Quark: Sorry, screwed up reading , wrong year, I was reading the copyright, not the year issued, oops . But that still leaves your answer to my question. So if the majority of the people in this country, by your own admission, aren't racist, why establish a "counter racism" system such as AA?

Nighttimer: So if African Americans can do a job by themselves, why is AA nessesary?

CP

The examples you chose are all possible for blacks to achieve. Whites can't ever get the black points.

Probably never, even though its not needed.

Welcome to the forum. Please try and make your posts constructive so that they add to the debate.

If a white man scores perfect on his SATs and carries a 3.8 GPA, he gets squeezed out by a black man who scores 1100 on the SATs and has a 3.0 GPA. These stats are from Reader's Digest, June edition, Pg 106.

Favoritism of any kind, (especially the government-endorsed kind) violates the 1964 Civil Rights Amendment and equal opportunity law, but this crosses the line (by far) between a helping hand and a harsh racial discrimination.

An SAT score of 1100 means you can write your name without getting distracted and eating your pencil.

These programs squeeze out people that actually belong in the classroom, while admitting people who will slow the classes to a crawl.

These policies are an insult to competent blacks, and further perpetuate the paranoid bigotry, irresponsibility and general dysfunction of the black community.

Hi everyone. This is my first post, but I felt compelled to begin here with all of the misconceptions about AA that I've seen throughout this thread.

What makes ME qualified to dispel the myths and misconceptions? The fact that I have worked in Affirmative Action for a number of years and know firsthand what does and doesn't happen, what is and isn't AA, etc.

First and foremost, I believe that the only way to really begin making educated decisions is to open yourself up to dialogue on both sides - forums such as this are an ideal way to see both sides of an argument in ways you might not have previously examined or even known.

This is going to be long, so I'll try to break it into sections for ease of reading/understanding.

WHAT IS AFFIRMATIVE ACTION?

First, despite the fact that AA is a household term, most people really and truly have no idea what it really means and encompasses. It’s not a quota system (quota systems ARE illegal), it’s not allowing unqualified people a free reign on jobs, it’s not just about hiring, it's not black vs. white…the list of assumptions/misinformation goes on and on,. Companies that are not federal contractors or sub-contractors do not fall under the federal Affirmative Action program and while they may implement their own programs under the guise of AA, AA is NOT any of the above things.

I worked in AA before my military husband drew an assignment in Belgium (technically I could continue here, but because the information we work with is “classified” and “sensitive”, most companies don’t want their employee data shipped all over creation, with good reason). My step-father’s father is the president of the Arizona Affirmative Action Association (referred to as Quad A by those who are members or familiar). I worked directly for him writing and maintaining AA programs for all sorts of companies throughout the U.S. Not only did we write AA programs, but we also had to analyze Thousands of pages of company employee data in order to implement these programs. As a result, I saw the “big picture” of MANY companies’ practices pre-AA and post-AA. Let me tell you that AA made a HUGE difference in some areas and only a minimal difference in others – but the main point is that it DOES make a difference. But let's first get to the definitions of AA, shall we?

The basic premises of Affirmative Action (Executive Order 11246) can be read here:
http://www.dol.gov/esa/regs/compliance/ofccp/aa.htm, here
http://www.dol.gov/esa/regs/compliance/ofc...ccp/fs11246.htm AND here: http://www.dol.gov/esa/regs/compliance/ofc...cp/ca_11246.htm

If you don’t have time to read, the important parts are highlighted below:

From first link: The numerical goals are established based on the availability of qualified applicants in the job market or qualified candidates in the employer’s work force. Executive Order numerical goals do not create set-asides for specific groups, not are they designed to achieve proportional representation or equal results…The regulations at 41 CFR 60—2.12(e), 60-2.30, and 60-2.15, specifically prohibit quota and preferential hiring and promotions under the guise of affirmative action numerical goals.

From second link: Each government contractor with more than 50 employees and $50,000 or more in government contracts is required to develop a written Affirmative Action Program (AAP) for each of its establishments…

Expanded efforts in outreach, recruitment, training, and other areas are some of the affirmative steps contractors can take to help members of the protected groups compete for jobs on equal footing with other applicants and employees…

OFCCP conducts compliance reviews to investigate the employment practices of government contractors. During a compliance review, a compliance officer examines the contractor’s [AAP]; checks personnel, payroll, and other employment records; interviews employees and company officials; and investigates virtually all aspects of employment in the company.

Obviously not all companies fall under the federal government’s Affirmative Action program, so they set up their own programs, if desired. I don’t know anything about them because we only worked with federally contracted companies. I assume that quotas may be allowable in certain companies (obviously they've been implemented in school admissions), but those companies have nothing to do with Affirmative Action and EO 11246.

There is one exception to the "no quota" rule for federal AA programs, and that is with respect to women in construction. There is a numerical "goal" of 6.9% of women in construction (these goals are based on data supporting the notion that there are far more than that percentage of women who are qualified, btw).

PERSONAL EXPERIENCE AS AN AA CONSULTANT

The so called “playing field” is not even CLOSE to being level (it would be a violation of my job contract to disclose private/classified information, which is where the statistics come from – sorry you’ll just have to take my word). Let me start by saying that AA is not perfect, but it’s a start and a step in the right direction. I wish we didn’t need AA in order to ensure that people are being hired on “qualifications” (as I said, quotas or anything similar are ILLEGAL), but the fact is that we do and that is grossly evident in company statistics.

We look not only at hiring and promotion practices, but “recruiting” and firing practices as well. A lot of companies, after having their first AAP, see that they simply aren’t doing what they can do recruit women and minorities. Great strides have been made in those areas in particular. Once certain problems are brought to the attention of companies, I’d say 8.5 times out of 10 they “fix” it. By “fix” I mean assuring that qualified women and minorities are being considered for promotions, posting job openings in atypical publications in order to reach a certain audience that was not formerly reached (i.e. a Hispanic community publication), etc. The biggest plus of AA is the mere realization once companies actually see the data on paper. It’s easy to believe you are doing everything in your power to be “fair” when you don’t see the numbers glaring at you. But when those numbers are there, a whole different picture is often painted. We had access to every imaginable tidbit of employee info…Tenure (to include time at their current position, time in company, time in their field at any company, etc.), salary, sex, “race”/ethnic classification, the list goes on and on. For example, “Firing” data is separated into those who were dismissed favorably (cutbacks, etc.) and those who were dismissed unfavorably (fired for work ethic, problems on the job, etc.) so we can get a better picture of what is going on. Obviously, statistics don’t paint the entire picture, but they sure do paint a vivid one.

The biggest discrepancy we saw across the board (from company to company, department to department, etc.) was with respect to salary. Pay was considerably lower for minorities and women (no big surprise there I imagine) than white men. And when I say considerable I mean it - we’re talking an average of about 12-15% difference, which is just horrid. The next discrepancy was with respect to management positions or other high-end positions within companies. White men (with the exception of medical facilities, which had a decent number of Asian management positions) almost ALWAYS filled these positions, despite the fact that there were a lot of eligible candidates for the jobs who were not white men.

Many of the companies we wrote AAPs for were in the southwest U.S. – areas with high populations of Mexican Americans. In these companies, Mexican Americans were almost always at the “bottom of the totem pole” with respect to pay (as related to position/tenure), promotions, etc. with African Americans and women next in line. In non-southwest companies, African Americans were at the bottom, then women.

The vast majority of the companies we worked with either had no full-time position in EO for HR or had an HR person in charge of EO and countless other HR “programs”. As such, many of the companies’ data showed potential for discrimination problems (race/gender). When there is no one keeping an eye on such information, problems go unnoticed. Once we wrote AAPs, it usually took 3-5 years for improvements to be made, and those improvements were great. In many instances, salary levels were the first things to change. This sort of discrimination (all other things being equal) is easy to overlook unless you have the data in front of you - salaries aren't something widely discussed among employees - most people don't exactly sit around the water cooler discussing their paychecks . Once it was clear that salaries were drastically different, changes were put in place to remedy those differences: incremental raises at a higher rate than previously seen, etc.

Obviously, companies have to WANT to make positive strides in order for it to work. We have had companies who felt that their policies needed no altering even though they did little to make the work force either accessible or enjoyable for minorities and/or women. Those companies will obviously not benefit from AAPs in the same manner as companies who really are trying to do everything in their power to eliminate discrimination. Some companies (probably most) only have AAPs because they have to by law. But that doesn’t mean some good won’t come out of that. AAPs force companies to address issues of discrimination or potential problem areas. While some might not WANT to address those issues, AAPs bring those issues to light. IMO, that is the greatest "help" that AA is doing - brining the "problem" issues to light with glaring, irrefutable statistics (specific to each company and locale).

Another problem that has recently been in the news media is the “resume” factor. Story from the AP:

http://www.msnbc.com/news/859373.asp

“The study conducted by professors at the University of Chicago Graduate School of Business and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology found that resumes with white-sounding names elicited 50 percent more responses than ones with black-sounding names.

The professors sent about 5,000 resumes in response to want ads in the Boston Globe and Chicago Tribune. They found that the "white" applicants received one response -- a call, letter or e-mail -- for every 10 resumes mailed, while "black" applicants with equal credentials received one response for every 15 resumes sent.”

This isn't actually as bad as I've seen in my experience, but will "all things being equal" other than perceived race, it seems obvious that race IS a factor and getting your foot in the door is often hard when your name screams "non-white" (or at least is assumed to be non-white).

EQUALITY OF OPPORTUNITY?

People talk a lot about there being “equality of opportunity” here in the 21st Century. While to some extent that is true (the physical opportunities are often times equal), opportunity does not exist in a vacuum. The ability to take advantage of said opportunities relies heavily on other factors in each person's life. Some of those factors are things that cannot be changed (race, sex – okay so technically you could change your sex, but that’s not a change that’s related to taking advantage of an opportunity). Some of them are not fixed, but are also difficult to change and will only change over a period of time and with a certain amount of “luck”. For example, coming from a low-income family (as I have) seriously decreases the ability to take advantage of certain opportunities…nice clothes for interviews, the ability to even get to an interview, the ability to attend quality primary and secondary schools (we all know most low-income areas do not have the best educational situations), etc. I was lucky in that I was able to attend good schools in primary school. We lived with my grandmother, who lived in a decent area with a great school district. But most people without money aren’t that lucky. My mother-in-law and mother both teach – both teach at schools in impoverished areas. The schools are TERRIBLE (coming from Arizona, most schools are, but these are just unthinkable). The parents are working so many hours at their 3 jobs that attendance of parent teacher conferences is often non-existent, the funding is ridiculous (again, Arizona is I believe 49th or even 50th in the nation for school funding so…), the physical environment just flat out sucks (some kids don’t even have desks, books, etc.). And these kids are supposed to have the same “opportunities” as those who attend the best public (or private) schools? Yeah, right. A prime example of theoretical “opportunities” being the same but not in practice.

Since we're all adding our anecdotal stories, take for example my brother-in-law. He attended Morehouse and graduated Summa Cum Laude. He passed the bar (don’t remember the “score” but it was well above the requirement) on his first try. He is extremely smart, hard-working, and capable and takes his work very seriously. His first job out of college netted him close to $60K a year (finance) and was for a very prestigious company. He quit after a year because the racial tension just got to be too much for him. He was the ONLY Black person in his office of nearly 50. Actually, he was the only person of color there. He said some of his co-workers called him names on a regular basis, insulted him with racial slurs and derogatory comments, and one man even physically threatened him. He settled for a 36K a year job after that just to get away from that environment. His best friend is a lawyer (he passed the bar with an even higher score) and got a great job in Omaha shortly after passing the bar. He left his job after 2 years for the same reasons (his were more related to the clients not perceiving him to be capable). I could tell you story after story like this. My own mother and stepfather (my mother was a realtor at the time, mind you) had a very difficult time with house-hunting. My step-father is Mexican (I'm white, btw) and no one wanted to show him “nice” houses. They didn’t want to speak to him at the bank even though his financial status was FAR better than my mother’s.

The fact is that the vast majority of people don’t have to see that the “playing field” is not level because it doesn’t effect them. Most people think that if a certain opportunity is there (college, jobs, etc.) then everyone has the same “opportunity” to succeed. What I’m saying is that it’s just not the case. When people talk about “opportunities” being equal, they are almost always talking about an event (or at least that’s the impression I get). I am talking about the chances. Events are equal, yes, but the chances are not. Yikes I think I’ve been sitting here typing this too long because I have no idea whether that many ANY sense or not. Oh well.

I'll use myself (white woman) as an example. My family is poor. We lived in a poor neighborhood once my grandfather (who was supporting us) passed away. My mother had a brain tumor when she was 24 and a slew of other serious health "conditions" both before and after the tumor...she could not hold a job but she was unable (for some reason that I do not understand to this day) to collect Social Security. When my father (I use the term only as a biological link - he had nothing to do with us whatsoever) and mother divorced, he took her off of his health insurance, which left her unable to get coverage for nearly every medical problem (pre-existing condition). We had crap health care since she didn't work. We were on food stamps. We would likely have been homeless were it not for my grandmother being able to keep a job and support herself AND the three of us (mom, me and sister). There were lots of opportunities we WERE able to cash in on - free unlimited dance lessons, food banks, free activities at the library (cultural events and book-related events), etc. However there were a great many opportunities that we couldn't cash in on even though they were there. Because of the fact that my mother would occasionally go through bouts of seizures, she couldn't drive for extended periods of time, we could only do things that were within about a 6/7 mile radius of our home. We did modeling/acting before we were "poor". We were limited in the sorts of jobs we could take because of my mom's health/ability to get us there. My sister was chosen for a national Barbie commercial but my mom couldn't get her to the filming site on the amount of notice that was given. That would have been about $8,000 for us. The opportunity was there, we just couldn't take advantage of it in our situation.

Another thing that we don’t discuss but probably should is “qualifications”. Who decides what that encompasses anyway? For me, if I worked in a setting where I’d be dealing with a diverse population of individuals on a daily basis, I’d like to think that certain people skills/relating to people who are “different” would be a relevant qualification. For some companies, one’s ability to achieve greatness in spite of adversity might far outweigh one’s ability to use Mommy or Daddy’s alumni status to get him/her into Harvard (just using this as an example). You know, the Michigan case is interesting because people are all up in arms about minority students getting extra “points” toward acceptance into their program, yet no one seems to care that “legends” (children of alumni) get so many points, people from certain geographic locations get points, etc. The problem I have with this, is that chances are probably much higher that a “legend” has had access to good educational institutions throughout life, parents are probably not living paycheck to paycheck, etc. The reason these students get points has nothing to do with advantage/disadvantage but with money. Alumni are VERY important to schools…the schools want to keep alumni happy…legends get extra points toward admission to keep the dough flowing from alumni pockets. Minority students get extra points because of the greater likelihood of disadvantage throughout their educational career. Whether people want to believe/admit it or not, schools in low-income and/or non-majority white areas ARE typically less academically challenging, have teachers who are paid less (and are themselves working paycheck to paycheck) – which leads to lowering of job performance (I know it’d be harder and more stressful for me to go to work everyday if I was getting paid $23K a year vs. $43K a year for doing the same job and probably putting MORE effort into it because of the poor educational environment/supplies/etc.). I think 20 points might be a bit much, but how can I really question the "value" of a set group - I'm not directly involved and don't have access to the information that led the admissions folks at U Mich to deem 20 points an acceptable measure. I think I'm fine leaving those decisions up to the Michigan board in charge of admissions. Also, I've seen a few people mention the fact that the 20 point rule is exclusionary. If you look at the actual U Mich admissions information, that 20 points can be garnered from one of a number of areas, race only being ONE of them. Financial status, attendance at sub-par schools (they have a whole system to determine these things), and a few others are ways to get 20 points. YOu can ONLY get 20 points for ONE of those things, even if you qualify for all. So I'd get 20 points for either financial status (need) OR attendance at a sub-par school (I believe this is referring only to high school, in which case I would qualify).

Getting back to the issue of defining qualifications…I think it encompasses a lot more than what can be put on a resume. Just as SAT scores are not indicative of one's future success in college (there are MANY studies showing this), specific ability to perform one's job-related duties alone do not make a good employee. What about interpersonal relations? What about a general likeability? What about ability to achieve in the face of adversity (something? What about ability to relate to customers/clientele? All of those things and then some come into play in most career/job situations…so shouldn’t they be taken into consideration as 'qualifications'?

HISTORY EFFECTS THE FUTURE

We all know the buzzwords and loaded phrases that are thrown around all the time by “anti Affirmative Action” folks. Some of these are: “qualifications/merits”, “quotas”, “reverse discrimination”.

I loathe the term "reverse discrimination" as it implies that somehow the potential discrimination against white men is somehow more important than the discrimination against anyone else. Why did such a term come into existence? Because white men felt the need to add importance to their "suffering"...they can't possibly be just plain old discriminated against like every else...no, there needed to be a special term for them. Call it semantics, but discrimination is discrimination and there is, by definition, no such thing as reverse discrimination. The term is obviously used to inflame and garner sympathy, but relaly it just shows one's lack of understanding about what defines discrimination if you ask me.

You know, I could go on and on for an eternity about why AA is beneficial and how it HAS and will continue to help people of color and women get a "leg up" on their higher-paid, more often hired, more often interviewed, more often promoted, less often fired white male counterparts. It's unlikely that my words/experiences will change the minds of those staunchly against AA. The harrowing fact is that most people take the information given in the media (which, with respect to AA, is sadly misrepresented and falsely defined) and take it for fact. Most people really do not understand AA and think it's a black/white issue. I've even seen people in this thread mention that "other minorities" don't fall under AA. That is 100% false. AA programs largely benefit white women (more than any other group), Native Americans (to include native peoples of Alaska), Hispanics, Asians (to include all peoples of the Asian continent and Pacific Islands), AND Blacks.

Affirmative Action, in its infancy, was started in order to attempt to right the wrongs of the times – namely white vs. black discrimination. No other group in the history of the United States (save Native Americans and the obvious terrorizing they experienced at the hands of colonists and “discoverers”) has been legally victimized and for such a long time (the Civil Rights Era was just a few decades ago). There were actual barriers put in place to prevent Blacks from being successful, educated, etc. Those barriers were removed, but simply removing a barrier does not mean that you can automatically climb to the top as if the barrier was never there. People always make comments like "slavery was 150 years ago, get over it" or "Black people were granted their Civil Rights decades ago, get over it". Wouldn't it be nice if it were that simple! One cannot possibly understand the lasting effects (at the individual, family, and community level) of past discrimination without living through it one's self. Because my husband's mother attended segregated (lesser) schools in her youth, she received a "less than average" education. She attended a HBCU (Historically Black College/University), Tuskegee Institute, but her education to that point was not equal to that of a white counterpart. As such, her family must reap the repercussions of her "disadvantage" - she got a job at a largely Black elementary school (low pay, less assistance, poor quality materials, etc.) and her sons had to go to equally "less than average" schools because of her financial situation. This is a seemingly endless cycle that few people examine and take into consideration. Poor parents don't generally have children who grow up to be wealthy or even middle class. So, you see, the effects of pre-Civil Rights Era discrimination/racism/prejudice are STILL evident today.

To paraphrase Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.: in order to pull ones' self up by his/her bootstraps, one needs to first have boots.

Aquapub,
I dont know about the rest of the posters here but I for one am tiring rapidly of your generalized inflamitory remarks. This is not an exclusively white site by the way. You are insulting members of the board.

What is the 'irresponsability and general dysfunction of the black community'? Would you like to qualify your statements with some information or just continue to make insulting statements based on...what? This is an Attack, which cannot be defended contructively in any way. You seem angry at the black poulace, thats all that comes through. I suspect AA was initiated exactly as a response to this type of thinking, which was much more widespread in times past, hence the need.

aquapub:


Cut it out, or take it somewhere else. There's no room for this kind of tone here.

Kmsouthern,

Very interesting and LOOONG first post. Welcome to the Debate!

As I read through your post, I could not help but think to myself that your personal experience would indicate that your favor AA on the basis of Economic status, not necessarily race. I think most AA opponents (AA in its current form, that is) can find some common ground with you there. The poor need a leg up, but getting a leg up simply because of your skin color IS a form of discrimination.

You go into great detail about how the government imposes AA. It seems like a mountain of bureaucracy to me. You say that most companies don't even have a specific EO (in this case EO (equal opportunity) really means AA) HR officer. You said that EO is often lumped together with other HR functions. I guess you would advocate creating a position in each company which only addresses this one issue. Seems like a bit burden for alot of companies.

You are also very careful not to suggest quotas, although it all boils down to a numbers game. Maybe there is no "hard" quota target, but there is certainly a soft one. How exactly does "numerical goals" differ from "quotas"?


My parents are poor (and white), but I am middle class (and struggling ). Generalizations don't help anyone.

I am sorry, but your post doesn't convince me that RACIAL AA is needed. Economic opportunity is needed, not racial.

Thanks for the warm welcome!

To address the issue of racial AA vs. economic AA. My opinion (which is based upon my experience in AA as a consultant - which means I've reviewed thousands and thousands of pages of very specific company data) is that "racial" and "sex-based" AA is essential. My main reason (don't have time to address other reasons at the moment):

Women and people of color, all other things being equal (inasmuch as that is possible to "control") are paid FAR less. I'm talking about the people with the same positive attitude toward the company, employees, the same experience (comparable), comparable tenure, comparable status in the company, etc. Those are the glaring facts that I've looked at when doing AAPs and it's very disheartening...especially when these companies just don't see that it is happening until it's pointed out to them.

Maybe there are better ways to address racial/sex-based discrimination in the workplace. If there are, I haven't seen them as of yet.

Personally, I wish AA wasn't necessary, but my experiences tell me that it is...I would like to see sexual-orientation included in AA programs.

A little fact that most people probably are unaware of: Veterans and people with disabilities (if memory serves me correctly, this is referring to physical disabilities, such as those requiring the use of wheelchairs, etc.) are covered under AA. It's HARDLY just a black/white issue but the media and information strewn about and pawned off as "fact" sure would lead us to believe that it is.

I'd be more than happy to address any other questions (at great length if you wish - I already have a tendency toward being rather verbose/long-winded ) you might have. I actualy do have some information I'd be happy to add about the necessity for race/sex-based AA, but I need to go dig it up...no telling how long that will take!

Again, thanks for the welcome

I would like to see some specific examples and an additional source than that. I am going to look that article up but it sounds like someone's opinion and not fact based. A 1600 would make that person a National Merit Scholar and he/she would have very little trouble getting in any school.

Also, 1100 is not a bad SAT score and well above the national average SAT. This is just another example of someones misconceptions about AA...thinking that you have an unqualified black person taking the place of some over-qualified white person.

My question to you or anyone else is this: "What is the difference between someone getting accepted into a school/corporation on a AA program and someone who uses alumni/special exemption/family contact?"

kmsouthern

I would be very interested in looking at any information that confirms your statements about there being pay discrimination for the same work.

I get frustrated with information that blacks generally get paid less than whites and that men generally get paid more than women. I think there are clear class and social reasons for the disparity in pay that should not be attributed to discrimination.

I also am not much of a fan of the comparable worth approach. ( From Current issues of Democracy, Antell, et. al) "The idea that female employees should have salaries equal to those of male employees if their job's importance is equal to that of a job dominated by men. For example, nursing is a profession that has traditionally been dominated by women. Salaries in nursing have been rather low, considering the training needed to enter the profession and the demanding work and difficult conditions that are involved. Those who advocate comparable worth might say that nurses should earn as much as electricians, a field dominated by men."

While I would want us to be aware of this type of possible discrimination, I would not trust a regulatory body to make these determinations. This is too much like a command economy type of function for me to believe it would be helpful.

Statistics that show discrimination on an apple for apple basis would be an example of the cold hard numbers that seem to have such a profound on the managers you deal with.

BTW, EXCELLENT first post and welcome to AD. I hope you visit often.

kmsouthern:

Welcome to the debate. That is perhaps the best 1st post I've ever seen.

But I do disagree

So what you're saying is, is that if you were born a boy, and you lived with your brother and disabled father, opportunities would have made themselves available? And that you would have been much better off? And would not have needed gov't assistance?

I don't buy it. That line of thinking is sexist and/or racist.

I could write a novel about all my troubles finding a job lately (I'm a white guy if you haven't figured it out)

My white aunt and uncle are filthy rich. One day, they decided to buy some beach front property. The real estate lady however, would NOT show them any property that was ON the beach? The relator did NOT believe them when they said they could afford it. Why? I tend to think it's because they don't dress like the millions they're worth. They get their clothes from any ole store like the rest of us.

Frustrated, my aunt and uncle left and found another realtor. A hour later, they walked out after having purchased a 1.5 million dollar home....cash.

They were denied being shown the homes they wanted. DISCRIMINATION!!!!! oh wait I'm sorry....they're white....

Lastly, I've had the same feelings toward the term "reverse discrimination" as you do. However, no matter what you call it, it's still discrimination.

--cheers

Hi there

Actually, I mustn't have made myself clear as that's not at ALL what I am saying. I'm saying that people have a tendency to equate an equal availability of "opporunity" with equal access to said opportunity. My personal example was simply used to show that while the opportunity was there, for whatever reason, we couldn't capitalize on the opportunity.

A better, more relevant example would be public schooling. Sure, everyone has "equal opportunity" available to get a quality education through public schools, however not everyone has equal access to that opportunity=quality education (I swear there MUST be an easier way to explain this, but I fear I'm not having any success at it!). Inner city schools are notorious for lacking school-related funding, bare minimum pay for teachers, even lacking the supplies with which to teach. Kids can't just up and go to any school they want (even if they were allowed a waiver to attend an "out of district" school, they still have to find a way to get there). Basically that's what my example was about, sorry for not making that clear

Oh and I wish you lots of luck in your job search



The examples you give of your aunt and uncle are, sadly, typical in real estate. My mother was a realtor and was told she'd better buy a nicer car if she wanted to get "rich" clients. She didn't dress or act "rich" (whatever that means ). The status notion, for whatever reason, permeates the world of real estate. If someone has a million bucks, does it matter what clothes they wear???

But let me give you an anecdotal example of my own from my mother's personal experience in looking for homes. My step-father is Mexican, mother is white. My step-father has an obviously Mexican last name. He also had a full-time, decent paying job and had good credit. He was denied time and time again for loans, viewing properties, etc. Not ONCE was he shown the homes he was interested in, instead he was directed toward homes that were more "his type" (read: Mexican neighborhoods/cities with a high percentage of below poverty line families). My mother, OTOH, with her recent bankruptcy and no job, was never denied a loan, was never denied acces to the homes she wanted to view. This was all before they were married (they were looking for a home for our "new" family ), so my mother's last name was still "white" sounding.

Essentially, as you said, discrimination is discrimination. However I don't see how anyone can argue against glaring statistics about pay discrepancies being totally and completely inexcusable, and must therefore be remedied. If it takes the federal government implementing "programs" (AA) to do so, then I say, so be it. As I said, I'm looking forward to the day when AA is not needed and does not serve a real purpose in society. That day is not today as far as I'm concerned, though I know many people disagree...to each his/her own.

Which brings me to...



What I am referring to is disparities WITHIN a given company and with all other things equal (inasmuch as possible). For example (and this example is NOT taken from any real statistics - I am forbidden to discus companies' actual statistics which is why much of my argument simply can't be based upon solid data that I can point you to, sorry for that!), Black female nurses at a given hospital earn considerably less than white male nurses at that same hospital, when tenure, experience, position are equal. Those are the diaprities I'm referring to...blanket statements of "whites earn more than blacks" (etc.) don't serve much purpose in AA arguments as far as I see it.



I agree and that's also not what I'm referring to. That's comparing apples to oranges and there is just no way to assign "worth" of a given job in any subjective way (unless it's completely arbitrary, which would serve no purpose). The "worth" I'm talking about is with respect to the same exact job. The companies I wrote AAPs for were VERY large companies, and as such, had LARGE numbers of people in almost every job where this sort of issue would come into play (obviously one executive's salary can't be compared to another with a totally different job, KWIM?). Those are the only situations I'm referring to as those are the only data I have any experience with. Hope that makes sense!

Sorry, I'm not sure yet how to quote multiple people in one post to include their name/timestamp. I'll figure it out soon enough though

Thanks again for the warm welcome from everyone - I'm feeling the love

Getting a job because you are well-connected doesn't have a constitutional amendment against it. And nearly everyone has gotten a job at some point because they no somebody already there. Its not some big injustice, but discrimination is. The two are not the same.

Welcome aboard KM Southern. That was a fine post in defense of affirmative action. Planning on arguing the case before The Supreme Court sometime in the future?

The issue of affirmative action is obviously a contentious one as witnessed by the way this thread has twisted and turned with passons high on both sides of the issue.

Hopefully, there will be less contentious issues where most of us can find "common ground." What
that might be, heaven only knows.

Loan officers get paid on commission, anyone with an acceptable credit score will get a loan. If your mother was really a realtor she could have quickly recommended a loan officer who would not discriminate. Please get real with your personal stories.

I hope no one is influenced to support affirmative action based on false personal stories.

Hello Hugo

First, I couldn't agree more about not basing decisions about AA on "false personal stories". There is a LOT of that going on, most especially among non-supporters who are trying to "prove" why AA is a bad thing with such anecdotes. There are a lot of "my white father didn't get this job because some black guy who wasn't qualified got it instead" stories running around out there and many people base their beliefs about AA solely on these sort of claims. These stories are not based upon fact but based upon assumptions (assumptions which are almost always false). The DOL conducted a study in 1995 in which they determined that in1994, there were some 3,000 discrimination suits filed, only 100 of which were related to "reverse discrimination". Only six of those claims went on to be substantiated (http://www.dol.gov/esa/media/speeches/2-22-00.htm). True, that is just looking at one year, but I think it's at least worthy to note that this notion of widespread "reverse discrimination" appears to be largely an "urban myth" used to inflame and infuriate. I don't think anyone is in favor of the notion of anyone who is less qualified getting a job over someone who is more qualified (that's not what AA is about, contrary to popular belief). However the VAST majority of people I've encountered who disagree with AA have offered some type of personal anecdote as their reason for being against AA. Nope, I don't like the idea of making one's decision about AA based upon "false personal stories" any more than you do!

I'm curious as to why you assume my mother's (and step-father's) experiences are "false personal stories" - what exactly are you basing that incorrect assessment upon? FTR, I don't use anecdotal stories as "evidence" of anything because anyone can find one to suit their argument...THAT was the point of my story (not to try to somehow "prove" my beliefs with some obscure story). Anyone can find a story that backs up their side and using those stories to make your decisions just doesn't make sense if you don't know the "facts". If you read my initial post in this matter, I think you'll see that I don't need individual personal stories to make my case.

Btw, the story about my mother/step-father...whether you want to believe it or not, the story IS most certainly true. I still don't know how on earth my mother got the loan (as I said "she was never denied", that's because she got a loan the first place she went!), but the sheer oddity of it does not make it untrue. And it's not at ALL odd in our part of Arizona for Mexicans to be denied opportunities to look at the homes they are interested in if they aren't in the "right" areas (read: Mexican areas). That is just a fact of life depending upon where you live. My mother made phone calls to make appointments to see homes, where she would leave her name. My step-father did the same. It wasn't until my mother and step-father TOGETHER went in to an office that they were shown the houses they were interested in. My mother was very new to real estate at the time - she had the connections through her job, but she wasn't exactly well-versed, so-to-speak, on the ways things worked.

As I said I wasn't intending to offer some sort of "proof" of anything with my mother's situation...I have no need to use stories with my experience in AA as a consultant. I'm sorry you feel the need to dismiss my story as "false".

Hugo,

I think you miss the reality here. Mortgage discrimination has a long history and mortgage companies help a community decline or rise on how available they make credit to certain areas.

Here is a non-internet bibliography of housing discrimination articles. Notice that Ashcroft is involved in this subject.

Mortgage Discrimination

Atlanta banks surprised to be focus of U.S. redlining probe

Banking on Racism

Blacks Paying More for Mortgages Than Whites

I believe you, kmsouthern. Welcome to the site. Great posts, BTW...

My last name is Hernandez. Neither my parents-in-law, nor my husband, nor his sister have ever encountered a problem like the one you're father-in-law experienced. Perhaps it is regional. My parents-in-law previously lived in Miami, FL and now live in TX where there are a lot of hispanics. My sister-in-law has never been turned down for a loan....even though she has incurred tremendous debts. We have certainly never been turned down for a loan.

Reverse discrimination suites are very hard to pursue, for obvious reasons. That doesn't necessarily mean that it is a rare phenomenon. My mother-in-law was a manager for EDS in Miami, and fired a hispanic woman because she was basically illiterate. The only reason that case didnt' go through is because my mom-in-law is hispanic, too. The lawyer saw her last name and immediately dropped the charges. That shouldn't happen.

Regarding the income disparities you previously cited, I would consider factors other than discrimination into the equation. For example, if a pregnant woman (with another child in daycare) is working in an office with single man doing the same job, it is reasonable to assume he is probably putting in more hours for his salary. The mother has to take time off when her child is sick, go to medical appointments, will be more inclined to leave at six than stay a few extra hours, and certainly won't be motivated to come in on the weekend. Both might have excellent employment records, but the man will more likely get the promotion. That's a reasonable decision for the employer.

Phew, Mrs. P I don't think I would have the guts to tell someone they didn't get the job because they were pregnant and had a child. I better have a heck of a relevant last name to avoid the law suit that would come out of that one.

I know, Eeyore! This happens all of the time (my mom in law still works for EDS, but has many people under her now). The reality is, it isn't the fact that the woman is pregnant with a child, it's the fact that those conditions (and her correct choices to be with her family instead of working overtime) made her a less productive worker than her male counterpart. Should she get the promotion?

This is doubly true in today's economy where many companies expect mobility and travel from their employees. The person who can travel will be more likely to advace, career-wise. Most single moms can't.

Maybe it is based on the fact that I am a realtor. Realtors and loan officers only get paid when they sell a home or a loan. A realtor who 'steers" minorities toward certain properties not only will not get a commissiom, he is in violation of the Fair Housing Act and is subject to losing his license, fines and prison.

Loans are almost entirely driven by two factors--credit scores and debt ratios. I often get loans for clients. I send in a form. They loan officer runs his credit history and quickly tells me how much the individual is approved for and what % of interest rate and down payment. The loan officer has never seen the client and, unless the name gives it away. has no idea what the race of the client is.

Another personal story; the mortgage of the home I live in now is in the name of my wife, my filipina wife. Why, her credit score was a total of 7 points higher than mine, which was enough difference to qualify her for the loan we were seeking, while I was just under the bar. Probably a good thing they did not know my wife wasn't white

I am sorry, It is possible to run across a racist loan officer or realtor. Guess what, open the phone book and call another one. The odds of finding two in a row who are not going to discriminate in favor of the color green, in their pocketbook, is astronomical.

No, I am not going to take the risks involved in steering minority clients into "their" kind of neighborhoods. Considering all the costs I don't know of a single other realtor who does it either.

I have yet to see one single one of these studies, supposedly documenting racism, that showed blacks and whites with equal credit scores and equal debt ratios being treated unequally. The so-called discrimination is based on the fact that more blacks have poor credit. If you don't pay your bills you will be discriminated against. From one of Eeyore's links:

The authors of the study say it did not prove that minority borrowers unfairly pay high mortgage rates, because the credit histories of the applicants researched were not considered.

Once again, I can send a application for a applicant and get a loan approval without anyone knowing his race.

Discrimination is practically non-existant in the housing sales market.

But that does not mean there are not systemic problems that perpetuate the problems of red lining, higher interest rates for minority groups, and lower approval rates for "equally qualified" minority groups.

I see your point. You want a dollar and you are unconcerned about where it comes from and most realtors are that way.

However, I definitely saw people steering me away from neighborhoods with a high concentration of minorities when I was buying. This helps continue segregation and makes it easier for the perpetuation of red lining.

Hugo,

Keep in mind that the "anecdotes" she is related are probably years old (I don't want to guess the age of another poster... ).

Localized discrimination probably exists. It may be more stereotyping than actual racism, however. Once a person realizes that a minority can actually afford certain properties, then the situation changes.

Not everyone, however, is influences solely upon economic decisions (if they were, racism wouldn't exist).

Let us get back to how it usually works in real estate. Usually it is the buyer who defines a general, or specific, area he wishes to live in. Realtors, if they got any sense at all, attempt to get the homeseeker, to narrow down the area. I always get them pre-qualified from a lender first. This way I know their upper limit on price, the approximate interest rate they will pay, the downpayment and most importantly that they do qualify. When a client does not qualify, I will ask questions as to why. The loan officer will say he does not qualify for this loan because one of two reasons 1)debt ratios 2) low credit scores, As I said before the loan officer and the bank he deals with may have no idea as to the individuals race, nor do they even know where the house is going to be purchased.

Discrimination in mortgages and housing sales is a myth. I have yet to see a study showing blacks and whites with equal credit scores and debt ratios being treated unequally. I am sure if they were, there would be a study documenting this. There is not.

I guess I should tie this in to affirmative action. It is the exaggeration and false reports of racism that lead to the call for affirmative action.

Self-indulgent self-quote. But doesn't this article refer to such a problem?

Once again from your link:

The authors of the study say it did not prove that minority borrowers unfairly pay high mortgage rates, because the credit histories of the applicants researched were not considered.

Banks discriminate based on credit history and income to debt ratios. To show discrimination based on race you must show blacks with equal credit scores and debt ratios are treated unequally. They are not.

Eeyore: from your link:


That, or it might be more common for whites to shop around more or whatever. Guessing at a cause to a problem does not make it the cause.

Good catch guys. Sorry I did not read it carefully enough. I still think that Hugo's logic is not complete when it is looked at only from the perspective of the realtor as the consumer level. But I agree to verify that some type of discrimination is in play that a study has to show unequal treatment based on scores that are equal.

The scoring system would need a good going over as well. If it is based on past credit history or the type of credit received in the past, then a different type of systemic discrimination could be at work.

How about the disparity in home ownership in this country. President Bush addressed this issue and felt that we should do something to remedy the problem. Now I know that this situation can be arrived at by economic and credit factors without any systemic or more direct type of discrimination being involved. Is the Bush administration wrong in highlighting this problem? Is this the concern of the federal government? Or is it only to be criticized based on the type of solution offered up? Would it be wrong to draw more capital into housing for minorities for example?

Dr. Thomas Sowell takes up the mythical bias against black in the mortgage process.

Here's some points he makes (all points are generalizations, ok?):

1) Blacks are more likely to try to take out loans on multi family properties, which are both more expensive and harder to qualify for.
2) Blacks have higher debt to income ratios, lower asset to income ratios, and pursue loans with lower down payments.
3) If blacks were being discriminated against, it would mean that those blacks who do get loans would be better risks than whites, a distinction that would show up in default rates.

The default rates for blacks and whites are the same....

My question goes unanswered yet again, whoa is me. If African Americans are as capable as anyone else to get and do a job, why is AA needed?

CP

That logic is not flawless. If you get higher mortgage rates than another person with the same qualifications, your housing burned in more onerous. So discrimination could equalize that factor as well.

It should be studied and some good cold hard facts (as close as you can get to such a thing) should get presented for today's housing situation.

I can send a mortgage application in for a John Smith, and quickly get what type of loan he qualifies for without supplying John Smith's race.

Good Hugo. Have I inferred that you haven't. If your tired of this part of the debate stand down. I defer the practical knowledge of real estate transaction to you. I am trying to get a better understanding of the discrepancy in the numbers in housing and you have been quite helpful in that up til now.

I can order a meal at a restaurant without declaring my race. Now what did I just accomplish?

The point is there is a system in place that is not just color-blind, it is blind to color. It is blind to the area of the home. You can apply on line, or you can have your agent apply for you, or fax, or email. Unless your name gives it away your race is undeterminable. Even a mortgage broker who belongs to the KKK will probably give John Smith a loan. Give me your credit scores, give me your debt to income ratio and I can make a good guess if you qualify for a A loan, a sub-prime loan or do not qualify at all.

Once you understand the process you realize discrimination in the home loan market approaches zero.

Hiya ConservPat

The answer to your question isn't an easy one to explain/answer, but I'll do my best

First, I'll start of by saying that I think the reason so many pro-AA people are oft offended and taken aback by anti-AA folk's questions/concerns about AA is because of the singling out of black vs. white with respect to AA. AA is not a black/white issue regardless of how much the media and many politicians (on both sides...very few people understand what AA is) lead us to believe it is. Here is a list of the groups considered as "protected classes":

• "race" - categories listed are as used for the purposes of AA (Black, Hispanic, Asian/Pacific Islander, American Indian)
  
  
• color
  
  
• creed
  
  
• religion
  
  
• sex
  
  
• age
  
  
• disabled
  
  
• Veterans
  

Women benefit from AA more than any other group. Women have made leaps and bounds in the workforce in large part as a result of AA programs. In particular, women have been far more prevalent in "non-traditional" jobs (construction, executives) because of AA programs - the only existing "quotas" in the realm of AA are for WOMEN in construction: 6.9% is the "quota". I'm relatively unfamiliar with how this exactly works since we didn't do AAPs for any construction companies, but the answers can all be found at the DOL link provided at the end of my post.

Now to directly address your question...

Blacks do not necessarily have the same opportunities as whites, for a multitude of reasons. As I mentioned in a previous post, opportunity does not exist in a vacuum. The mere existence of a specific tangible opportunity does not make it equally accessible for all. When people talk about opportunities being equal, they are talking about those tangible opportunities...however we also have to take into account the potential opportunity one has to achieve/attain that tangible opportunity. Let's not forget that people have personal biases and those personal are the main reason AA was enacted in the first place. If there were somehow a computer program that was created to hire, promote, fire, recruit, etc. based upon a certain given criteria (without regard to race, sex, etc.), this wouldn't be an issue. It's the fact that PEOPLE are not subjective that AA exists at all. If you have a prejudgment about people with numerous tattoos, for example, that prejudgment does not just disappear when the time comes for you to make your business decisions. People are influenced by their beliefs (just read the posts here at America's Debate to see how much people's thoughts and actions are influenced by beliefs) and those beliefs may include prejudice toward certain groups.

But beyond that even, prejudices are still institutionalized. Why do women still receive far less pay than men on the same job? Why do ALL minorities (on average across the same job)receieve less pay than white men (on average across the same job)? I don't know if I've mentioned this before, but I am legally bound from disclosing specific stats (nor would I really have access to them anymore since I'm not currently working in AA as a result of my husband being stationed overseas), so I'm sorry I cannot provide the stats you and others might be looking for at the moment . I will, however, take the time to try to find some studies on the subject of pay discrepancies for the exact same job. It might take a while, but I'll do what I can to find that information for you.

AA is used as a stepping stone. AA gets your foot in the door in many instances. It is up to the individual from there, as unqualified or less qualified people simply are NOT hired over qualified. That is probably the biggest myth out there about AA. As someone else (I forget who) mentioned not too far back, yes, if you want to get technical, it's a numbers game when it boils down to it. HOWEVER, those numbers act ONLY as a guide to let employers know what sort of workforce is available to them. The issue relates to "good faith" efforts. If a company makes a "good faith" effort to NOT discriminate, there is no problem whatsoever, even if said company has a very small minority/women percentage of employees at given levels. About the only time there is concern and potential legal action against a company is if discrimination is found to be CONSISTENT - and it takes a heck of a lot to be considered consistent. In reality, most of the benefits and potential problems center around merely examining company data, not in any actions by that company with respect to hiring, firing, etc. Yes, if it appears that problems exist, the company's HR person in charge of EO (or an outside contracted EO officer of some sort) will sit down with the AA consultant (or a member of that consulting company, generally the "head" of the consulting company in my experience) to discuss potential discrimination issues. These are merely an act of forewarning companies about potential problems that can almost always be easily fixed by minimal things (VERY rarely having to do with hiring, btw) - for example, one might post "want" ads in a Veteran's publications in order to let Veterans know of the potential job opportunities. Those little things are almost always all it takes to ensure that discrimination suits cannot be substantiated (if one were to be filed). In all honesty, discrimination may still be taking place (very obvious pay differences, etc.) even though the companies are in compliance with federal regulations, KWIM?

As I said, it's very hard to explain when you look at it in terms of black vs. white because, simply put, it's not about black vs. white.

Obviously, to some degree, AA does create a setback for African Americans - however that is less a result of AA programs than a result of media and political misrepresentation of AA. Because the media emphasizes AA as a "Black thing", people believe that Blacks can't get jobs on merits and/or are unqualified for the positions they do get. As a result, people might be less inclined to trust Black employees in their capability to do their job (after all, they got in a a "quota" ). Those are very real problems, however the solution should not be to erase AA, but to put an end to the myths surrounding it. No one (on the pro-AA side) is denying (to my knowledge) that AA has helped Blacks, other minorities, women, etc. in landing jobs. However those jobs aren't just given out, they are given to qualified applicants. Sure, maybe if all other things are equal, a manager might hire a minrotiy or woman over a white man to feel comfortable that they are making a "good faith" effort, but how often, really, are "all things equal"...someone almost always has more experience, better job performance, better recommendations, etc. I think sometimes, people forget that resumes alone don't get you a job. A personal example (again just as an example, not to prove or disprove anything) was when I was fresh out of college applying for a job as a children's activities director at a county library. I met or exceeded the job requirements (experience & education), the job was pretty much made for me in every way imaginable, however, I was too young (this wasn't listed on the application, btw ). The county required all applicants for this and almost all other jobs requiring an undergraduate degree to be 22 years old. I had just turned 21, so I obviously didn't get the job. Actually, I'd never have even known that it was a result of my age if I hadn't called to inquire about the status of my application (I hadn't been called for an interview and this position had been open for a long time already). The woman at the library who'd have been my boss didn't even know about the age requirement! it was a county requirement as a county job, so they'd never ever received my application. When I called the county to find out why they hadn't received my application, I was told of the age requirement. Now, obviously that's a bit different from the type of thing that goes on with a typical applicant who is qualified but doesn't get the job, but the example was given to show that just because a person has the "merits" doens't mean they'll get the job. I'm not the best interviewee in the world (I get VERY nervous), which has had a negative impact upon my potential job prospects in the past. Authority figures naturally make me nervous in a one on one situation, so I just don't handle interviews well - I realize and understand that and know that all of those things are taken into account in the employment process.

Back to AA, though...

More than anything, AA has served as a way to examine potential problems within companies, allowing companies (forcing them) to see the actual data right there in front of them. More times than not, company execs are extremely surprised by the data they see and most of them do what it takes to at least start to remedy existing problems (such as pay discrepancies) and avoid potential problems. Here's one of the "points" from the AA fact sheet at DOL:



To get a better feel for AA and what it encompasses, I'd encourage anyone to go to DOL Affirmative Action pages and check out all of the links provided.


I hope that answered your question, at least to an extent. I apologize if it didn't....I tend to go off on tangents, so forgive me in advance if the above didn't make sense or answer your question

kmsouthern,

Thanks for spending so much time on educating us on the realities of AA. Lots of things I didnt know.

KS: While you do make a point that AA is a "stepping stone'', it also denies sometimes more qualified people from getting a job. Why should I not get a job soley based on my race. It is a racist/sexist program, there really is no way around it.

CP

CP,

The most qualified person WILL get the job (assuming they had a favorable interview and any other "requirement"), unless an employer is practicing discrimination. AA simply does NOT mean less qualified people are getting jobs over the most qualified people. I think the only time that would happen would be in construction with respect to women since they do employ quotas (6.9%).

I really would urge you (not just you, everyone) to look into the facts on AA a little more since what's presented as "fact" to the general public is usually not fact. I really can't explain it any more without repeating myself - I'm sorry you still think it's racist/sexist and about hiring less qualified people.

I never said that the less qualified person would always get the job. I said sometimes. I do not understand why race should play any part of anything. If the most qualified person gets the job, why is AA nessesary.

If most of the employers in businesses are not racist, AA is pointless, if most people who run businesses are racist, and that can be proven, go ahead, then AA would have a purpose.

CP

I am reading a book now (The Forgotten American) that has some points to make about this.
The author says that if all discrimination was to go away overnight, and all are treated fairly, the difference would not be noticeable. We would still have way too many working poor. Any or all of the alledged causes for working Americans to be labeled poor, if done away with, would not change things that much. Statistically, the white male with a high school education is not that far behind minorities, women, single parent households, etc., with less education. So far, his biggest issue is the way the government determines the poverty level, and that it is way too low. Increase it 50% and you still have a high percentage of families living on the edge.
There is the tease, will finish reading the book and post more later.

Hi again

I understand where you are coming from, believe me, I do. However as I stated in past posts, AA is NOT just about hiring, in fact hiring is a small portion of what AA entails. The majority of "issues" AA tackles deal with discrepancies within the workforce (people who have already been hired) - pay and promotions being the two main areas of discrimination found on the job.

My argument about the most qualified person getting the job is based upon the practice of AA - the most qualified person gets the job WITH AA in place. Without AA, the most qualified person was not always getting the job (minorities/women being passed over for white men).

By the logic of "most" that you use above, wouldn't it also be fair to say that since MOST people aren't being passed over for someone less qualified, then abolishing AA is not necessary? I'm just trying to understand how "most" matters or becomes the point from which we make laws.

Hope you don't think I'm picking on you

I think affirmative action is very unfair. My own brother was rejected from numerous colleges because a minority with worse grades and qualifications had already taken the spot. Really, I think being of a certain color or race is not a valid qualification.

If you have proof of this, you could sue. Since I would think you would include that info in your response, though, I assume that you haven't. And therefore don't have proof, just your own assumptions. I'd be doubtful of this happening in one college based on the evidence you provided, much less numerous colleges, as you have stated.
Just a friendly reminder: minority races are not all that affirmative action stand for. They also represent females, of every race, something I see a lot of white males tend to conviently forget about
In regards to the way most colleges use affirmative action, just because someone is a minority does in no way automatically qualify them. Race is just one of the factors. I don't understand how you would have found out the grades and qualifications of all the "unqualified minorities" your brother was passed over for. Unless you had access to all of their complete college applications, which I don't think you did.

You make some very valid points Suzy.

Affirmative action is often cast as only being beneficial to racial groups, but women
(including white women) have utilized these programs as well. That fact somehow seems to be ignored in these discussions, so thanks for pointing it out.

This isn't entirely true...

Some collages are private, which allows them to discriminate as much as they want. But more importantly, a lot of colleges use a point system. Your GPA factors in about 25 points, being black gives you 20 points. Having perfect SAT scores gives you 12 points. (I read this in a readers digest, I'll dig it up, if I haven't already thrown it away, if you need proof).

Anyway, being a race that that particular collage doesn't have is a HUGE bonus. So, a minority could potentially get in with a modest GPA and SAT score over a stellar student. Being white or asian is a huge disadvantage in most cases.

I am unwilling on any governmental level to simply continue without validation of any program that has not effectively addressed the problem that it is designed to solve without at first considering the possibility that there might be another method. The problem with affirmitive action is that it is not attacking the root of the problem. We need to start younger than College and career level decisions if we ever hope to make affirmitive action unneeded. We have had it for 2 generations and we have made far to small a dent in the problem for me to say that it has been in any way a effective program. I find people who hold up individual success as a demonstration of the effectiveness on broader social problems to be protecting that which is plain and simply an advantage politically rather than an advantage socially. Look at the results. We need to do something, this idea is just not effective enough to continue supporting.

Wertz said:



I worked at the University of Wisconsin-Madison in the School of Business Undergraduate Programs Office from 1998-2000. Part of my job included evaluating applications for the program. It is a Junior/Senior program. This means that a student's first two collegiate years are spent completing pre-Business and General Education Requirements as well as establishing their UW Grade Point Average. Once Junior standing is attained and the course requirements are completed, students can then apply for admission.

Admission to the School is then based upon their GPA. As of 2000, the GPA required for white and Asian-American students was 3.20. For non-Asian racial minorities, the required GPA was 2.50, thus, disproving Wertz's claim.

Additionally, many of the minorities who were admitted with the sub-par GPA struggled even further once they were competing in the business courses with the 1200 other students that had been held to the higher standard. Those who graduated invariably were in the bottom 10% of their class.

Some struggled so mightily that their GPA dropped below the required 2.00 for graduation. In other words, they spent thousands of dollars pursuing a degree they could never achieve. Had they not been admitted, there were less competitive business-related programs in which they could have participated and earned a degree. However, because of AA they left school with high debt and no degree.

Anyway, to the original point, the notion that AA does not lower standards is patently false.

Edited to add:



I am well aware of this fact...

In 2001, I worked at a public access television station. One of my co-workers was, how should I say, a bit unstable. He would verbally accost just about everyone at the facility, he would intentionally bump people in the hallway and then laugh, he "freaked out" in Administrative Assistant by telling her intimate details of his sex life and sinisterly talking about how he liked to polish his guns. It was so bad, I actually felt it necessary to give my wife a photo of the guy and a description of his vehicle with explicit instructions to call the police if he ever showed up at our home. Essentially, he was a menace to everyone who worked there; nonetheless, the Director would not fire him.

Finally, I had enough. I turned in my resignation effective in two weeks and stated clearly the reasons I was leaving making sure to leave an out that would allow me to retract my resignation if it were mutually desirable.

Apparently, my threat did the trick. Two days prior to my last day, they bought him out. They paid him three months salary to resign. Why? Because he was a veteran. My employer feared possible legal reprisals if they fired him even though they had just cause. (This may not be directly attributable to AA directly - I don't really know - but his special status is a result of the same impetus.)

Anyway, I have since left the place but, to this day, when I see some of my former co-workers, they mention a debt of gratitude to me for helping get rid of the guy.

ML Iserman

Believing that many things that individuals compete at (jobs, formal education opportunities, and promotions) are zero-sum games, any sort of preference to members of one group hurts non-members.

Ideally, I'd support AA. I have no problem choosing the more 'disadvantaged' candidate between two EQUALLY qualified candidates. The rub is when 'equally qualified' is a go/no-go measure, e.g. all candidates with an SAT score over 1000 are equally qualified. In my experience, this is the form most AA has taken, whether inentially or not. This form hurts those AA was meant to help: read miserman's post.

AA will end when some supreme court finds it unconstitutional.