Of course, this law had not been enforced since the USSC held a similar Virginia law unconstitutional in 1967. I wonder what the racial breakdown of that vote was?

Interacial marriage laws interfere with freedom of association and should be opposed. Affirmative action also interferes with freedom of association and should be opposed. If I hate women, blacks, people taller than me, dwarfs, whatever... I should not have to hire them.

Since I was the first to introduce MLJ's speech, and I did post the link to the entire speech, I would like to first say that MLJ was an incredible man. Eloquent doesn't even do him justice.

I agree with you Nighttimer, with a twist. Yes racism is still prevalent in this country, especially against Blacks and now Muslims. I find the whole thing (racism) to be unjust. I find wisdom in MLJ in that he not only points out the injustice of racism but to initiate change. This country has come long way since the types of racism that existed in the 60's. I can only hope that it can come further. The question that I have is will Affirmative Action bring further equality, where people will not be judged by the color of their skin or their gender? I just don't see it. I admit that it could have expedited the action of equality but when is it enough? I, though, see your point that we really are only generation from enactment of AA. So how many generations will it take for true equality, if at all, to be sufficient? Do you think the next generation of white men are not going to feel further disenfranchised? By keeping AA are we not furthering the cause of judging one based on their skin or gender? Doesn't AA provide an excuse for white men to be racist? How do we remove or at least sufficiently reduce the racist mindset for generations to come when we provide a nice excuse?

Dreampiper, we share many of the same concerns about affirmative action. When I view the level of resentment expressed in many of the preceding posts, it does give me pause. Is the cure worse than the disease?

No. I don't think the remedy to racism--painful and unpleasant as it is to many--is in any way as damaging as institutional American racism has been. The anger and alienation of white people is not something to sneer at. I take it very seriously. But I repeat: if affirmative action isn't the answer, who has a better one?

When is it enough? I think Sandra Day O'Connor and the other Supreme Court justices that joined her in the most recent AA decision have made clear that in another 20-25 years the need should be passed. I don't know how Justice O'Connor arrived at that timetable, but it seems like a fair and reasonable one.

I quoted Colin Powell and Martin Luther King because one can draw a straight line from King's dreams to Powell's reality. If King hadn't agitated for civil rights would Powell be the Secretary of State and advising the President of the United States? I don't have any doubt that the accomplishment due to the action.

Affirmative action is not a justification for whites to be racist. Those who are inclined to treat others as inferior and less than human beings with full rights are going to always find an excuse. They always have and always will. Nor is affirmative action an excuse for people of color not to apply themselves.

However as the children of those racists are more exposed to people of color and interact with them they will find themselves running out of reasons to justify their racism. America was outraged by the stupid stunt Janet Jackson and Justin Timberlake pulled at the Super Bowl, but just a few decades ago the idea of a white man and a black woman sharing a stage and singing together would have been the real outrage.

Where America was once a melting pot, it's now a gumbo. All kinds of ingredients thrown in together to make one appetizing dish. Changing hearts and minds takes a lot longer to do than changing laws, but only by tearing down legal segregation of the races have we learned that white, black, brown, red and yellow people are all the same in the beginning and the end.

To that extent, affirmative action has been a tool to build this bridge. Regretfully, it's a tool that has smashed some thumbs along the way. That doesn't mean that this tool no longer has any useful purpose to be served.

Nighttimer: So you wish to counteract racism with...well...racism. That doesn't work for me. I'm sure that you understand that racism will always exist [and that not once have I said that it doesn't], should AA be permanent? Also, I'm sure you, and others agree [seeing as how I've heard no rebuttal to this part of my argument], that AA is indeed, in direct violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In addition it also violates the Constitution, specifically Amendment XIV.

Nighttimer, and I hope you don't take offense to this, because none is intended. You've done the exact same thing, you took the parts of his speeches that support your argument, just as I have. That's just part of what I [and everyone else] do to make my point.

CP

...Man, I love gumbo....

...And I believe the wourld in general, and this country in general, is becoming more and more like it. It's getting hard to tell what 'race' people belong to, and I love it. Hopefully, in another generation, the color of skin will make no more difference than the color of hair.

As far as AA is concerned, I believe that where it is not necessary, it should not be used for hiring / acceptance protocols. I would allow or even encourage active recruitment, though. Perhaps application of the 80% rule -- if a particular classification gets hired at less than 80% of the most hired classification, then AA should be implemented: (e.g. if 40% of female applicants are accepted, and they are the most hired gender, then 40% x 80% = 32% or more of males must be hired.)

So again, you say that the only discrimination that is ok is that which is against minorities?

Why is it that this doesn't seem to work for me?

The difference is, one of the kinds of racism is an unfortunate aspect of human beings. The other kind is official policy. Just because there will always be racists doesn't mean the laws should be racist.

Affirmative Action is like saying "If you choke on ice cube, don't panic. Drink a cup of boiling water, and you'll be fine."

Yeah, well you can hate all the women, blacks, people taller than you, dwarfs or whatever you want Hugo. That's your problem. However if you run a business and a qualified tall black woman who's married to a dwarf walks in and applies for a job you can't discriminate her because you have a hang-up with those categories you listed. That's racism in hiring and then it becomes the business of people who enforce laws against discrimination and then you really will have a problem.

The mindset that you don't have to hire people you hate is one reason there was a civil rights movement in this nation and as it's pretty much been settled that kind of discrimination isn't tolerated in America anymore, I'd say that is something of a moot point.

Conservpat, I agree that most of us do tend to cherry-pick the points from a given source that support our arguments and disregard the rest. I watched the President do the exact thing this morning with David Kay's remarks on Meet The Press. However, I am not disregarding Dr. King's words about the "content of our character" that have been repeated in this thread. We simply have a fundamental disagreement over whether affirmative action is a form of reverse discrimination. You believe it is. I believe it is not.

Reasonable people can disagree. I don't believe that affirmative action will be with us forever. However, I cannot accept the contention there is no longer any need for this remedy. While it can be scaled back in its application, I feel comfortable in my belief that situations still exist where it must be utilized.

I will have to look into whether or not your contention that affirmative action is in opposition to the Constitution and/or the Civil Rights Act of 1964. I doubt that you have found a flaw that the Supreme Court and numerous legal scholars have overlooked.

No, it is not a moot point at all. If I run a business and refuse to hire the best people I am hurt economically. If I choose to pay that price that should be my choice. The fact laws do exist prohibiting doscrimination, among individuals, does not make those laws right. What is wrong, and against the 14th Amendment, is when government discriminates. Some affirmative action programs discriminate, others simply, though of course it would be unconstitutional to label them as such, establish quotas. Yes, sadly , right now I would have a problem. Government is interfering in an area where it does not belong.

Hugo:

It is that simple only if those best qualified candidates have other options for employment.

However, if every employer decides to discriminate against the same people, be it dwarves, blacks, women, whatever, then we have a situation in which a group of people is being denied life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. And that was the case less than 50 years ago. If we let you discriminate, we have to let every business discriminate, and there are still many that would. Therefore, enforcing bans on discrimination, even in private businesses, is vital to the preservation of our basic freedoms.

No it is not. Let us use a theoretical situation. White widget makers make $30,000 a year in wages and benefits. Due to discrimination black widget makers make $25,000 a year in wages and benefits. Myself being a non-discriminatory employer decides just to hire black widget makers. Soon I am making an excess profit of $5000 per employee. You don't think other people are not going to follow suit and push the wages of black widget workers up?

There would have been no need for Jim Crow laws if it had not been for the need to use government to prevent the free market from greatly reducing discrimination to a minimum effect on minorities.

Affirmative action divides people into groups. It gives group rights rather than individual rights. A group that legally can be discriminated in favor of, can also, given a change in public opinion, legally be discriminated against.

Yes, that must be why none of the 'white's only' businesses before the Civil Rights legislation ever showed a profit. That's why every business that discriminated in hiring or in who their customers were, was constantly in the red. Yeah, the market really showed them!

Your hypothesis sounds clever on paper, but maybe you could show us the money?!?

Where government would punish those who would not follow their discriminatory guidelines the free market was not allowed to work. All it takes is a couple employers who recognize that they can profit from hiring the discriminated against and discrimination is on its way out. When IQ is factored out blacks earn more than whites. See this link. Given this evidence it is clear that businesses discriminate against the stupid, not against people of color. Unfortunately discrimination against the stupid will always exist in a capitalist society. I'm kind of glad, I would rather have a stupid maid than a stupid heart surgeon. Since blacks already earn more than equally intelligent whites, I think it is time to end affirmative action. According to my link whites lost 192 billion dollars in income in 1997 due to being discriminated against.

I might buy into your example Hugo if it weren't for the fact that the site you chose to make your point (La Griffe Du Lion-"The Lion's Claw") is listed as a recommended link by white supremacists.

Case in point: http://www.libreopinion.com/members/whitehonour/links.htm

While La Griffe Du Lion may couch its bigotry in statistics and psychobabble its just another piece of fruit from the poison tree of white supremacy. Therefore, I reject it's psuedo-intellectual claptrap as nothing more than cleaned-up racism hidden under a thin veneer of respectability.

I also browsed some of the links from La Griffe Du Lion to other sites where one can find essays praising some of the "usual suspects" of eugenics (Herrnstein and Murray, Arthur Jensen, Jared Taylor, J. Phillipe Rushton and other unsavory crackpots). How typical of you Hugo. Start a debate on affirmative action and you find a way to work eugenics into the mix.

I believe the appropriate phrase for your presentation is, "consider the source."

Nice try, though.

Of course, you cannot contradict the statistics. The fact is equally intelligent blacks make just as much as whites. No discrimination, no need for affirmative action.

Let me quote a black guy. Yes, I know he is an Uncle Tom. From Thomas Sowell's "Ethnicity and IQ":



It seems to me that this IQ gap could be closed. IQ is usually pretty much set by the age of five. Affirmative action usually doesn't kick in until 18. Affirmative action discriminates against equally qualified white men and does not address the underlying reason for black vs. white income differences.

There is no need for me to contradict the statistics compiled on a website recommended by white supremacists and racists. Your "facts" come from a less than reputable source so why would I dignify them by trying to respond to them?

And you didn't quote a black guy by quoting Thomas Sowell. Sowell is a vile Negro house slave who makes his living sucking up to white conservatives so his opinion on anything means less than zero to me.

Hugo,

why would you try to sneak in the same stats again as if no one will notice this? I already debated your "facts" earlier, with actual statistics from ACTUAL government websites. I even showed stats where those with the same positions got shafted during the recent economic downturn.

There has to be a rule somewhere against posting bad statistics.

There is nothing wrong with my statistics. I believe yours are in error. Now let me quote from PBS (not sure if they are run by white supremeists or house slaves). From this link



"You wouldn't need to have racial preferences for admission to elite colleges if you actually had candidates with comparable test scores." Ain't that the truth. The test score gaps on SATs are undeniable. There is a very strong correlation between SAT scores and IQ. Politicians won't address the gap. If white they will be called a racist, if black a house slave. Meanwhile another generation will grow up having to depend on affirmative action, which is in a rather fragile state politically, to give them equal opportunity regardless if they are equally capable of fulfilling the task.

That statement is offensive, baseless and untrue. Not ONCE have I said that descrimination against minorities is okay, not once! What I am saying is that descrimination against anyone is wrong...So should I be asking whether to you descrimination is only wrong if committed against African Americans? I'm being consistant, I think that racism against blacks is reprehensible, as is descrimination against white males...I prefer equal treatment under the law. I'm unsure as to whether you completely twisted and warped what I said to attempt to make me look racist, or to damage my credibility in some way or what, but whatever it was, it didn't work

Nighttimer:

Agreed

Nighttimer, I completely understand your arguement, however, it is relatively obvious that AA violates the Civil Rights Act of 1964, wouldn't you agree?

I assume that that is directed toward my arguement based on the Constitution...Don't you think that it is safe to say that if the same thing [meaning racial preferences] was occurring, but favoring white men, that their would be lawsuits popping up like weeds [and that he African Americans being descriminated against would win]? But now that the same thing is happening to whites it's okay. That is not equal under the law.

CP

The act included 11 titles that covered a variety of issues. Included below is a sampling of the most significant titles:

I. Outlaws arbitrary discrimination in voter registration and
expedites voting rights suits;
II. Bars discrimination in public accommodations such as hotels
and restaurants;
III. & IV. Authorized the national government to bring suits to
desegregate public facilities and schools;
V. Extends the life and expands the power of the Civil Rights
Commission;
VI. Provides for federal financial assistance to be terminated
or withheld from educational institutions and programs that
practice racial discrimination;
VII. Prohibits private employers from refusing to hire or from
firing or discriminating against any person because of race,
color, sex, religion, or nation origin.

Title VII was the most significant of all the sections. However, when initially introduced by Kennedy prior to his death, it was only to apply to government employment. After much debate and revision before congress, it was changed to private sector employment only. Federal, state, and local government employment were excluded from the law.

http://www.ghg.net/hollaway/civil/civil42.htm

I would have to research The U.S. Supreme Court's Bakke decision to see if Alan Bakke used the equal protection clause in his challenge to affirmative action polices, Conservpat, but here is something I have extracted that helps explains how affirmative action was an outgrowth of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.


...affirmative action "refers to both mandatory and voluntary programs intended to affirm the civil rights of designated classes of individuals by taking positive action to protect them" from discrimination. The issue for most Americans is fairness: Should the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment be used to advance the liberty of one class of individuals for good reasons when that action may infringe on the liberty of another?

The EEOC, as an independent regulatory body, plays a major role in dealing with this issue. Since its creation in 1964, Congress has gradually extended EEOC powers to include investigatory authority, creating conciliation programs, filing lawsuits, and conducting voluntary assistance programs. While the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not mention the words affirmative action, it did authorize the bureaucracy to makes rules to help end discrimination. The EEOC has done so.

President Lyndon B. Johnson ordered all executive agencies to require federal contractors to "take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed and that employees are treated during employment without regard to race, color, religion, sex, or national origin." This marked the first use of the phrase "affirmative action." In 1969 an executive order required that every level of federal service offer equal opportunities for women and established a program to implement that action. President Richard Nixon's Department of Labor adopted a plan requiring federal contractors to assess their employees to identify gender and race and to set goals to end any under-representation of women and minorities. By the 1990s Democratic and Republican administrations had taken a variety of actions that resulted in 160 different affirmative action federal programs. State and local governments were following suit.

http://www.archives.gov/digital_classroom/...rights_act.html

As I said, I'd have to do a bit more digging than I have time at the present, but it is beginning to appear to me that while the 1964 Civil Rights Act essentially served as the blueprint, the enforcement aspect of affirmative action policies has been the tool.

Finally regarding your supposition if policies of racial preferences benefiting white men existed the response by African-Americans would be to bring lawsuits to end the practice I have to ask you this: What do you think the formal practice of slavery which following its end was replaced by segregation and Jim Crow laws were anyway if not racial preferences for the express purpose of benefiting those born with white skin?

http://www.jimcrowhistory.org/history/creating.htm

The systematic disenfranchisement of African-Americans was a real and actual event. It's tempting to dismiss what happened as ancient history, but we have to resist that temptation.

Human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe.

--- H. G. Wells

nightimer, excellent research.

At what point do we know that we've done our job, and people are accepted into schools, or hired, based entirely on their merit? At what point do we allow our laws at least, to be color-blind?

I'm personally in favor of correcting the inequities at the front end: primary education, strong families, etc. I'm just uncomfortable with how politicians have tried to legislate 'strong families'. I agree with the argument that, given an accurate test of merit, there should be one standard for all peoples. If affirmative action needs to be made, base it on socioeconomic status rather than skin color, as I believe the inequities in standard test scoring lies not in any genetic influence, but rather the preponderance of poverty, etc. among minorities. A kid who grows up with a poorly funded and poorly run public education, who's responsibilities included helping care and provide for his siblings, might just have more potential than another kid who's received every opportunity a wealthy upbringing offers. Skin color has nothing to do with it...

...except where one of those kids has been faced with flagrant racial discrimination, which I believe is dying or at least buried. Likewise, it's impossible to prove or disprove a history of racial discrimination in an individual. It's my contention that someone who grows up in a community that is 99% just like him, has probably not faced too much blatant discrimination. So, as a matter of practicality, I feel that it is impossible to count skin color as a favorable determining factor in hiring / education.

Segway: Should AA be enforced in this case: A local government agency, whose employees are roughly 50:50 black and white, promotes 75% of black candidates and 17% of white candidates? Assume all candidates are qualified for the promotion, and that no specific qualifications were listed as an explanation for the choice of promotions.

CP, the statement was not direcetd at you nor was it intended to call you something you are not. I asked the question to show that, barring any other efficient way to correct discrimination, it seems quite awkward that - like I have been saying - people seem to be up in arms about one sort of discrimination and not the other. If you want to say 2 wrongs don't make a right, go ahead. I wouldn't disagree. But at what point and how else do we address the original wrong?




I just don't even know how to respond anymore.

I don't either. Sadly the major factor why blacks make less than whites won't be addressed here (except by me). So let us continue to subsidize the stupid, let us ignore the real reason blacks make less than whites.

You will see a lot of claims of racism. The one thing you will not see is evidence that equally intelligent blacks make less than whites. As soon as someone can show me evidence of that (they can't) I will support affirmative action.

What makes you believe that IQ is pretty much fixed by the age of five? Not only does college education increase IQ, the rate of increase among black college students is four times greater than among white college students. From this link.Compare the average intelligence test scores of blacks and whites during their senior years in high school and whites tend to outscore blacks by as many as 15 IQ points. But send those students to college and the IQ scores of black students who graduate increase more than four times as much as those of their white college classmates, effectively cutting the black-white IQ gap in half by graduation.

This is one of the key findings of Washington University research that holds important implications for the current debate over federal and state attempts to roll back affirmative action programs. (end of quote)

This is evidence that black IQ is suppressed by being subjected to inferior education and that once they go to college, and play on a reasonably level field, blacks cognitive abilities improve rapidly. You did not find that study on your racist website, did you?

It appears from this study that blacks with equal SAT scores of whites would most likely perform better in college. Therefore basing college admissions on SAT scores does not predict equally the chances of college success and discriminates against blacks.

That is an impressive researching job Nighttimer [and I'm being serious], however I see three major flaws.

Isn't that what Affirmative Action is...No, let me rephrase, that IS what Affirmative Action is...It allows educational institutions to practice racial descrimination [while being handed gov't money]. So while AA does follow the Civil Rights Act of '64, it also violates it, thereby contradicting itself.

This sentence highlights the inconsistancy of Affirmative Action, it is implaced to "ensure that applicants are employed and that employees are treated during employment without regard to race, color, religion, sex or national origin." But in fact the system itself uses race, color, sex, and national origin.

I understand that that HAD happened before. But I'm talking about modern times, the era of Political Correctness...If an African American with better credentials than a white man was denied entrance to a college, while the white man was accepted on the grounds of his race, that African American would sue and win...Don't you agree? With that stated, now that the same thing is happening to white men, they are not being given equal protection under the law.

CP

Hugo,

This is a direct argument for affirmative actions. In a level playing field education should contribute to comparable iq's which as you argue can be improved with higher quality education.

Then if a system lets in the top ten percent of black applicants and the top ten percent of general applicants, according to your argument their differences in IQ would level out with the same college experience. But prior to entering college one group would appear to be less qualified than the other.

So if blacks ARE being subjected to inferior education (and they are here in NAshville as a general rule enforced by de facto segregation, suburban flight, and the exodus to private schools by the children of the upper middle class and above) then raced based college admission preferences WOULD improve the playing field and provide a high level crop of college graduates. And IQ level would go up for the general population group of African Americans.

This is from following your logic and arguments presented in the previous posts.

Exactly, if there are other studies confirming the one I just cited I am willing to change my stance on affirmative action. If SAT scores underrepresent blacks success in college they should not be the only factor. The purpose of an admissions policy should be to get the students with the greatest chance of academic success. Clearly a policy utilizing SAT scores alone, if the study I cited is correct, discriminates against blacks. I would love to see more such studies. Sadly simply recognizing racial gaps in IQ draws claims of racism and inhibits studies that might help us assure equality for all.

I think that there should be no anti-discrimination laws. I don't believe the gov't should practice AA, but if someone wants to start an all black or all white school/company/etc I think they have a right to do so. People have the right to be stupid and racist IMO. The gov't need not get involved, racists will suffer the wrath of the general public and that is all that is needed IMO.

I am new at this, and therefore did not see the forum on Race before stating my question about race in the Constitution forum. See Anti Racial Preference State Secession.

As to AA being positive or negitive, I cannot say for all, but I know its hurt me, my wife, and my children. I could go on to specifics ad nausium, but to what point. I am looking for a solution / way out. America used to be such a nice place to live. Now, its a difficult place to survive. - SmileyDog

SmileyDog, You claim that affirmative action has hurt you, your wife, and your children, and have plenty of examples, yet you provide none. You say you are looking for a solution/way out... to what? Some clarification, please. I don't think anyone on this board can read your mind.

... since when? What good ol' days are you referring to? Because I can assure you, at every single point in America's history, there has always been a persecuted group of people. There have always been injustices. America has never been a utopia.

Even if I agreed with this statement, which I most certainly don't (try moving to Somolia and telling me if you think America is such a difficult place to survive in), do you honestly believe that the perceived lowering of the quality of life has affirmative action to blame??? America was all peaches and dandelions until the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and then everything just took a turn for the worst?

Wow, women and minorities were able to get jobs all of a sudden. I can certainly understand how that directly caused America to become "a difficult place to survive."

The principle problem with AA is not its intent or even general method ( but I can think of several better methods), but rather it current lack of anything resembling a sense of proportion. There is no question that America has a history of extreme racism and using Goverment to implement descrimination. It is not unreasonable to attempt some redress for the depredations instituted against Blacks in the era of slavery and Jim Crowe laws. The difficult part comes in deciding who, what, how much, and for how long.

Affirmative Action as is was first proposed by the courts in the mid 60s, was an opportunity to gain college admission for Blacks only (around 12% of the nations population) . Non-Black Americans were ask to give up approximately 1/10 th of their opportunity to form one for Black America. That left 9/10 to be enjoyed by the donors. Most American felt that sacrificing 1/10 of their opportunities to provide hope for the down trodden Black community was reasonable.

But as pandering politics expanded the scope of AA, it has spread until almost everyone except White Males qualify. Additionally, it has be expanded in sphere of influence from merely collage admission to encompass scholarships, job placement, loans, legal and health care assistance, grading standards and even basic social standing. Since White Males are approximately 20% of the population, they are being asked to provide 4 whole opportunities each for the other 8 of 10 people.

This can be epitomized by the confusion the press, liberal academia, and Democratic candidates often have in distinguishing between these two statements.

1. 80% of all Corporations are owned by White Males
2. 80% of all White Males own Corporations

The few, elite, White Men who are the true inheritors of America's shameful past use their power, influence and money to themselves and their prodgengy aloof from the effect of AA. Does a son of the Rockerfellers, Kenedys, or Duponts need worry about working their way through community college trade school? The statistics show that AVERAGE income of White Males have dropped much closer to the National Average Income, does anyone really believe that it has been at the expense of the white power elite.

The final insult is that many of the people receiving affirmation action have inherited so little of the onus of America's racist/sexist past, that the preference makes them beyond competition by the WM sacrificing to provide the benefit. Consequently we are rapidly creating a new disenfrancised underclass. I have been asked why I am seeking a way out, with some comment about conditions in third world countries. I have traveled in my military service to at least two dozen third world countries and lived there long enough ( assisting the local populace in de-mining ) to understand the state of most of the worlds population much better than most Americans. I don't want to end up living that way! But I find that my position as a non-preferenced white male in a Majority Designated Minority population state ( New Mexico ) is rapidly placing myself and my family into exactly that situation.

I just don't qualify. Fine, then let me out. - SmileyDog

I believe Affirmative Action should go. Some people belive that promoting minorities is OK, I don't.

Discrimination is discrimination whether its against Negroes, Caucasians, Hispanics or Asians, Males or Females, Selenites or Martians.When someone applies for something, they should be accepted or denied based on their physical and mental qualifications compared to the same of the other applicants.

Then how do you prevent racism without AA?

That's the fundamental problem with AA, UJ. You can't prevent racism...It's impossible. Racism will always exist. You can't stop it. AA if anything, just fosters resent for those who receive its benefits [i.e. African Americans].

CP

CP that is an excellent argument for keeping AA intact or expanding its impact.
If this racism will always exist, then there will need to be a corrective in place to mitigate its effects to ensure that the cream will have an equal chance of rising to the top.

If racism will always exist, then a dominant racial caste in the economic system will choose to hire and promote those with a similar race. In such a perpetual reality, our society would be served by giving assistance to people from groups that face this unlevel playing field.

But wouldn't blacks employ other blacks if that tendency does exist?

Eeyore, what do we do when the "dominant racial caste" receives benefits from AA? There are cities & counties in this country where the majority of the population is non-white. Should AA still be in effect there? Should it be legal to hire people just because they are of a certain race? Should it be legal to set standards or qualifications that limit which races get hired? It happens both ways...If white guys conspire to hire only white guys, it's racism, and should be stopepd. What happens when black guys conspire to only hire black guys?

I find this argument bewildering. Lets take a city like Baltimore, which is predominantly black. Just because they have a numerical advantage doesn't mean they're running the show. There are a majority of black people to be sure, but I see nothing to indicate that they hold key positions in major companies, well paying jobs, or are in a position to turn racism on it's ear.

Since you brought it up, do you have any proof?

Many middle-class white people, especially those of us from the suburbs, like to think that we got to where we are today by virtue of our merit - hard work, intelligence, pluck, and maybe a little luck. And while we may be sympathetic to the plight of others, we close down when we hear the words "affirmative action" or "racial preferences." We worked hard, we made it on our own, the thinking goes, why don't 'they'? After all, the Civil Rights Act was enacted almost 40 years ago.

What we don't readily acknowledge is that racial preferences have a long, institutional history in this country - a white history.

http://academic.udayton.edu/race/04needs/affirm22.htm

I really don't understand your point Conservpat. By your own admission racism exists. Affirmative action is not a remedy to racism, but it is a treatment. However, because whites resent it, you are telling me that it's preferable to live with the disease of racism that take any steps to cure its effects? I don't follow the logic here.

White people have always benefited from their whiteness, but now they cry loud and long that they are the ones whom are discriminated against. That contention might be easier to accept if all the indicators of wealth, power, success and education were not decisively tilted in their favor.

Everybody says they want a colorblind society, but if those opposed to affirmative action don't offer any viable alternative to race-based policies, then they aren't doing a thing to move us closer to that world where color doesn't matter anymore.

There aren't many highly desireable local government jobs in cities like Baltimore, Detroit, or Washington, DC. One of the few is the job of firefighter. For each vacancy, there are hundreds of applicants.

Eight years ago, I applied for a job as a firefighter in Baltimore City. I sat down with a couple of thousand other applicants, and took a written test. After scoring, and adjusting for Veteran's Preference (which I don't get), I was 17th on the list. Four years later, when they were going to offer another test, and create a new list, I was 5th on the list. They had hired approximately 200 people in that time, but had not called me. They gave 100% resident's preference to those living in the city. As a result, while the 1800 person application pool was 80-90% white, the people hired were 80% black. If this was reversed, there would be an outcry, legal or not.

Washington, DC's hiring process is not quite as extreme, residents only get a 5 point bonus, moving them ahead of approximately 200 people. However, they have a Cadet program that guarantees the job of firefighter to anyone who completes a year in the Cadet program (i.e. no entrance exam). The kicker, is, the Cadet program is only open to at-risk troubled youth in certain DC public schools...and this program has never been offered in any of the few DC public schools that has white students.

In both these cases, a local government that is largely black has conspired to hire black employees, at the expense of more qualified (higher testing) white applicants.

I disagree with any policy that has such a pointed effect on the racial make-up of successful applicants.

EDITED TO ADD: In DC, (I can't speak for Balto) almost no effort is given to recruiting or hiring non-black minorities, despite the fact that Blacks are a majority, and all other races are minorities in the District.

No, I'm saying that racism exists [I'd be a fool to deny that], it will always exist, and AA doesn't do anything to stop it or lessen it, that's impossible. I say that for two reasons, in its essence AA is racism [I know I'll take a lot of abuse for that, but it's a fact], and two, people who are racist are not rational [racism is not a rational thought], you can't make irrational people change there mind, because they're too close minded in their irrational beliefs.

One could turn that around like this. Black people have always been crying loud about descrimination and racism, from which they have suffered, but now they say that they want to be the beneficiary of racism.

Here is the simple solution to this gap between white and black...Don't do anything! Black people are fully capable of succeeding without help, they can/are getting better educations by their own merit, and will continue to make progress. To imply that one race needs help to succeed where another race doesn't doesn't sound right to me.

CP

That's your solution, Conservpat? Do nothing? For every problem there's an answer that is simple, basic and wrong and your answer is mired in wrong.

So exactly how far do we take this "do nothing and it will all work itself out" mindset?

When your gas gauge reads "empty" do you figure you can still drive another 100 miles? If you have a flat tire do you expect the tire will reinflate itself? If a man enters your bedroom at night with a crazed look on his face and a bloody knife raised over his head, do you think if you just ignore him he will go away?

If that all sounds silly to you imagine how your solution sounds to me.

By choosing your choice Conservpat, 2004 would look a lot like 1954 with the same segregated water fountains, schools, homes and jobs. You seem to think that problems get resolved when nobody pays any attention to them. It doesn't work that way. It never has. It never will.

You didn't accept "do nothing" as a solution to the problem of Saddam Hussein. Why should I accept it as the answer to the problems caused by racism?

Racism may never be eradicated from the human heart, but that doesn't mean it's not worth making the effort to do so. I regret that affirmative action makes some ill while it cures others, but simply abandoning the treatment and letting the disease of bigotry and bias run amok is not a viable alternative.

Doing nothing does nothing but makes the problem worse.

So exactly how far do we take this "affirmative action" mindset?
That's assuming that people have not grown in any way since '54. I think [actually I know] that most people aren't racist, most people have evolved, and those that haven't will never change, so there is no point in trying, especially doing so in such a way that descriminates against another group. As to me seeming to think that problems will be solved by not doing something, come on...Doesn't it make sense to you that African Americans are fully capable of doing things that white people can do, without help?

You're killing me nighttimer, there's no connection between the two.

But if this were the other way around, and it was doing some harm to African Americans, and some good to whites, there would be a problem...And if these backward people [racists] are never going to change, why hurt another race to fight a losing cause?

CP

So exactly how far do we take this "affirmative action" mindset?

According to the most recent decision by The Supreme Court, Justice O'Connor wrote that within the next 25 years there should be no further need of affirmative action. That is by no means a carved-in-stone deadline, but it gives a time frame within to work to eliminate the lingering effect of formal, institutionalized racism.

I think [actually I know] that most people aren't racist, most people have evolved, and those that haven't will never change, so there is no point in trying, especially doing so in such a way that descriminates against another group. As to me seeming to think that problems will be solved by not doing something, come on...Doesn't it make sense to you that African Americans are fully capable of doing things that white people can do, without help?

But African Americans aren't fully capable of doing the same things that white people can do, without help, Conservpat. That's the heart of the matter. There is still discrimination in housing, employment and education. Redlining still occurs. There is still discrimination in granting medical care, home loans, credit and mortgages to blacks, Latinos and Asians. The days of the Ku Klux Klan riding up to a black family's home and burning a cross has pretty much ended, but there are more subtle and just as effective ways to keep blacks out of certain neighborhoods.

Regarding the "stigma" of affirmative action:

I have benefitted from all forms of Affirmative Action. I do not suffer from stigma or shame. When white people look at me and say " you are an affirmative action hire" my answer is you are so right. . and aren't you ashamed that . . . a person as talented, gifted and as qualified as my self . . . still needs assistance to have access to jobs, and educational opportunities." Aren't you ashamed . . . that African Americans, Hispanic Americans, Native Americans, and Asian Americans are still limited in their access to jobs and education solely because of the color of their skin".

As long as minorities aren't equitably represented in education and on workforce we still need Affirmative Action. We need Affirmative Action because of the continuing institutional and individual racism.

Racists aren't all wearing white sheets or screaming how much they hate niggers, spics and chinks. Sometimes they are that smiling face behind the desk that tells you that you can't buy that house or get that credit card or have that job.

Conservpat, racism doesn't just harm blacks. It harms whites as well. It's a sickness and a illness that when left unchecked can express itself in terrible ways. I disagree that the process of affirmative action is fighting a "losing cause." The only reason racist attitudes are less acceptable than they once were is because of the passage of time and the evolvement of attitudes. Where it was acceptable to tell sick jokes based on race, only ignorant people do so and then only when they think they are around like-minded others.

I don't think affirmative action will be with us forever. Over time there will be less need for it and eventually it will be phased out entirely. That day is not yet here.

George W. Bush is an Affirmative Action Baby. A son of wealth and privilege his entire life is one where his background has provided easy access to the finer things in life culminating with his current status.

If our President had the slightest sense of irony, he might have paused to ask himself, "Wait a minute. How did I get into Yale?" It wasn't because of any academic achievement: his high school record was ordinary. It wasn't because of his life experience — prosperous family, fancy prep school — which was all too familiar at Yale. It wasn't his SAT scores: 566 verbal and 640 math.

They may not have had an explicit point system at Yale in 1964, but Bush clearly got in because of affirmative action. Affirmative action for the son and grandson of alumni. Affirmative action for a member of a politically influential family. Affirmative action for a boy from a fancy prep school. These forms of affirmative action still go on. The Wall Street Journal reported last week that Harvard accepts 40% of applicants who are children of alumni but only 11% of applicants generally. And this kind of affirmative action makes the student body less diverse, not more so.

George W. Bush, in fact, may be the most spectacular affirmative-action success story of all time. Until 1994, when he was 48 years old and got elected Governor of Texas, his life was almost empty of accomplishments. Yet bloodlines and connections had put him into Andover, Yale and Harvard Business School, and even finally provided him with a fortune after years of business disappointments. Intelligence, hard work and the other qualities associated with the concept of merit had almost nothing to do with Bush's life and success up to that point. And yet seven years later he was President of the U.S.

So what is the difference between the kind of affirmative action that got Bush where he is today and the kind he wants the Supreme Court to outlaw? One difference is that the second kind is about race, and race is an especially toxic subject. Of course, George W.'s affirmative action is about race too, at least indirectly. The class of wealthy, influential children of alumni of top universities is disproportionately white. And it will remain that way for a long time — especially if racial affirmative action is outlawed.

http://academic.udayton.edu/race/04needs/affirm19.htm

Black people are just as capable at everything as white people are. Race makes no difference in capability. Capability is not a quality of race, it is an individual quality.

Affirmative Action is like being in a race and winning after you've gotten a headstart over your competition. All racers should start at the same line and the best, regardless of race, will win Affirmative Action is unnecessary and it complicates two simple concepts: equality and fairness.

It is very harmful. Not only is it unfair to white people, but it completely insults and patronizes black people and other minorities. Pretty much, it tells them, "You're not as good as everyone else, so we'll treat you differently to make up for it, just like a little kid." It's the opposite of compassion and understanding, and it robs them of the opportunity to live a wholesome life, knowing they earned what they have. I think it also keeps prejudice, because the more we keep reminding employers they are different, the more they will discriminate against them.

I think the idea of it is sound...the practice is poor. I don't believe that race is a statistically significant causal factor in a persons relative success in life. I believe there are many cofactors that operate to affect a persons success, and they appear to be race related. I believe that a person's success is based on, among other things, ambition, expectations, and ability. Unfortunately, factors that negatively affect ambition, expectations, and ability are currently unevenly distributed among people. If we can remove a child from exposure to apathy, crime, and the 'entitlement' mentality, and provide him with a safe, nurturing, educational environment, that child will probably be a success.

Race has nothing to do with it.

Racism will always exist, but AA is not the answer. Although at one part in our history, racism was tolerated by the government (white against black), and AA programs were an appropriate remedy, this is no longer the case. Racism exists today, but it is not only white against black.

The problems I see with AA today are the following:

1) AA has few set boundaries. Organizations are allowed to implement their own AA programs, and as long as a company has an established AA, it can use race as a hiring/promoting factor. Strict quotas are not allowed, but the process is still using race as a factor. Also, there is no temporal boundary. Justice O'Connor (in the recent MI school decisions) suggested that AA should be allowed for another 25 years. But other justices disagreed with her. What are the set time-lines for when AA will no longer be needed? And who will decide this?

2) AA has outlived its usefulness. In the 60s and 70s, the government needed to step in and implement AA programs to ensure minorities received the same advantages as whites. This is no longer the case. Although I know that some employers continue to discriminate, AA programs aren't going to make any difference to them (because they don't need to meet any racial quotas).

And employees who feel they have been discriminated against have several channels to retaliate (EEOC, Title VII, sec. 1983 of Civ Rights Act, ADEA, ADA, etc.). And the employee's burden is low. If the employee can show that he/she is a minority, and the employer filled the position with a white person with the same skill level as the employee, then there is a presumption of discrimination against the employer, which the employer will have to defend itself against. There are high prices for an employer to be racist in modern America.

3) AA is counterintuitive. We tell our children that racism is wrong. That we should not judge people based on the color of their skin. But (whether you agree with AA or not), this is exactly what AA is doing.

4) AA is overbroad. Why are we assuming all minorities are underprivileged? A minority making $10,000 a year and a minority making $100,000 a year are both given the same racial "boost" in an employment setting. Similarly, a white, poor man is not given this boost. If our society feels that we should help the underprivileged in academia and employment, why not have an AA system based on financial status, not race? This way we ensure that those who are really at a disadvantage get a boost.

We need to stop society's practice of focusing on race. It has happened throughout American history and against many racial groups. When will we learn that skin color is just that...skin color! It should bear no significance in an academic or employment setting. Financial status, however, does play a major role. Let's have an AA system based on finances (and naturally will include those who have been economically disadvantaged by past discrimination).

Nightimer,



I don't disagree with this. However, I think it is still valid to question whether or not affirmative action is the answer. I see several issues which affirmative actions supporters need to address. First among them is whether or not it is really helping to solve the problem. As much as it might help minorities get jobs they might otherwise have been denied, it does so by providing them with a crutch. At what point does the need for the crutch disappear? Would the issue disappear faster with the crutch? Also, there is the resentment created by applying reverse discrimination. Does this outweigh the potential benefits? There is also the issue (and I have seen this first-hand) of companies hiring minorities to meet the quotas, when they have absolutely no intention of having them succeed. They're just playing a numbers game, filling in gaps in low importance positions to make themselves look better. Is this really helping?

I am not not necessarily against affirmative action. But, like all such programs, I think too little attention is paid to whether or not it is really solving the problem. As with all government programs, if they can't show they're working, they should be abolished. It could be that affirmative action is, in fact, helping to resolve the issue. I just don't here much about its results.

I.m.o., blacks - the primary beneficiary of the affirmative action - are in position to demand special treatment and protection for themselves from government only because powereful special interest groups like NAACP back them up politically and persuade/intimidate politicians into complying with their demands because they represent a lucrative coherent organanized chunk of votes that politicians strive to secure for themselves.
In this resprect, African-Americans are very much akin to gays/lesbians, handicapped, women and Hispanics in the sense that all of these are represented by powerful spec. int. "civil liberties" unions, e.g. NAACP, GLAAD, NOW, etc., and they all have secured a preferential treatment from the government for their respective social group by riding the momentum of the wave of change in equity/non-discrimination that started in 1950-60 era and continue to advance their rights to the point when right becomes privilege.
In her book "Thought Police", former activist and LA chapter leader of NOW Tamy Bruce describes the wickedness and corruption of spec. int. groups like these, who having outlived thier period of usefulness (historical period when their activity was truly promoting greater equlity and opportunity), have mutated into regressive, dominative, free-speech and free-thought oppressive gangs using tactics of McCarthyism to trample any resistance to their agenda of "greater equality" in the form of "special protection" and "special treatment" of certain groups of society, i.e. favoritism on the behalf of government, businesses, universities, media. Unfortunately affirmative action is part of this infamous Left Agenda.

I beleive that the affirmative action is fundamentally flawed and self-contradictory.
First, as a prospective and academically competitive applicant to the college I myself am outraged and deeply insulted by an affirmative action and the issue is deeply touching and critical to me. By what right does an an applicant with lower ACT/SAT scores, gpa and overall academic record is admitted over me just because he/she is black or Hispanic? How can "civil rights leaders" like Jesse Smith, who were contemporaries of Martin L. King, be so hypocritical as to demand affiramtive action, when M.L.K> himself said that he wished that his descendants were "valued by the content of their mind, not by the color of the skin"?

By what right can a group in society that has been discriminated against in past ask to be discriminated in favor of and be "above everybody else" in the eyes of law? By what rigt can grand-grand children of African slaves can ask for astronomical "reparations" for the damage done to their progenitors some hundred years ago? How come Irish, Italians, Poles, Chinese, Russians, Swedes, Ukranians, Albanians, Koreas, Japanese, etc. cannot ask for "compensation" for discrimination encountered by this groups (oftentimes as much or even more severe than blacks) during various periods of history? By what right can the government tell firfighters/policemen to hire less qualified person to the postition where someone's life may be dependent on the integritiy/quality of the personnel?
It's just absurd to me.

All ye who scare us with a "hideous face of racism" know that the period of intense racism is long since gone into annals of history, and by discriminating in favor if the minorities the smolders of racism are only animated back to life by the reason of resentment and majority backlash.

I'll quote nighttimer with your kindest permission:
"As long as minorities aren't equitably represented in education and on workforce we still need Affirmative Action. We need AA because of the continuing institutional and individual racism."
So what you're basically implying is that as long as proportion of minority in some field is not EXACTLY the same as in general population, it's a racism.
Why don't we introduce "arresting/incarcerating quotas" then, since 75% of all US penitentiary inmates are either blacks or Latinos, while these two groups only comprise 25% of general population? And don't try to sell me that stuff that police is racist; it's well known fact that black/Hispanic neighborhoods have the highest crime rates.
Why don't we arrest exactly 25% black-Hispanic felons and 75% white-majority felons? That would be equitable and "fair", wouldn't it?
The same exact rationale can be applied to hiring quotas, affirmative acton in college admissions, and others.

Law an society should be colorblind when dealing with these aspects of society, even if 100% of arrested persons are black/Hispanics, it shouldn't prevent law from doing its entitled duty. Racism may exist here and there, but as long as it's not condoned by society/gov-t and government goes to reasonable lengths to prevent/punish obvious forms of it, it should be left "laissez faire".

In the end, AA is more detrimental to the interracial tolerance and is an antogonist of itself merely because it creates lowered expectation from minorities and thus belittles them inadvertently. There's been a great progress towards more equality and fairness in this country (US) and AA only serves to create tension and friction.
Individuals should be evaluated on individual basis and not generalized into a groups and be "taken care of" by Uncle Sam.