. How do you deal with that contradiction?

1. Can a black American have good reason to be a Republican?

Sure why not, the skin color alone of a person will not determine his or her perception, that is something left to the local environment he or her come to experience over time. I think a nice example of course is why is race relations in its current form in America and different in other parts of the world? Simply put race relations is not always the same all over the planet, so of course we have our own issues to contend with and its very slow and painful for the most part.

2. Is it ok to call Black Republicans ephitets such as "uncle Tom" or "oreo"? Are these accurate and deserved remarks?

I would not think so, I would think a black person man or women is perfectly capable of wanting to live the life of Jesus the billion dollar ceo, I don’t think such is purely restricted to race lol. Religion being heavy overall in the gop more so then the demos, religion based racism or history of such is not guaranteed to hold sway perfectly on political thought, simply put not all republicans are super religions or have a Jesus Christ pose going, just as some democrats are very religious in tone. I mean the bible attempts to explain the creation of different races on the planet, it does not cover them all but in the case of African Americans it does, and of course thanks to the new testament such is not so overtly racist overall. Still though, I know that religion can be very important in the African American community, just as conservative in the white community even, so religion alone is not going to be the denominator in why a black person may choose to be a republican, personally I just think it boils down to which side of the aisle the person perceives race relations, and then how this of course relates personally to how a person views him or herself. Overall I think its impossible to lump all republicans into being the same person, just as democrats go, you have variance overall, simply put though some people have more gravity in regards to attention then others, such as Bush compared to McCain, both republicans but of course different overall in how that translates into reality.

On a side note, AA is not racist, the reason it exists is because of racism, so what have you. No, I do think it should have checks and balances, but trying to equate that in does not always reflect fairly into what it should be, again I don’t think AA should just give out jobs to people, and the reality is it does not, you still have to work hard for things. Personally I compare it to say veterans benefits, I have an advantage on all kinds of jobs thanks to that, is it fair, heck I don’t know, I know a person with AA and veterans benefits is pretty set up for success overall, but still you would have to work hard and be exposed to that in the first place to even take advantage of it. Overall in time AA should implode on itself, by simply undoing some of our pasts problems, and if it does not, well it will implode anyways by simply being a failure then. I have not gotten anything in life for free, nor was I born into a rich family, and of course I have had all through life been forced to make decisions just like other people that make mistakes, such as choose crime, but I was never brought over on a boat to be a slave and denied knowledge then basically freed into a world of ignorance and intolerance, its just not the same, my ancestors came over by choice. SO that begs the question that if some immigrant family comes to America, if AA should be the same for them, I think that would simply sit on what is race relations in America, I would of course say its something that exists, racism, and it can be very harmful to someone’s livelihood, but some perfectly objective study of it does not really exist, so you are left in nothing but overall what is personal speculation on the issue.

Okay- want to tell me how ending AA is going to effectively end discrimination against blacks? You make statements like this- but you have zilch, nada , nothing to offer as an alternative, or anything of substance to back it up but your own "feelings"- which, are, as you would say- a mathematical impossibility- considering by every bench mark in the nation as shown AA HAS done just that- help end discrimination.

Oh, and NT- couldn't agree with your post more- great post- with a huge Caveat- yes, great men will move society as a whole forward, doesn't matter what thier color- however- great men really don't often make day to day gettin' a darn job any easier, or put food on the table. My own family is made up of a bunch of blue bloods with all these aristocratic braggin' rights. But, when my ma launches into a speech about our ancestors, I remind her that they have not made one house payment for me -

And that goes to the heart of need and why folks vote one way or another- "am I going to be able to pay my mortgage? Will I be able to get my kids thier christmas presents?"- those are the folks that vote- NT- you and I are both middle class voters- and I am savvy enough to know that NO republican majority or president has done a darn thing to help me pay my mortgage- whereas, the GOP whipping boy- Clinton, through Hope 6- helped me move from lower middle class in income to upper middle class. I credit clinton and the Dem majority for the historic low interest rates by being smart about the economy- and I know that soon the chickens will come home to roost with the disastrous policies of GW, and I am preparing for a recession anytime- no matter who wins on Tuesday after next.

And, if voting trends by the very middle class blacks you speak of are any indication- no matter thier social standing on issues- they are more likely to believe that this republican super majority in all houses and seats have been disastrous, utter failure in any concievable way- and a stand on Gay marriage doesn't make mortgage payments either.

So I am wiling to bet, for at least the next 12 years, that blacks will vote dem at the same 85% mark- or even higher now, I am betting over 90%

I just don't hear about anyone but Condi and Ward really trumpeting the republican successes in the black community- even those that are considered conservative- do you?

No. Not in my shop. Not in NYC. Not IT in general.

Oh and in the Summer of 1985 I was told in no uncertain terms my partial scholarship to NYU was revoked due to "Minority Scholarship Obligations" and I _still_ don't discriminate based on race. However like a lot of people I still base things in merit.

You able to prove that? What is your proof that was the reason you were "revoked"- so far, every piece of evidence I have seen presented ANYWHERE- was that - paraphrasing the studies and links provided- white kids erroneaously crediting what you just said. You got a partial scholarship to NYU- and then it was revoked because of "minority scholarship obligations"- like they didn't have these obligations BEFORE yours were "revoked"- pardon my skepticism. Funding at universities is pretty transparent- usually, in fact, trumpeted loudly by politicians and donors. So what was your scholarship for? Where did the funding come from? Why was your funding pulled, what was proof that it was pulled- because, that would be a VERY public change of policy. I can only imagine the uproar and news it would cause. Perfect publicity piece for anti-AA forces- you have some news print of this major news story? OR a recording by Rush- because he would LOVE a story like this- man, the right wing radio would have a FIELD DAY with some proof of what you are saying.

Seriously- this would be major news if true, you might even make money on this- I know I sure would. To me, it would be hitting the lottery- the lawsuits, the TV appearances etc.

In fact- if this is true- you could ACTUALLY contact your local goverment official and have them investigate racial discrimination.

1. Can a black American have good reason to be a Republican?

Of course they can. Ask Michael Steele, or Ken Blackwell, or Lynn Swann--black Republicans all.

The Republicans have a different philosophy than the Democrats. It is more closely aligned with a meritocracy and less so with evening the playing field. Certainly, this philosophy attracts the self motivated and the successful. The Democrat philosophy attracts those that place more emphasis on lifting the less fortunate via governmental measures.

That isn't to say that Republicans are selfish, but they more closely hold the position that it isn't the government's responsibility to fix every social woe out there.

For instance, in this incredibly emotional AA discussion, we leave out defining when enough is enough. Over 12% of college freshmen are African American, compared with 12.5% of the general population. Seems like parity has been achieved. To paraphrase another political debate: Without a timetable for ending the program, how can it ever be successful?

What isn't admitted is that individual bias can never be eliminated and programs like AA do foster racial animosity for some. I got into college on my merits and wasn't "on the bubble", but for those that are, this can be a real issue. Why shouldn't a white kid with a 1320 SAT make it in over a black kid with a 1170? What message are we sending young blacks when they don't have to measure up to succeed?

As far as businesses go, they discriminate at their own peril. The businesses that succeed are staffed and run by motivated individuals and if you pass up the motivated, talented black man because of his skin color then your loss may be my gain. I doubt anyone will assert that every business discriminates or that a talented person of color will never succeed. It may be true in one instance, but the business world is a big place.

2. Is it ok to call Black Republicans ephithets such as "uncle Tom" or "oreo"? Are these accurate and deserved remarks?

No, they are ad hominems and should be out of bounds for any intelligent debate.

Attitude duly noted.


No, because it's irrelevant to my case. My "case" has been that practicing discrimination will perpetuate discrimination.


You agreed to more than that. See #118. You agreed that non-discimination on the basis of race should be the goal, not merely that it would be "ideal". As for whether that translates to an "absolutist version of morality", that's a bit too esoteric a question for my tastes, so I'll let you work that one out on your own.


Yes, if the state wanted to condemn "killing", it couldn't do so very effectively if it held executions. But if it wanted to condemn murder on the other hand...


"Always wrong"? When did I use those words? I said that society can't effectively condemn racial discrimination if it practices it, and it can not.


Evaluate whether or not the applicant for assistance is truly in need of assistance for reasons beyond his control. That's of course assuming the premise that it's the state's job to right social wrongs.


Well, then speaking of avoided questions, that was the exact question I asked you back in post #109, and you got highly annoyed at me in your reply at #114. So would you be more willing to answer it this time? Has AA reduced the extent to which people are being discriminated against or given preferential treatment on the basis of race? You agreed that not discriminating on the basis of race should be the goal, so it's not an unreasonable question.

CruisingRam, the above question is for you, too.

Since you want to avoid it again- you have not in any way answered the questions I posed, and seem very uncomfortable attemtping to reconcile your beliefs with reality here

Are blacks being singled out for discrimination by whites as the evidence I provided has shown- do you deny that?

If race can not be used as a factor to root this out and squash racist whites that routinely discriminate against blacks (as the link provided, the only time quotas are made is when the court has found rampant and willful discrimination exists- contrary to your beliefs as I have seen so far- though you will not answer the question directly, hoping to skate around it it seems)

So, how do you, if you admit that a massive problem exists, as the links I provided prove quite nicely- omit race and still deal with the problem?

I am betting you won't answer directly....

Where in the Constitution does it allow the government to interfere with private hiring practices?

People forget what the term "discrimination" means. It means telling the difference between. Does AA use race as a criteria? If so, then it discriminates. Not in the negative connotative sense, but it does make race a factor in the decision making process. There is a debate, even among the black community, whether this is a positive or a negative.

The government should be color-blind, period. There is nothing positive to gain in the long run by any other stance. Government agencies such as the Minority Business Development Agency as a direct affront to equal rights. Who is going to say that having such an agency is not discriminatory?

As soon as a government agency can say : "Well, you're not <insert race here>, we can't help you" something is fundamentally wrong and is definitely violating the 14th amendment.

From their FAQ:


The purpose of the MBDA is "to support minority business enterprise and wealth creation (for minorities)."

Sorry to say, but that is the very essence of discrimination. It might be positive discrimination, but that is beside the point. When would be a good time to end such a program? Wouldn't whoever suggested its end be roasted on the political rotisserie?

AA is a wedge issue. Ending it is political blasphemy is some circles, including here it seems. Can't we have an intelligent debate about it without resorting to fisticuffs?

Of course, AA is not the only issue which is sensitive to minorities. School vouchers are definitely an attempt to rectify the woeful government provided school system. It, too, has been demagogued into an untouchable issue. It's sickening, quite frankly. If you have a stance, no matter how reasoned, you are wrong. So sad...

I love this debate... even though it is starting to border a pseudo AA Debate...

Anyways... I think hearing many conservatives(who often vote republicans) exemplify why many Blacks who support the Republican Party are considered sell-out. And if they aren't sell-outs, maybe they are just ignorant.

Allow me an analogy...

Two people start a hundred yard hurdle race. On one side there is 10 hurdles... on the other there is 15 hurdles... However, the goal is the same, finish the race first.

To me this is life. We all have our own hurdles, our own individual obstacles that we have to get over in order to succeed(which is the finish line). We all know that Blacks(not only Blacks, but let's keep it simple for now) are disproportionately residing, in high crime, high poverty, overcrowded dumps around the world. Add to that the simple fact that being a minority makes us more likely to be at the tail end of discrimination.

Now, individually, it happens that often a runner with 15 hurdles, is fast enough, nimble enough to out race the runner with only ten hurdles...

In real terms these are the success stories often toted by Republicans, both Black and White. These are the stories of rising above adversity, pulling your self up by your bootstraps, never taking no for an answer, and truthfully I know plenty of Blacks that fall into this category. But statistically speaking this is not the norm.

In general, Blacks, as a group, have more hurdles than whites in America. Does this mean there are no whites that have it just as hard as impoverished Blacks?? No, it doesn't. But if we look at statistic, we see that generally, Blacks are disproportionately in the bottom(negative) unless it's a sport or the enlisted military.

Back to the analogy,

So here we have this race, where there are more hurdles on one side than the other. Republicans don't want to use the government to remove the hurdles, and if you bring the finish line back ten meters for the person with 15 hurdles(AA), then Republicans want to call you a cheater, ironically, now the race is unfair


So what's that mean about the Blacks that belong to the Republican Party. To me, either they just could care less about the plight of Blacks, in general, as long as(thanks to the Republican Party) their taxes are lower and their pockets are fatter, which to me, makes them a picture perfect example of a sell-out.

Or maybe they just Hate the idea of Gays getting married and Abortion(Just like many whites who vote Republican) that they choose to vote Republican. Which to me is just terribly ignorant kind of like "cutting off your nose to spite your face"

But then there are the Black Republicans who say... "I don't look at color" Great!!! That must do great for your conscience not to have to wonder why Blacks are disproportionately out-of-sync with their fellow White Americans. I'm sure being that assimilated does wonders for their careers.

Blackstone




lol something tells me you think you said something profound... but I always thought murder was killing and that execution was killing.

AMlord



Exactly, A black person sees an unlevel playing field, especially for Blacks, but since that person has already made it, they would rather be a part of the group that doesn't want to help level things out... I wonder how many Blacks he identifies with??



Well you see if AA is what is making the parity. Until you reach 12.5 without AA you are not successful at attaining parity. Seems pretty simple to me.

Answer: by omitting race and still dealing with the problem. If one is discriminated against, that can be dealt with without ever really bringing the specific race or discrimination into it. In response to an inquiry, it would be up to the defending institution to demonstrate that their process omits race, not that it takes extra steps to make sure that it is included. For example, as I mentioned above...does their hiring practice eliminate names or other potential racial and surely non-objective items from submitted resumes? In fact, shouldn't, as Amlord points out, the goal be precisely to omit race? The sooner we get to that point, the better...and continuing to include it as a factor in various programs just keeps us farther away from that goal.