Full Version: When will Affirmative Action end?
QUOTE(Eeyore @ Jun 26 2003, 03:32 PM)
QUOTE(amlord @ Jun 26 2003, 10:15 AM)
If I, as a businessman, choose not to hire top-qualified minorities, who gets hurt?
Ultimately, it is me. Sure, in the short term that minority may not get MY job, but eventually any competent (especially highly qualified) person will get a job with someone without such prejudices.
If a minority group consistently loses the best jobs because they are minorities it is that minority group that gets hurt.
In a society that frowns upon the principle of equality the person that hires the highly qualified minority might be able to provide better services but faces a decline in business for it.
In the 1950s and 1960s in Alabama I imagine many business owners who were open minded about race matters had to take this into consideration when hiring.
AA was created in a society with widespread racism and widespread belief in the inequality for blacks. Something had to be more than legal equality to remedy this situation. Affirmative Action was not simply a spontaneous and insane eruption of reverse racism. It was a remedy to a widespread problem in this country that made the 14th Amendment irrelevant for blacks for a century.
If you as a business owner choose to not hire someone because of their skin color you are doing an injustice to society and you deserve to be punished accordingly.
I completely disagree. The government has NO business deciding who I hire. It is up to me to "sink or swim".
If I choose to hire a numbnut white guy over a brilliant black man, it is MY loss, not his.
This country does NOT have an environment that frowns upon minority employment, so that argument is inappropriate. Repairing damages that occurred to someone's parents does not, in fact, help them.
A minority group which consistently has its best and brightest rejected will eventually form its own company to compete with the bigots who rejected them. When they succeed, they can enjoy the fact that their accomplishment was their own, not something given to them by someone else.
This is NOT the 1950s or even the 1960s. It is a new century. A new millennium.
I have a question, to all pro-AA individuals, do you guys and girls realize that it is a racist program?
CP
CP
Amlord: The government has NO business deciding who I hire. It is up to me to "sink or swim".
If I choose to hire a numbnut white guy over a brilliant black man, it is MY loss, not his.
This country does NOT have an environment that frowns upon minority employment, so that argument is inappropriate. Repairing damages that occurred to someone's parents does not, in fact, help them.
Actually, the government DOES have business in how you conduct your hiring practices. If you hire one numbnut white guy over one brilliant black man you BOTH lose. You get a lousy employee and the black man doesn't get a job he's qualified for.
And if you hire 50 numbnut white guys and not one brilliant black man you're guilty of discriminating based on race.
Conservpat: I have a question, to all pro-AA individuals, do you guys and girls realize that it is a racist program?
No, I didn't realize that.
Do you realize slavery and segregation was affirmative action for white people?
And do you have any evidence that affirmative action is a racist program or just more one-liners?
If I choose to hire a numbnut white guy over a brilliant black man, it is MY loss, not his.
This country does NOT have an environment that frowns upon minority employment, so that argument is inappropriate. Repairing damages that occurred to someone's parents does not, in fact, help them.
Actually, the government DOES have business in how you conduct your hiring practices. If you hire one numbnut white guy over one brilliant black man you BOTH lose. You get a lousy employee and the black man doesn't get a job he's qualified for.
And if you hire 50 numbnut white guys and not one brilliant black man you're guilty of discriminating based on race.
Conservpat: I have a question, to all pro-AA individuals, do you guys and girls realize that it is a racist program?
No, I didn't realize that.
Do you realize slavery and segregation was affirmative action for white people?
And do you have any evidence that affirmative action is a racist program or just more one-liners?
Nighttimer,
AA is definitely a race-based program. It heightens awareness of racial identity in our society. It is designed as a social remedy for our societies racial problems.
But if a program is based on race I think it is safe to call it a racist program.
Now if you want to bring name-calling baggage into the picture, the term racist is pretty loaded.
I think AA was an appropriate response to America's past social problems and I think it is time to amend it and end it for the next generation. But some type of device to level the playing field of opportunity in this country is in our country's best interest. I think it should be based on economics. Then the new program will be classist.
AA is definitely a race-based program. It heightens awareness of racial identity in our society. It is designed as a social remedy for our societies racial problems.
But if a program is based on race I think it is safe to call it a racist program.
Now if you want to bring name-calling baggage into the picture, the term racist is pretty loaded.
I think AA was an appropriate response to America's past social problems and I think it is time to amend it and end it for the next generation. But some type of device to level the playing field of opportunity in this country is in our country's best interest. I think it should be based on economics. Then the new program will be classist.
QUOTE(Eeyore @ Jun 30 2003, 10:25 PM)
But if a program is based on race I think it is safe to call it a racist program.
Now if you want to bring name-calling baggage into the picture, the term racist is pretty loaded.
Now if you want to bring name-calling baggage into the picture, the term racist is pretty loaded.
QUOTE
You'll have to expand on the how and why affirmative action is racist, Eeyore. Merely saying the program is without supporting evidence is not a sufficient reason to junk it.
There's a vast difference between white people being inconvenienced and discomforted by affirmative action programs and the establishment of policies soley created to foster systemic discrimination against whites because of their skin color.
QUOTE(nighttimer @ Jun 30 2003, 07:39 PM)
You'll have to expand on the how and why affirmative action is racist, Eeyore. Merely saying the program is without supporting evidence is not a sufficient reason to junk it.
Because any program, for any reason, that gives any person, anything, simply because of their skin color is racist. Or, pertaining to a certain race.
QUOTE
There's a vast difference between white people being inconvenienced and discomforted by affirmative action programs and the establishment of policies soley created to foster systemic discrimination against whites because of their skin color.
what is "inconvenienced and discomforted" for white people, is called racial discrimination for black people. In this society, the terms used to describe the same thing, depend on what color your skin is. And that is sad
Racism:
1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.
Quoted from http://www.infoplease.com/ipd/A0614344.html
There is no mention of black, white, mexican, etc etc. Racism exists in all forms.
QUOTE(nighttimer @ Jun 30 2003, 06:13 PM)
Amlord: The government has NO business deciding who I hire. It is up to me to "sink or swim".
If I choose to hire a numbnut white guy over a brilliant black man, it is MY loss, not his.
This country does NOT have an environment that frowns upon minority employment, so that argument is inappropriate. Repairing damages that occurred to someone's parents does not, in fact, help them.
Actually, the government DOES have business in how you conduct your hiring practices. If you hire one numbnut white guy over one brilliant black man you BOTH lose. You get a lousy employee and the black man doesn't get a job he's qualified for.
And if you hire 50 numbnut white guys and not one brilliant black man you're guilty of discriminating based on race.
Conservpat: I have a question, to all pro-AA individuals, do you guys and girls realize that it is a racist program?
No, I didn't realize that.
Do you realize slavery and segregation was affirmative action for white people?
And do you have any evidence that affirmative action is a racist program or just more one-liners?
If I choose to hire a numbnut white guy over a brilliant black man, it is MY loss, not his.
This country does NOT have an environment that frowns upon minority employment, so that argument is inappropriate. Repairing damages that occurred to someone's parents does not, in fact, help them.
Actually, the government DOES have business in how you conduct your hiring practices. If you hire one numbnut white guy over one brilliant black man you BOTH lose. You get a lousy employee and the black man doesn't get a job he's qualified for.
And if you hire 50 numbnut white guys and not one brilliant black man you're guilty of discriminating based on race.
Conservpat: I have a question, to all pro-AA individuals, do you guys and girls realize that it is a racist program?
No, I didn't realize that.
Do you realize slavery and segregation was affirmative action for white people?
And do you have any evidence that affirmative action is a racist program or just more one-liners?
Racism: a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race. [websters.com] Nighttimer, slavery happened 200 years ago. AA should insult all people of African American descent. This is what the gov't is telling you by establishing AA, "Black people are incapable of succeeding on your own and you need gov't help. The gov't will give black people their much needed help by giving them the same things that capable Majorities can earn without gov't help." Doesn't that insult you? My one liner was a good question, that was made obvious by you saying that AA isn't racist, which it obivously is [curtisy of my definition].
CP
Digital Patriot and Conservpat--thanks for the definitions of racism. I don't believe that either of them are definitive though.
I find both of them self-serving, but hey that's cool. I can work with self-serving. Here's my self-serving definition of "racism."
To some extent, racism and racial prejudice are fueled by a lack of understanding how the African community developed. For example, people say, "If my forebears could come over here and make it, what is wrong with Black people? Why are they still in such a bad condition?"
I could stand here and say that I think, culturally or ethnically, I'm better. I may have certain prejudices. And certainly we all do. But racism is distinguished by the fact that it is systemic and it relates to the question of power and capacity. That is to say, racism is about having the power or capacity to translate prejudices and attitudes or feeling of superiority into practice, custom, policy, or law. That is a fundamental difference between simply saying, "I don't like White folks" or. "I don't like Black folks." and the ability to impose that prejudice in a way that imposes upon and thwarts the ability of a group to develop. But it becomes very alarming when they have the power, through various institutions and mechanisms, to translate that dislike into policies and customs that block me and impede my ability to fulfill myself as a human being, or even do violence to my person.
In that regard, some of the terms that have come into prominent usage---particularly on the right, with the advent of Reaganism, Bush, and the right wing---such terms as "reverse discrimination" which may be possible, or "Black racism," which is almost an oxymoron. Can Black people be racist? Yes, but it implies being in circumstances and situations where there is the capacity to take antiwhite attitudes and to translate that into systems that thwart and impede the ability of white people. Quite frankly, that has not been the history here in the U.S. That does not mean that you don't have Black people who are prejudiced, who are bigoted, who get up and say bigoted things. But that is not in my judgment to be confused with racism. In fact, in some ways, to do that is to belittle the travail of slavery, the long history of racism and racist violence that has afflicted African people in this country.
---- Ron Daniels, executive director of the Center for Constitutional Rights
Columnist William Raspberry wrote that despite affirmative action, disparities still persist between blacks and whites. Raspberry pointed out the research of Harvard Univiersity professor Ronald Ferguson's survey of 34,000 middle and high-school teens in 15 affluent and racially mixed communities. Ferguson found a consistent "achievment gap" where whites averaged B-plus and blacks C-plus.
"Twenty-two percent of the black households surveyed had no computer, compared with just 3 percent of white households. Forty percent of black households had 100 or more books; 80 percent of the white families did. Fifty-three percent of the black children lived in homes from which at least one parent was absent, but only 15 percent of white kids," Raspberry wrote.
In an interview with the New York Times, Ferguson concluded, "Poltically, the damage from two centuries of slavery plus legalized segregation will not be undone in a generation, not even in suburbia."
The opponents of affirmative action on this board assert the program is racist, yet offer no option besides empty and unsupported homilies that the playing field is now level, opportunities abundant and institutional racism a thing of past. Well, we're not in Kansas anymore, Toto and wishing away the effects of 200 years of slavery and the following legalized racism of segregation won't make it so.
There is still a need for affirmative action and despite the proclamations and resentment of white males, the Supreme Court has recognized this to be so.
"Black people are incapable of succeeding on your own and you need gov't help. The gov't will give black people their much needed help by giving them the same things that capable Majorities can earn without gov't help." Doesn't that insult you?
The government hasn't "given" black people a damn thing, Conservpat. Every civil rights victory and the subsequent changes in public policy came after many years of protest and spilled blood (including the blood of white people). Black people succeed every day without a government program. I got into college not by affirmative action but by virute of the grades I earned and the work ethic my parents instilled in me. The only government program I used was the G.I. Bill, which is hardly a hand-out.
Finally, "Capable Majorities" (I'm guessing you mean 'white people') also get government help. They take out loans, they apply for grants, they use other government-sponsored programs to pay for or help them enter college. George W. Bush benefited from the "affirmative action" where the children of rich and influential parents get admitted into academies like Yale.
So, peddle that garbage elsewhere that white people don't have affirmative action that benefits them too. There doesn't seem to be any shortage of white CEO's, politicians, businessmen, and entrepreneurs losing out to unqualifed minorities. Not yesterday, not today and not anytime soon.
I find both of them self-serving, but hey that's cool. I can work with self-serving. Here's my self-serving definition of "racism."
To some extent, racism and racial prejudice are fueled by a lack of understanding how the African community developed. For example, people say, "If my forebears could come over here and make it, what is wrong with Black people? Why are they still in such a bad condition?"
I could stand here and say that I think, culturally or ethnically, I'm better. I may have certain prejudices. And certainly we all do. But racism is distinguished by the fact that it is systemic and it relates to the question of power and capacity. That is to say, racism is about having the power or capacity to translate prejudices and attitudes or feeling of superiority into practice, custom, policy, or law. That is a fundamental difference between simply saying, "I don't like White folks" or. "I don't like Black folks." and the ability to impose that prejudice in a way that imposes upon and thwarts the ability of a group to develop. But it becomes very alarming when they have the power, through various institutions and mechanisms, to translate that dislike into policies and customs that block me and impede my ability to fulfill myself as a human being, or even do violence to my person.
In that regard, some of the terms that have come into prominent usage---particularly on the right, with the advent of Reaganism, Bush, and the right wing---such terms as "reverse discrimination" which may be possible, or "Black racism," which is almost an oxymoron. Can Black people be racist? Yes, but it implies being in circumstances and situations where there is the capacity to take antiwhite attitudes and to translate that into systems that thwart and impede the ability of white people. Quite frankly, that has not been the history here in the U.S. That does not mean that you don't have Black people who are prejudiced, who are bigoted, who get up and say bigoted things. But that is not in my judgment to be confused with racism. In fact, in some ways, to do that is to belittle the travail of slavery, the long history of racism and racist violence that has afflicted African people in this country.
---- Ron Daniels, executive director of the Center for Constitutional Rights
Columnist William Raspberry wrote that despite affirmative action, disparities still persist between blacks and whites. Raspberry pointed out the research of Harvard Univiersity professor Ronald Ferguson's survey of 34,000 middle and high-school teens in 15 affluent and racially mixed communities. Ferguson found a consistent "achievment gap" where whites averaged B-plus and blacks C-plus.
"Twenty-two percent of the black households surveyed had no computer, compared with just 3 percent of white households. Forty percent of black households had 100 or more books; 80 percent of the white families did. Fifty-three percent of the black children lived in homes from which at least one parent was absent, but only 15 percent of white kids," Raspberry wrote.
In an interview with the New York Times, Ferguson concluded, "Poltically, the damage from two centuries of slavery plus legalized segregation will not be undone in a generation, not even in suburbia."
The opponents of affirmative action on this board assert the program is racist, yet offer no option besides empty and unsupported homilies that the playing field is now level, opportunities abundant and institutional racism a thing of past. Well, we're not in Kansas anymore, Toto and wishing away the effects of 200 years of slavery and the following legalized racism of segregation won't make it so.
There is still a need for affirmative action and despite the proclamations and resentment of white males, the Supreme Court has recognized this to be so.
"Black people are incapable of succeeding on your own and you need gov't help. The gov't will give black people their much needed help by giving them the same things that capable Majorities can earn without gov't help." Doesn't that insult you?
The government hasn't "given" black people a damn thing, Conservpat. Every civil rights victory and the subsequent changes in public policy came after many years of protest and spilled blood (including the blood of white people). Black people succeed every day without a government program. I got into college not by affirmative action but by virute of the grades I earned and the work ethic my parents instilled in me. The only government program I used was the G.I. Bill, which is hardly a hand-out.
Finally, "Capable Majorities" (I'm guessing you mean 'white people') also get government help. They take out loans, they apply for grants, they use other government-sponsored programs to pay for or help them enter college. George W. Bush benefited from the "affirmative action" where the children of rich and influential parents get admitted into academies like Yale.
So, peddle that garbage elsewhere that white people don't have affirmative action that benefits them too. There doesn't seem to be any shortage of white CEO's, politicians, businessmen, and entrepreneurs losing out to unqualifed minorities. Not yesterday, not today and not anytime soon.
Affirmative action is a strange topic, many avoid speaking their opinion to not offend anyone. I do beleive it is reverse discrimination, and since two wrong dont make a right, I beleive it should be altered. but since there is no other alterniative, it should be kept in place
When will affirmative action end? I guess it will when hiring a person or admitting a person of a different ethnicity does not arouse the ire of another ethnicity, when the person who lost the opportunity does not base the other's good fortune on the fact that they are "different" and, decides to either try again there or go elsewhere without raising a stink.
It's when the student and employee populations are so mixed that someone doesn't notice the color of the "new" person.
It's when the student and employee populations are so mixed that someone doesn't notice the color of the "new" person.
QUOTE(Eeyore @ Jun 30 2003, 10:25 PM)
But if a program is based on race I think it is safe to call it a racist program.
Now, that's an absurd conclusion. It's like saying that a policy of "first come, first served" is based on a hatred of those who arrive late. You can't just make "racism" mean whatever you want it to mean. Look at Digital Patriot's definition:
QUOTE
1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.
2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.
In what way does affirmative action assume that one race is superior to another or has the right to rule others? In what way does affirmative action endorse hatred or intolerance? Affirmative action exists to redress the damage done by generations of an assumption of white superiority and institutionalized hatred and intolerance of minorities. Affirmative action is about equal - equal, not superior - opportunity.
Anyone who claims that a level playing field now exists in America, anyone who claims that there is not still an environment here that frowns on minority opportunity, 1) lives in a different America from the one in which I live and 2) is white.
Affirmative action will end when there is equal opportunity in this country - and it should not end before. Hell, I say keep affirmative action in full force for two hundred years. A people who were enslaved for that long deserve no less. If that seems unfair to some poor, disadvantaged white folk, I say too freakin' bad. When did they start caring about "fair" - when they actually perceived something that could possibly look unfair to them?
QUOTE(Wertz @ Jul 2 2003, 01:03 AM)
Affirmative action will end when there is equal opportunity in this country - and it should not end before. Hell, I say keep affirmative action in full force for two hundred years. A people who were enslaved for that long deserve no less. If that seems unfair to some poor, disadvantaged white folk, I say too freakin' bad. When did they start caring about "fair" - when they actually perceived something that could possibly look unfair to them?
Equal opportunity already exists in this country. In those specific places it doesn't, take action against those specific companies or institutions. If the University of Michigan had been discriminating against blacks then it should have been prosecuted. Period.
There is no better way to keep the black man down than to continue to promote policies that say he is inferior. Keeping him dependent on you helps keep you in a position of superiority. The democratic party has used this strategy to hold onto black voters for decades. And when one of them strays to the conservative side he's labeled a traitor to his race and ungrateful to his 'masters'.
Just look at the criticism being tossed at Clarence Thomas for decrying the very system that got him where he is today. Here's a man of conscience and principle who made his decision based on the law. For that he's pilloried as an Uncle Tom.
You wanna keep the black man down? Keep telling him he can't make it on his own. Keep beating up on those who do make it and understand what's needed to succeed.
QUOTE(Wertz @ Jul 2 2003, 02:03 AM)
Hell, I say keep affirmative action in full force for two hundred years. A people who were enslaved for that long deserve no less.
Wertz, sorry to break it to you, but no one alive today in America was enslaved in America.
QUOTE
If that seems unfair to some poor, disadvantaged white folk, I say too freakin' bad. When did they start caring about "fair" - when they actually perceived something that could possibly look unfair to them?
So, you are stated straight out, that if the discrimination is against whites, its ok. People who themselves never discriminated against anyone are punished for the actions of their ancestors. How fair, how American.
AA is not racist, in terms of asserting that one race is superior, but it IS discriminatory, by definition. To end discrimination by supported further discrimination is a bit illogical, don't you think?
QUOTE(Wertz @ Jul 2 2003, 01:03 AM)
QUOTE(Eeyore @ Jun 30 2003, 10:25 PM)
But if a program is based on race I think it is safe to call it a racist program.
Now, that's an absurd conclusion. It's like saying that a policy of "first come, first served" is based on a hatred of those who arrive late. You can't just make "racism" mean whatever you want it to mean.
Not Absurd
QUOTE
If that seems unfair to some poor, disadvantaged white folk, I say too freakin' bad. When did they start caring about "fair" - when they actually perceived something that could possibly look unfair to them?
Absurd. This is saying that I believe that some peoples parents were unfair so I am going to be unfair to their children. Sounds like the recipe for disaster that is tearing up (or had been) many parts of the world. (Israel/Palestine, Kashmir, Ireland, South Africa)
This country is based on equality, too freakin' bad if that distresses you.
Definition of racism
QUOTE
Main Entry: rac·ism
Pronunciation: 'rA-"si-z&m also -"shi-
Function: noun
Date: 1936
1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
2 : racial prejudice or discrimination
- rac·ist /-sist also -shist/ noun or adjective
Pronunciation: 'rA-"si-z&m also -"shi-
Function: noun
Date: 1936
1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
2 : racial prejudice or discrimination
- rac·ist /-sist also -shist/ noun or adjective
Webster's on-line
I was not just making up a definition of racism. I was saying that if you base an action or thought or deed or program on the color of a person or a people's skin then you are practicing racism. This is a fact. It does not take in account whether the intentions of the action are malicious or altruistic.
When a student has to check what racial group he is in to enter college, it makes that person more aware of racial issues. If we are trying to acheive a color blind society this is not the way to do it. Racism is not okay when it is practiced by a weaker group.
Even in D.P.'s definition of rcism the word discrimination is included.
Affirmative action was a valid and necessary corrective for people who encountered state-sponsored and institutional racism all of their lives. I hope we can agree that the type of racism that exists today has been much improved from the type that faced Jackie Robinson, Emmit Till, James Meredith, and Medgar Evers.
I think this is just a sad statement. It is also racist.
QUOTE
Anyone who claims that a level playing field now exists in America, anyone who claims that there is not still an environment here that frowns on minority opportunity, 1) lives in a different America from the one in which I live and 2) is white.
So if I do not agree with you I am a white male in denial. I simply do not see the ever present frowning on minority achievement in this country. I see racism. I see bigots. I see major social problems. But I don't see institutional racism trying to deny opportunities to minorities.
Nighttimer's quotes
QUOTE
The opponents of affirmative action on this board assert the program is racist, yet offer no option besides empty and unsupported homilies that the playing field is now level, opportunities abundant and institutional racism a thing of past. Well, we're not in Kansas anymore, Toto and wishing away the effects of 200 years of slavery and the following legalized racism of segregation won't make it so.
Untrue. I have said time and time again in the AA related threads on this board that inequality of opportunity is bad for our society. I have proposed making an economic based remedy for lack of opportunity in segments of our society that come from a disadvantageous background.
This is the most recent.
QUOTE
I think AA was an appropriate response to America's past social problems and I think it is time to amend it and end it for the next generation. But some type of device to level the playing field of opportunity in this country is in our country's best interest. I think it should be based on economics. Then the new program will be classist.
QUOTE
Columnist William Raspberry wrote that despite affirmative action, disparities still persist between blacks and whites. Raspberry pointed out the research of Harvard Univiersity professor Ronald Ferguson's survey of 34,000 middle and high-school teens in 15 affluent and racially mixed communities. Ferguson found a consistent "achievment gap" where whites averaged B-plus and blacks C-plus.
This is a problem for our society. Can the only factor that creates this result be that American institutions are systematically racist and need AA programs to correct the results of them? This is a disturbing statistic and I think we need to delve into this type of disparity in achievement in students in the same schools with an open mind and a scientific approach and find ways of narrowing this achievenemt gap. I do not believe that the effective remedy for this problem is to call the white student with a B-plus an equal student to the black student with the C plus. If those students went to the same school and took the same class, the B plus student is a better student than the C plus student. (The other option is to say that the schools system and/or the teacher is racist.)
QUOTE
That is to say, racism is about having the power or capacity to translate prejudices and attitudes or feeling of superiority into practice, custom, policy, or law.
Ron Daniels, executive director of the Center for Constitutional Rights
Now this is more like inventing definitions for racism. Just because I am powerless, if I am a racist bigot who casts out epithets of all varieties to people of all colors and creeds, then I am a racist. One person who beats up another person because of the color of his skin is a racist. Racism is about seeing a person based on the color of their skin and acting accordingly.
Folks, it was not an opinion question that I asked, there is a definitive answer to it. Yes AA is a racist program, it chooses people based on race, it's that simple. If you believe in AA, you believe in a racist program, this is not a good thing. Wertz, as stated before, there is not one slave left in the US. Also, I'll say again, wouldn't you find it insulting that people think the gov't needs to help one race needs help becoming successful. AA says that minorities can't do it on there own, this is disgusting.
CP
CP
QUOTE(Conservpat @ Jul 2 2003, 10:46 AM)
AA says that minorities can't do it on there own, this is disgusting.
CP
CP
Where does any Affirmative Action document or program state this?
QUOTE(Eeyore @ Jul 2 2003, 01:22 PM)
QUOTE(Conservpat @ Jul 2 2003, 10:46 AM)
AA says that minorities can't do it on there own, this is disgusting.
CP
CP
Where does any Affirmative Action document or program state this?
Why else would minorities need the gov't's help? They are fully able to succeed for themselves, right. AA's answer: Wrong. Giving somebody money [or anything else] implies that they need it, if we delve into why it is needed by minorities we come down to two conclusions.
1. All minorities are poor so they need all the help they can get. Reality: No that's not true, it can't be the reason AA is needed.
2. Minorities cannot succeed by themselves. Reality, that isn't true, but AA would have you know that that is true, ol' Uncle Sam needs to help these poor [I mean the non-economical meaning of poor] minorities cause they can't do it themselves, tisk tisk.
CP
Affirmative Action was not put in place because minorities could not get ahead but because they were facing systemic obstacle to getting ahead. (Despite this we had Thurgood Marshall, Jackie Robinson, caesar Chavez, Martin Luther King etc.)
Just because some people will always get ahead does not mean that it is just to allow a group of people to face direct discrimination that is applied in the work place and through governments.
As I have posted now several times in this thread, Affirmative Action was created for people who had lived under Plessy v. Ferguson and Jim Crow, who had lived in a society that felt it was acceptable to deny certain opportunities because of a person's skin color. It was put in place so people would not face the problems that afflicted Jackie Robinson and Rosa Parks and James Meredith.
Those people were flagrantly denied access to opportunity. A system needed to be put in place. So affirmative action was not put in place place to help out a weak people, it was put in place to help individuals who had been directly harmed by a racist society.
The question should be, have we gotten to the point where we can remove this race based remedy? I think it is best for society to move to an economic based system of helping provide equal access to opportunity for the best and brightest of our society. If we deny our poor geniuses opportunity, then we deny ourselves prosperity.
Just because some people will always get ahead does not mean that it is just to allow a group of people to face direct discrimination that is applied in the work place and through governments.
As I have posted now several times in this thread, Affirmative Action was created for people who had lived under Plessy v. Ferguson and Jim Crow, who had lived in a society that felt it was acceptable to deny certain opportunities because of a person's skin color. It was put in place so people would not face the problems that afflicted Jackie Robinson and Rosa Parks and James Meredith.
Those people were flagrantly denied access to opportunity. A system needed to be put in place. So affirmative action was not put in place place to help out a weak people, it was put in place to help individuals who had been directly harmed by a racist society.
The question should be, have we gotten to the point where we can remove this race based remedy? I think it is best for society to move to an economic based system of helping provide equal access to opportunity for the best and brightest of our society. If we deny our poor geniuses opportunity, then we deny ourselves prosperity.
QUOTE(Eeyore @ Jul 2 2003, 01:45 PM)
Affirmative Action was not put in place because minorities could not get ahead but because they were facing systemic obstacle to getting ahead. (Despite this we had Thurgood Marshall, Jackie Robinson, caesar Chavez, Martin Luther King etc.)
Just because some people will always get ahead does not mean that it is just to allow a group of people to face direct discrimination that is applied in the work place and through governments.
As I have posted now several times in this thread, Affirmative Action was created for people who had lived under Plessy v. Ferguson and Jim Crow, who had lived in a society that felt it was acceptable to deny certain opportunities because of a person's skin color. It was put in place so people would not face the problems that afflicted Jackie Robinson and Rosa Parks and James Meredith.
Those people were flagrantly denied access to opportunity. A system needed to be put in place. So affirmative action was not put in place place to help out a weak people, it was put in place to help individuals who had been directly harmed by a racist society.
The question should be, have we gotten to the point where we can remove this race based remedy? I think it is best for society to move to an economic based system of helping provide equal access to opportunity for the best and brightest of our society. If we deny our poor geniuses opportunity, then we deny ourselves prosperity.
Just because some people will always get ahead does not mean that it is just to allow a group of people to face direct discrimination that is applied in the work place and through governments.
As I have posted now several times in this thread, Affirmative Action was created for people who had lived under Plessy v. Ferguson and Jim Crow, who had lived in a society that felt it was acceptable to deny certain opportunities because of a person's skin color. It was put in place so people would not face the problems that afflicted Jackie Robinson and Rosa Parks and James Meredith.
Those people were flagrantly denied access to opportunity. A system needed to be put in place. So affirmative action was not put in place place to help out a weak people, it was put in place to help individuals who had been directly harmed by a racist society.
The question should be, have we gotten to the point where we can remove this race based remedy? I think it is best for society to move to an economic based system of helping provide equal access to opportunity for the best and brightest of our society. If we deny our poor geniuses opportunity, then we deny ourselves prosperity.
We aren't talking about then though Eeyore. Now. There are no Jim Crow Laws now. Minorities no longer have the excuse of slavery, now [it was viable in the early 60's to 70's, obviously]. But now it is basically that AA is an establishment that gives minorities unearned jobs, ect. because some people don't think that those positions could be earned by the minorities' without help.
CP
QUOTE(amlord @ Jul 2 2003, 08:47 AM)
So, you are stated straight out, that if the discrimination is against whites, its ok. People who themselves never discriminated against anyone are punished for the actions of their ancestors. How fair, how American.
Nope. Read more carefully. I stated that "If [affirmative action] seems unfair to some..." then that is a great pity. They are wrong. It is not unfair - and they do not have my sympathy. No one is being punished for anything - unless affirmative action is removed and white racists can return to their customary practice of hiring discrimination with impunity. Then minorities return to being punished and white men return to exercising their "superiority". The resent at being denied this privilege is lurking millimeters beneath the surface of this entire thread. No further argument is needed.
In what possible way can you or anyone else construe someone with equal skills and an equal level of experience being given a job, simply because someone with exactly the same qualifications is not given that job?
"Discrimination", by the way, is defined as "unfair treatment of a person or group on the basis of prejudice" (WordNet) or "treatment or consideration based on class or category rather than individual merit; partiality or prejudice" (The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language). Affirmative action is based first and only in the context of absolutely equal merit. To put any other spin on it is disingenuous, to say the least.
If affirmative action mandated the acceptance of less qualified - or unqualified - minorities over fully qualified whites, then yes, that would be reverse discrimination. It does not. If affirmative action demanded that minorities be imported into regions to maintain a racial balance on the basis of national demographics, then yes, that could be seen as reverse discrimination. It does not. If affirmative action dictated the hiring of a greater number of qualified racial minorities than are proportionally reflected in the local population, then yes, that would be reverse discrimination. It does not. "Reverse discrimination" is a foul myth, put forward by racists - closet or otherwise. Period.
QUOTE
"Reverse discrimination" is a foul myth, put forward by racists - closet or otherwise. Period.
More like comma. I'm not a racist, as a matter of fact, as I've stated before I have full African American family members. And I think that they as are all people capable of earning what they get. AA insinuates that some people [African Americans] need help getting what they want, that is insulting.
CP
QUOTE
We aren't talking about then though Eeyore. Now. There are no Jim Crow Laws now. Minorities no longer have the excuse of slavery, now [it was viable in the early 60's to 70's, obviously]. But now it is basically that AA is an establishment that gives minorities unearned jobs, ect. because some people don't think that those positions could be earned by the minorities' without help.
This is one topic that I agree with you on. I think that affirmative Action continues the race debate in our country. I think AA is obsolete in the 21st century. Look at Condaliza Rice and Colin Powell, for instance. I for one am 'color blind', if the person is qualified for the job and their personality fits with the coworkers, they deserve the job. And if they don't, well... sorry, get another job. Now, I'm not naive and I know not everyone in the world is 'color blind', but i think AA gives it's apponents the impression that the African American community needs assistance, well it doesn't. I have black friends who are offended by AA because they think it belittles them. The African American community is a strong and proud people that don't need the assistance of leeches, like AA has become.
Wertz: Anyone who claims that a level playing field now exists in America, anyone who claims that there is not still an environment here that frowns on minority opportunity, 1) lives in a different America from the one in which I live and 2) is white.
Wertz, I totally agree with the first part of your statement. As regards the second part, there are many conservatives of color (Linda Chavez, Michelle Malkin, Armstrong Williams, Walter Williams, Uncle Clarence Thomas and the repugnant Ward Connerly) who believe as white conservatives that affirmative action is wrong.
Eeyore:
This is a problem for our society. Can the only factor that creates this result be that American institutions are systematically racist and need AA programs to correct the results of them? This is a disturbing statistic and I think we need to delve into this type of disparity in achievement in students in the same schools with an open mind and a scientific approach and find ways of narrowing this achievenemt gap. I do not believe that the effective remedy for this problem is to call the white student with a B-plus an equal student to the black student with the C plus. If those students went to the same school and took the same class, the B plus student is a better student than the C plus student. (The other option is to say that the schools system and/or the teacher is racist.)
The achievement gap that Professor Ferguson has found is troublesome. If I were a believer of eugenics or The Bell Curve I would believe this is proof of the genetic inferiority of blacks. But I'm not a believer of eugenics and I despise The Bell Curve, so I don't think this is proof of genetic inferiority. Perhaps if black families purchased more computers and books and stayed intact like white families we would see the gap closing. However, the first step in solving a problem is identifying it exists and then finding solutions to the problem.
I find your proposal Eeyore of moving to a more economically-based need program in place of affirmative action a interesting idea. Perhaps moving this debate from a "us vs them" paradigm based on race to one based on economic class might make things a bit less polarizing.
Passion51: There is no better way to keep the black man down than to continue to promote policies that say he is inferior. Keeping him dependent on you helps keep you in a position of superiority. The democratic party has used this strategy to hold onto black voters for decades. And when one of them strays to the conservative side he's labeled a traitor to his race and ungrateful to his 'masters'.
Just look at the criticism being tossed at Clarence Thomas for decrying the very system that got him where he is today. Here's a man of conscience and principle who made his decision based on the law. For that he's pilloried as an Uncle Tom.
You wanna keep the black man down? Keep telling him he can't make it on his own. Keep beating up on those who do make it and understand what's needed to succeed.
Clarence Thomas is one of the most tragic figures in America today. Here's one of the most powerful black men in America and one of the most widely reviled among his own race. Why? Not because he's a conservative. Colin Powell is a conservative and he's among one of the most admired men on the planet and not just by blacks.
Uncle Clarence Thomas is a skinnin' and grinnin' hankerchief head house slave who shuffles along and sucks up to whatever Massa Rehnquist and Scalia says. Uncle Thomas got to where he is not because he was "the most qualified" man for the job as President Bush I said lying through his teeth. He was the most qualified black face willing to go along and get along with the wishes of white conservatives.
In order to advance his own career, Thomas pimped out his own sister for the amusement of white conservatives. He used affirmative action programs to move himself along and now works tirelessly to deny others the opportunity he benefited from.
Charles Barkley (another well-known black conservative) said he was dining with a jazz musician and the musician reminded Barkley, "When you take the elevator to the top, don't forget to send it back down."
Uncle Clarence (who as an Associate Justice has hired very few black clerks) never heard this advice. He has concentrated with ruthless zeal the advancement of his own career and whomever he had to pimp to do so, he did. Sucking up to white power can pay off when you do it as well as Thomas.
I have zero respect for Uncle Clarence Thomas. Not because he's a conservative. Because he's the worst kind of sell-out. The kind that benefits from the blood, sweat and tears of others that made it possible for him to get where he is but denies to others that self-same benefit. The day he leaves the Supreme Court will be a day of rejoicing.
Conservpat:Yes AA is a racist program, it chooses people based on race, it's that simple. If you believe in AA, you believe in a racist program, this is not a good thing. Wertz, as stated before, there is not one slave left in the US
No, it's your characterization of affirmative action that is simple, Conservpat. Your tendency to try and wave away the effect of 200 years of slavery and decades of segregation and Jim Crow laws indicates a willful blindness and a lack of understanding of how insidious and through "the peculiar institution" of legalized racism and white supremacy has done to black people in this country.
If you think the effects of slavery and centuries of state-sponsored racism died with the slaves you need to wake up and smell the coffee. 30-plus years of affimative action barely begin to redress this monstrous and abominable evil.
Or perhaps you'd be interested in Charles Krauthammer's proposition that all affirmative action programs should be ended in exchange in granting reparations to black Americans for slavery?
I think I can guess what you would think of that notion. Ward Connerly wants to hang out with you.
Wertz, I totally agree with the first part of your statement. As regards the second part, there are many conservatives of color (Linda Chavez, Michelle Malkin, Armstrong Williams, Walter Williams, Uncle Clarence Thomas and the repugnant Ward Connerly) who believe as white conservatives that affirmative action is wrong.
Eeyore:
This is a problem for our society. Can the only factor that creates this result be that American institutions are systematically racist and need AA programs to correct the results of them? This is a disturbing statistic and I think we need to delve into this type of disparity in achievement in students in the same schools with an open mind and a scientific approach and find ways of narrowing this achievenemt gap. I do not believe that the effective remedy for this problem is to call the white student with a B-plus an equal student to the black student with the C plus. If those students went to the same school and took the same class, the B plus student is a better student than the C plus student. (The other option is to say that the schools system and/or the teacher is racist.)
The achievement gap that Professor Ferguson has found is troublesome. If I were a believer of eugenics or The Bell Curve I would believe this is proof of the genetic inferiority of blacks. But I'm not a believer of eugenics and I despise The Bell Curve, so I don't think this is proof of genetic inferiority. Perhaps if black families purchased more computers and books and stayed intact like white families we would see the gap closing. However, the first step in solving a problem is identifying it exists and then finding solutions to the problem.
I find your proposal Eeyore of moving to a more economically-based need program in place of affirmative action a interesting idea. Perhaps moving this debate from a "us vs them" paradigm based on race to one based on economic class might make things a bit less polarizing.
Passion51: There is no better way to keep the black man down than to continue to promote policies that say he is inferior. Keeping him dependent on you helps keep you in a position of superiority. The democratic party has used this strategy to hold onto black voters for decades. And when one of them strays to the conservative side he's labeled a traitor to his race and ungrateful to his 'masters'.
Just look at the criticism being tossed at Clarence Thomas for decrying the very system that got him where he is today. Here's a man of conscience and principle who made his decision based on the law. For that he's pilloried as an Uncle Tom.
You wanna keep the black man down? Keep telling him he can't make it on his own. Keep beating up on those who do make it and understand what's needed to succeed.
Clarence Thomas is one of the most tragic figures in America today. Here's one of the most powerful black men in America and one of the most widely reviled among his own race. Why? Not because he's a conservative. Colin Powell is a conservative and he's among one of the most admired men on the planet and not just by blacks.
Uncle Clarence Thomas is a skinnin' and grinnin' hankerchief head house slave who shuffles along and sucks up to whatever Massa Rehnquist and Scalia says. Uncle Thomas got to where he is not because he was "the most qualified" man for the job as President Bush I said lying through his teeth. He was the most qualified black face willing to go along and get along with the wishes of white conservatives.
In order to advance his own career, Thomas pimped out his own sister for the amusement of white conservatives. He used affirmative action programs to move himself along and now works tirelessly to deny others the opportunity he benefited from.
Charles Barkley (another well-known black conservative) said he was dining with a jazz musician and the musician reminded Barkley, "When you take the elevator to the top, don't forget to send it back down."
Uncle Clarence (who as an Associate Justice has hired very few black clerks) never heard this advice. He has concentrated with ruthless zeal the advancement of his own career and whomever he had to pimp to do so, he did. Sucking up to white power can pay off when you do it as well as Thomas.
I have zero respect for Uncle Clarence Thomas. Not because he's a conservative. Because he's the worst kind of sell-out. The kind that benefits from the blood, sweat and tears of others that made it possible for him to get where he is but denies to others that self-same benefit. The day he leaves the Supreme Court will be a day of rejoicing.
Conservpat:Yes AA is a racist program, it chooses people based on race, it's that simple. If you believe in AA, you believe in a racist program, this is not a good thing. Wertz, as stated before, there is not one slave left in the US
No, it's your characterization of affirmative action that is simple, Conservpat. Your tendency to try and wave away the effect of 200 years of slavery and decades of segregation and Jim Crow laws indicates a willful blindness and a lack of understanding of how insidious and through "the peculiar institution" of legalized racism and white supremacy has done to black people in this country.
If you think the effects of slavery and centuries of state-sponsored racism died with the slaves you need to wake up and smell the coffee. 30-plus years of affimative action barely begin to redress this monstrous and abominable evil.
Or perhaps you'd be interested in Charles Krauthammer's proposition that all affirmative action programs should be ended in exchange in granting reparations to black Americans for slavery?
I think I can guess what you would think of that notion. Ward Connerly wants to hang out with you.
QUOTE(nighttimer @ Jul 2 2003, 02:48 PM)
Wertz: Anyone who claims that a level playing field now exists in America, anyone who claims that there is not still an environment here that frowns on minority opportunity, 1) lives in a different America from the one in which I live and 2) is white.
Wertz, I totally agree with the first part of your statement. As regards the second part, there are many conservatives of color (Linda Chavez, Michelle Malkin, Armstrong Williams, Walter Williams, Uncle Clarence Thomas and the repugnant Ward Connerly) who believe as white conservatives that affirmative action is wrong.
Wertz, I totally agree with the first part of your statement. As regards the second part, there are many conservatives of color (Linda Chavez, Michelle Malkin, Armstrong Williams, Walter Williams, Uncle Clarence Thomas and the repugnant Ward Connerly) who believe as white conservatives that affirmative action is wrong.
I was using the adjective "white" metaphorically.
:::::::::::::::::::::::::
QUOTE(Conservpat @ Jul 2 2003, 02:26 PM)
AA insinuates that some people [African Americans] need help getting what they want, that is insulting.
AA recognizes that racism is still widespread in in America. It recognizes that, because of this "residual" racism, equal opportunity does not exist in the United States of America. This is a recognition of facts. The whole "this insults qualified black people" argument is just another attempt to keep this racism institutionalized. It's just a bit more insidious because it pretends to be something else.
QUOTE(Billy Jean @ Jul 2 2003, 02:36 PM)
I think AA is obsolete in the 21st century. Look at Condaliza Rice and Colin Powell, for instance. I for one am 'color blind', if the person is qualified for the job and their personality fits with the coworkers, they deserve the job. And if they don't, well... sorry, get another job. Now, I'm not naive and I know not everyone in the world is 'color blind', but i think AA gives it's apponents the impression that the African American community needs assistance, well it doesn't. I have black friends who are offended by AA because they think it belittles them. The African American community is a strong and proud people that don't need the assistance of leeches, like AA has become.
QUOTE
Billy Jean, as a proud and out woman whom has doubtlessly at one time or another faced obstacles as an openly gay woman, I'm a bit surprised that you think "AA is obsolete in the 21st century."
Condoleeza Rice and Colin Powell have both expressed to President Bush that there is still a need for affirmative action. Ms. Rice was a friend of one of the four black girls that were killed in the bombing of a church in Birmingham. That incident and growing up in the segregated South left an indelible impression upon her.
Secretary of State Powell outraged conservatives when he spoke at the Republican National Convention in defense of affimative action and how he personally had benefited from it.
You may be "color blind" Billy Jean, but you're not above being biased or prejudiced. Everybody is in some small way. Maybe we roll our eyes at fat people or interracial couples or two women walking through the park holding hands. It's not the nicest emotion, but as long as you don't discriminate against fat people or interracial couples or two women committed to each other, I don't have a problem with it.
Affirmative action doesn't provide assistance to blacks and other groups as much as it guarantees
access to opportunities. Affirmative action doesn't guarantee that a poor student will remain in school if they don't make the grade. Affirmative action doesn't give black kids a free ride through college or guarantee them a fat-five figure salary with a Fortune 500 company when they graduate. AA programs opens the process to those whom it has previously excluded.
And as you have spoken elsewhere in other threads, gays and lesbians are fighting for their rights as well. The big difference is programs and laws to end discrimination against the GLBT community are denounced as "special rights."
Well, "affirmative action" by any other name....
Man, blacks have it so easy. They all get AA and get into great colleges and then, through AA, they are all getting paid loads of money at jobs I was rejected from. Meanwhile, us poor old white men, things are not looking good for us. We have to work 177 times as hard just to get somewhere. No one gives us a hand up.
If you believe that, I've definitely got a bridge to sell you.
Whites swimming in a sea of racial preference
If you believe that, I've definitely got a bridge to sell you.
Whites swimming in a sea of racial preference
AA chooses people based on race, that is racism nighttimer. And that is why I think that most pro-AA people are as they are, they do not realize the racist factors of AA or refuse to agnowledge it for the bad thing that it is. Call me a right-wing loony but I think people should work for what they get. Show me one slave folks, just one modern slave. Hey, I've got an idea, let's give me easy application to college, I'm Catholic, thousands of Catholics are being killed everyday in Northern Ireland, hey, I'm also Italian, Italian immigrants were not granted jobs back in the 1800's where's my AA?
CP
CP
OK, you're a right-wing looney. 
Billy Jean, since Private Messaging is meant to be private, you should obtain the author's permission to reprint a PM on the board. Thank you.
Billy Jean, since Private Messaging is meant to be private, you should obtain the author's permission to reprint a PM on the board. Thank you.
Note: I removed the Private message that was posted here. Let's keep the PM's private unless the sender gives you permission to publish it.
I'm sorry,
I just found it a little cowardly that someone couldn't say that in public. I've given him no reason to attack me like that.
I just found it a little cowardly that someone couldn't say that in public. I've given him no reason to attack me like that.
Is it possible to make a distinction between a racist policy and a racially conscious policy? Meaning: in the former policy the idea was to exclude all of a certain race, and in the latter policy the idea is to be inclusive of races that were heretofore excluded or under-represented.
If you and your family were of a formerly excluded race, would it be a comfort for you to know that there was one less hurdle in your quest for an education or a decent livelihood?
I don't know, but as I am a Caucasian middle-aged woman and I can see it, can others here at least concede that the motivation is right in the latter instance?
If you and your family were of a formerly excluded race, would it be a comfort for you to know that there was one less hurdle in your quest for an education or a decent livelihood?
I don't know, but as I am a Caucasian middle-aged woman and I can see it, can others here at least concede that the motivation is right in the latter instance?
QUOTE(Paladin Elspeth @ Jul 2 2003, 03:41 PM)
Is it possible to make a distinction between a racist policy and a racially conscious policy? Meaning: in the former policy the idea was to exclude all of a certain race, and in the latter policy the idea is to be inclusive of races that were heretofore excluded or under-represented.
If you and your family were of a formerly excluded race, would it be a comfort for you to know that there was one less hurdle in your quest for an education or a decent livelihood?
I don't know, but as I am a Caucasian middle-aged woman and I can see it, can others here at least concede that the motivation is right in the latter instance?
If you and your family were of a formerly excluded race, would it be a comfort for you to know that there was one less hurdle in your quest for an education or a decent livelihood?
I don't know, but as I am a Caucasian middle-aged woman and I can see it, can others here at least concede that the motivation is right in the latter instance?
NO! Because again, show me one slave. Giving a group of people something that other groups do not receive implies that the other group needs it. Do you guys think that African Americans cannot succeed by themselves?
CP
QUOTE(DaytonRocker @ Jul 2 2003, 03:57 PM)
A quote from the article (the summary):
QUOTE
Instead, be pragmatic. Simply state that that dog won't hunt. By their own terms, the 30 year multi-billion dollar affirmative action experiment has been a colossal failure.
And then tell them about a program for Black advancement with an astonishing success rate. One proven to increase Black employment prospects by more than 40%. One proven to reduce Black poverty rates by 50%. One proven to cut the Black high school drop out rate by half. One proven to reduce crime by 60%. In short, a program that works -- spectacularly.
It's called the two-parent family. In fact, controlling for all other variables, the two-parent family virtually eliminates all socio-economic differences between Blacks and Whites. Affirmative action for families, anyone?
And then tell them about a program for Black advancement with an astonishing success rate. One proven to increase Black employment prospects by more than 40%. One proven to reduce Black poverty rates by 50%. One proven to cut the Black high school drop out rate by half. One proven to reduce crime by 60%. In short, a program that works -- spectacularly.
It's called the two-parent family. In fact, controlling for all other variables, the two-parent family virtually eliminates all socio-economic differences between Blacks and Whites. Affirmative action for families, anyone?
It is very true that rarely is a problem so uni-dimensional. If we are identifying the wrong CAUSES for the problems that black people endure, can it be so hard to believe that we will come up with the wrong solutions?
Larry Elder provides his take on the worth of AA. I agree with him whole heartedly. Here's a sample....
QUOTE
Almost 140 years ago, black abolitionist Frederick Douglass, when asked how the country could help blacks, said, "In regard to the colored people, there is always more that is benevolent, I perceive, than just, manifested towards us. What I ask for the (N)egro is not benevolence, not pity, not sympathy, but simply justice. The American people have always been anxious to know what they shall do with us. . . . I have had but one answer from the beginning. Do nothing with us! (Y)our doing with us has already played the mischief with us. Do nothing with us! If the apples will not remain on the tree of their own strength, if they are worm-eaten at the core, if they are early ripe and disposed to fall, let them fall! . . . And if the (N)egro cannot stand on his own legs, let him fall also. All I ask is, give him a chance to stand on his own legs! Let him alone! . . . Your interference is doing him positive injury."
Passion51: I doubt that by "Do nothing with us!" Frederick Douglas meant "Don't hire us, don't promote us, don't admit us to college!" I suspect that by "justice" he could well have meant something like "equal opportunity" as opposed to the traditional "liberty and justice for white protestant men". Douglas' "All I ask is, give him a chance to stand on his own legs!" is the most salient sentence which Elder chose to quote. Affirmative Action gives him that chance.
I tend to lean anti-affirmative action. I think that it merely causes more problems than it actually helps. In most areas of the country we have moved forward by leaps and bounds in the past 30 years or so and at this point AA is no longer needed. Whatever residual race problems that exist will not be wiped out by a law such as AA they must be fixed by time. I don't know if throwing AA out the window in one fell sweep is the best idea but I definitely think its time to begin dismantling the system. This is especially the case as many baby boomers begin to retire and those in positions of power are not those who have experienced first hand the racially charged past of the 60s and 70s.
QUOTE(Wertz @ Jul 3 2003, 09:29 PM)
Passion51: I doubt that by "Do nothing with us!" Frederick Douglas meant "Don't hire us, don't promote us, don't admit us to college!" I suspect that by "justice" he could well have meant something like "equal opportunity" as opposed to the traditional "liberty and justice for white protestant men". Douglas' "All I ask is, give him a chance to stand on his own legs!" is the most salient sentence which Elder chose to quote. Affirmative Action gives him that chance.
You're corrupting the words of Mr. Douglas. He clearly saw that programs disguised as being helpful only served to hurt.
Earning your own way is the only path to respect. Giving someone a leg up is a gift. Lowering standards to be more inclusive or giving bonus points to someone based on their race does nothing but weaken the overall foundation.
I'm all for leveling the playing field. But that is never achieved by giving victories away. Turn your efforts to fixing elementary schooling and keeping families together. And punish those who prevent anyone from taking a place they've earned through their own merit.
QUOTE(Wertz @ Jul 3 2003, 10:29 PM)
Passion51: I doubt that by "Do nothing with us!" Frederick Douglas meant "Don't hire us, don't promote us, don't admit us to college!" I suspect that by "justice" he could well have meant something like "equal opportunity" as opposed to the traditional "liberty and justice for white protestant men". Douglas' "All I ask is, give him a chance to stand on his own legs!" is the most salient sentence which Elder chose to quote. Affirmative Action gives him that chance.
He also didn't say,"Please give African Americans something that we can earn by ourselves! God knows we need the gov't's help."
I'll ask again
QUOTE
Do you guys think that African Americans cannot succeed by themselves?
CP
QUOTE(Passion51 @ Jul 4 2003, 08:38 AM)
You're corrupting the words of Mr. Douglas. He clearly saw that programs disguised as being helpful only served to hurt.
I could argue that you are corrupting Douglass' words: to which "programs" exactly to you imagine Douglass was referring in 1860?? Douglass was clearly implying "You've done enough to us". He was arguing for justice - as opposed to injustice.
QUOTE
Earning your own way is the only path to respect. Giving someone a leg up is a gift.
How is providing equal opportunity giving someone a leg up? All it is doing is consenting to stop kicking the legs out from under people - or, as Douglass put it, giving one "a chance to stand on his own two legs".
QUOTE
Lowering standards to be more inclusive or giving bonus points to someone based on their race does nothing but weaken the overall foundation.
You are apparently suffering under a misapprehension: Affirmative Action does not lower standards - it does not offer a bonus of any description. Affirmative Action only applies in cases where candidates are equally qualified (or where the minority candidate is more qualified).
QUOTE
I'm all for leveling the playing field.
And that is precisely what Affirmative Action is for.
QUOTE
But that is never achieved by giving victories away.
Again, that has nothing whatsoever to do with Affirmative Action. It is illegal, Passion, to give any less qualified candidate, regardless of race, a position over a better qualified candidate, regardless of race. Affirmative Action is based solely and exclusively on merit.
QUOTE
Turn your efforts to fixing elementary schooling and keeping families together.
Some can walk and chew gum at the same time.
QUOTE
And punish those who prevent anyone from taking a place they've earned through their own merit.
Gee, that's exactly what Affirmative Action does. And that is all that it does. So I guess you're in favor of Affirmative Action after all - now that you know what it is.
:::::::::::::::::::::::::
QUOTE(Conservpat @ Jul 4 2003, 11:52 AM)
Do you guys think that African Americans cannot succeed by themselves?
On their own merits, of course African Americans could succeed by themselves. BUT given the ongoing level of institutionalized racism (and innate social racism as evidenced by many contributions to this thread), no. Absolutely not. Without programs like Affirmative Action, blacks in this country would be thwarted at every step.
:::::::::::::::::::::::::
If I may use a tactic of Passion51s for a moment, I'd like to ask how many white males here have personally suffered as a result of Affirmative Action. Any of you?
The likelihood is remote, at best. According to the US Bureau of the Census, there are fewer than two million unemployed black civilians in the US - and more than 100 million employed white civilians. If every unemployed black were to displace an employed white, less than 2% of whites would be affected. As Affirmative Action only applies to job-qualified applicants, the actual percentage of affected whites would be a small fraction of 1%. If every unemployed black displaced an employed white.
As a matter of fact, most job losses among whites are the result of factory closure and relocation, computerization and automation, and corporate downsizing. Maybe some of you should give up on the racial paranoia and become anti-corporate Luddites.
QUOTE
The likelihood is remote, at best. According to the US Bureau of the Census, there are fewer than two million unemployed black civilians in the US - and more than 100 million employed white civilians. If every unemployed black were to displace an employed white, less than 2% of whites would be affected. As Affirmative Action only applies to job-qualified applicants, the actual percentage of affected whites would be a small fraction of 1%. If every unemployed black displaced an employed white.
As a matter of fact, most job losses among whites are the result of factory closure and relocation, computerization and automation, and corporate downsizing. Maybe some of you should give up on the racial paranoia and become anti-corporate Luddites.
As a matter of fact, most job losses among whites are the result of factory closure and relocation, computerization and automation, and corporate downsizing. Maybe some of you should give up on the racial paranoia and become anti-corporate Luddites.
Now, with that said, how has AA helped over the last God knows how long. And no matter what type of excuse could be thought up, AA is institutionalized, gov't sponsered racism. This cannot be a good thing. Isn't true that there are quite a few black CEO's. Did you know that according to a national survey 8 years ago that black men were the most frequent small business owners [got that from my nephews business education book, lol]. Is there an explanation for these people. I guess this rampant racism problem isn't rampant at all. Do you actually think that the majority of the population is racist and actively descriminates against African Americans. Do you think that Human Resource officials, or at least the majority of them are racists, and/or actively descriminates against African Americans? Because if you don't there is not much that an AA arguement has to stand on.
CP
QUOTE(Conservpat @ Jul 4 2003, 09:32 AM)
Isn't true that there are quite a few black CEO's. Did you know that according to a national survey 8 years ago that black men were the most frequent small business owners [got that from my nephews business education book, lol].
I hate to be picky, but this didn't sound right to me, so I looked around a little. Here's what I found at the US census site.
QUOTE
The 1992 Economic Census programs identified almost 17.3 million individual
proprietorships, partnerships, and subchapter S corporations with sales and
receipts of $3.3 trillion. Table A provides summary totals of these firms
by business ownership group based on the responses to SMOBE, WOB, and the
Economic Census.
proprietorships, partnerships, and subchapter S corporations with sales and
receipts of $3.3 trillion. Table A provides summary totals of these firms
by business ownership group based on the responses to SMOBE, WOB, and the
Economic Census.
QUOTE
(number is number of firms)
Black . . . . . . . . . . 620,912
Nonminority male . . . . . 10,114,456
Black . . . . . . . . . . 620,912
Nonminority male . . . . . 10,114,456
Hmmm... doesn't seem to jibe with your figure. I am looking at a copy of what I am sure is the same survey. It's a 311 page PDF document. You can see it here.
CP:
QUOTE
Do you actually think that the majority of the population is racist and actively descriminates against African Americans. Do you think that Human Resource officials, or at least the majority of them are racists, and/or actively descriminates against African Americans? Because if you don't there is not much that an AA arguement has to stand on.
No, I don't think that the majority is racist, at least not consciously. It's not nearly as simplistic as you're making it out to be. It is possible that there is more depth to this problem then your either/or scenario allows.
QUOTE(Conservpat @ Jul 4 2003, 10:52 AM)
And if the (N)egro cannot stand on his own legs, let him fall also. All I ask is, give him a chance to stand on his own legs! Let him alone! .
Passion,
You've posted this before. Remember that Douglass said this in response to freedom from slavery. It looks to me that he was dead on, because what African-Americans got was Black Codes, Jim Crow, dejure and de facto segregation, discrimination in education and employment, and terror campaigns from white hooded people. In retrospect Douglass looks like a genius.
I bet Douglass' comments would have been markedly differnet in 1965 as they had been in 1865. Could African-Americans be much further along as a group if they had been freed without a perception of inequality from the group that had enslaved them? Most likely, yes.
QUOTE(Wertz @ Jul 4 2003, 11:25 AM)
If I may use a tactic of Passion51s for a moment, I'd like to ask how many white males here have personally suffered as a result of Affirmative Action. Any of you?
I have.
Sometime ago I worked for a large retail corp. There was a position open for a team leader(considered middle management). It was either going to be me or another employee getting the promotion. I am white, he was black. I had been there a year longer, had gotten 4 merit raises and been employee of the month 6 times in the past year.
He was given the promotion. When I inquired as to why. I was told that we needed to be more diverse at our store. And that I would be assured of the next position. Well I didn't hang around, and am better for it..
Oh and by the way, that company's stock is in the tank now.
QUOTE(Wertz @ Jul 4 2003, 11:25 AM)
You are apparently suffering under a misapprehension: Affirmative Action does not lower standards - it does not offer a bonus of any description. Affirmative Action only applies in cases where candidates are equally qualified (or where the minority candidate is more qualified).
The most recent AA program to make headlines is the U of Mich case. The school awarded a possible total of 200 points to each applicant. Blacks were awarded 20 points for being black. Whites were not able to get those points.
So tell me again, how is this program selecting among 'equally qualified' applicants?
Passion:
The points that were sued over were for being African-American. This does not mean that whites were not eligible to receive additional points as well. This has been documented several times on AD. Economic need got some points, being from the UP got some points etc.
I do have to disagree about the statement you quoted. (I know it was not your words or sentiments). Affirmative action does give people advantages among the group who are minimally qualified. By this I mean those who meet the admissions standards. But no system of racial preference would be encouraged at all if a race neutral policy created a target percentage of minority students getting admitted (or surpassed that target)
The points that were sued over were for being African-American. This does not mean that whites were not eligible to receive additional points as well. This has been documented several times on AD. Economic need got some points, being from the UP got some points etc.
I do have to disagree about the statement you quoted. (I know it was not your words or sentiments). Affirmative action does give people advantages among the group who are minimally qualified. By this I mean those who meet the admissions standards. But no system of racial preference would be encouraged at all if a race neutral policy created a target percentage of minority students getting admitted (or surpassed that target)
If society had taken care of this issue itself the government would not have to pure and simple.
i went to a certain inner city public school for about a year during a point in my life, we went over one spelling word per week, i dont remember any math, and it was just plain horrid. Compared to a public school i went to after that, you could get to algebra in the fifth grade. i dont know how this is across the board, but i saw some stuff out of a rap video down there, and it is just normal. The decline of certain areas or groups of people never occurred, it was always there, after slavery was ended, i dont think everything was equal shall we say, i should try to find a link huh. But i do know in some parts of this fine country you can find grandpa, pa, and son in the same prison system. Now if you at a young age, living in an area like such, actually realize all, this with nothing to help you, bust your butt, maybe it would be nice to be able to actually escape that. There is more then one college in the u.s that is entirely white, not that it is evil or done on purpose, but someone had to step in and help raise the bar for certin groups, because society at large(us) were not stepping in.
I think affirmative action or what not will cease when such things are not a problem shall we say, until then i agree with its existence.
the only thing i question on it, is the fact it is not fair across the board to immobile peoples, just a certain group.
maybe we should invest in some good old socialism
i went to a certain inner city public school for about a year during a point in my life, we went over one spelling word per week, i dont remember any math, and it was just plain horrid. Compared to a public school i went to after that, you could get to algebra in the fifth grade. i dont know how this is across the board, but i saw some stuff out of a rap video down there, and it is just normal. The decline of certain areas or groups of people never occurred, it was always there, after slavery was ended, i dont think everything was equal shall we say, i should try to find a link huh. But i do know in some parts of this fine country you can find grandpa, pa, and son in the same prison system. Now if you at a young age, living in an area like such, actually realize all, this with nothing to help you, bust your butt, maybe it would be nice to be able to actually escape that. There is more then one college in the u.s that is entirely white, not that it is evil or done on purpose, but someone had to step in and help raise the bar for certin groups, because society at large(us) were not stepping in.
I think affirmative action or what not will cease when such things are not a problem shall we say, until then i agree with its existence.
the only thing i question on it, is the fact it is not fair across the board to immobile peoples, just a certain group.
maybe we should invest in some good old socialism
QUOTE(Conservpat @ Jul 2 2003, 03:47 PM)
Do you guys think that African Americans cannot succeed by themselves?
QUOTE
Here's your answer: http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cf...CFTOKEN=5898469
There is no doubt that my career received an assist from affirmative-action efforts. To hire me right out of college, The Atlanta Journal (now merged with The Atlanta Constitution) suspended its usual rule of requiring a few years of solid experience at another daily newspaper. They did so as a remedy to years of legally sanctioned discrimination, which barred blacks from professional jobs at Southern newspapers, and years of restrictive social custom, which barred most women.
But they suspended no other rules for me. I was expected to write stories that were clear and concise, with names spelled correctly and numbers that added up. I was expected to stalk politicians trying to evade reporters, decipher budget documents and locate official records.
I had to work hard, since I lacked experience and didn't know what I was doing. But there were experienced reporters and editors around -- white men, given the times -- who were more than happy to help me when I came to them for advice. I learned the trade, and I like to think I'm pretty good at what I do.
QUOTE(Eeyore @ Jul 5 2003, 11:08 PM)
Passion:
The points that were sued over were for being African-American. This does not mean that whites were not eligible to receive additional points as well. This has been documented several times on AD. Economic need got some points, being from the UP got some points etc.
I do have to disagree about the statement you quoted. (I know it was not your words or sentiments). Affirmative action does give people advantages among the group who are minimally qualified. By this I mean those who meet the admissions standards. But no system of racial preference would be encouraged at all if a race neutral policy created a target percentage of minority students getting admitted (or surpassed that target)
The points that were sued over were for being African-American. This does not mean that whites were not eligible to receive additional points as well. This has been documented several times on AD. Economic need got some points, being from the UP got some points etc.
I do have to disagree about the statement you quoted. (I know it was not your words or sentiments). Affirmative action does give people advantages among the group who are minimally qualified. By this I mean those who meet the admissions standards. But no system of racial preference would be encouraged at all if a race neutral policy created a target percentage of minority students getting admitted (or surpassed that target)
Eyeore, if points are awarded to one group that cannot ever be gained by any other group, that is discriminatory.
There are so many versions of AA in place today, and far too many are wrong. If you set a certain standard for your program, one that is worthy of being called a standard and not some watered-down version, and you then go out of your way to choose a black, then your AA program is viable. Otherwise, its not and is probably illegal to boot.
One work-place example. In Philadelphia, the airport awarded a million dollar contract to a black whose only qualification was his race. He had zero experience in the field. As a matter of fact, the employees doing the work were transferred to a front company created to be headed by this black man so as to meet a minority set-aside.
This is a prevalent method of circumventing the spirit of these types of programs. The only reason this particular one ever saw the light of day was that the man involved is the Mayor's brother. Otherwise it would have flown below the radar too.
When successful blacks decry AA, they're not pulling the ladder up behind them. They're telling others that the ladder is nothing more than a crutch. And crutches become objects of hate to those forced to use them.
For the most part we no longer kick the legs out from under minorities. Those who do should be punished. The minority population itself is more than capable of standing on its own two legs. Giving them crutches does nothing more than keep the crutch-makers in business.
QUOTE(Passion51 @ Jul 6 2003, 07:02 AM)
if points are awarded to one group that cannot ever be gained by any other group, that is discriminatory.
So would you also favor eliminating the "legacy" points which, for historical reasons, cannot apply to any but a very few blacks? Or the "from the Upper Pensinsula" points? Or the "underprivileged" points which can't go to rich kids? How does one define a group, anyway? Athletes or musicians or boy scouts often get extra consideration in admissions. Should that not be allowed because non-athletes and non-musicians are groups that cannot benefit from such consideration?
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.