Affirmative action is affirmative racism!!!!!!!!!!

[MJ-12]

bfs

[Tisha]

Somebody has misinformed Mr. Bush and unfortunately he's making an butt over himself on this topic.  I'm a recruiter and my company recruits at Michigan specifically because their engineering program is incredibly diverse compared to other university engineering programs, which are generally the last holdout of white maleness(would you believe the engineering building at the University of Minnesota didn't even have a ladies'room until 1987?).

Mr. Bush is an odd person to speak out against non-merit factors being used in enrollment decisions.  He was a C-student, and he got into Yale because his daddy went there.  If I were George I'd be embarrassed.  Well, then again maybe I wouldn't be smart enough to be embarrassed.  Think about all the A students who couldn't get into Yale that year because dumb rich white boys like George Bush were hogging the seats?  (OK, C students aren't dumb, they're average.  But I keep thinking George is dumb.  Maybe it's because of the things he says?)

The University of Michigan does not use quotas. Race is one of the many factors the school looks at when deciding whether or not to admit a person to their university. Ironically enough, George's "answer" to U. Michigan's system (top 10% in every high school class gets in), is a quota system.  DUH, George.

The Bush alternative will only achieve racial diversity when schools are segregated by race. Unfortunately, in the U.S.A school segregation is becoming more and more of a problem - - the poor in the U.S.A are generally (though not totally) nonwhite, and live in poor communities with terrible schools.  When they graduate, how can they compete effectively with the (mostly) white middle and upper class?

I believe (hope) that the Supreme Court will make a wise decision on this case.  If the playing field were level, I'd agree to take race out of the equation.  But the playing field is not level.  In fact, the playing field is getting worse every year.  Poverty, race, and bad schools are linked in a downward spiral.  It's scary.  If we don't do something about racial inequality (in the U.S.A), someday the non-white masses will revolt against the privileged white minority and we'll have a situation like Southern Africa.

The way out of poverty is a decent education and a good job.  The middle and upper classes generally don't have an issue with getting a good education, and if they don't get into one good university, they can get into an another. Poor kids aren't so lucky. If the U.S.A refuses to commit to a good education for ALL children of ALL races, then the U.S.A has to decide what to do with the unfortunate result.  And if affirmative action is one of the remedies, so be it.  

SOOOO, on to MY POINT! The white middle class needs to quit whining.  The white LOWER class needs to: 1) admit that they are lower class because there is nothing wrong with it; and 2) join hands with the non-white lower class and FIGHT FOR DECENT SCHOOLS, instead of fighting each other over scraps.

Everyone, forget the race wars. May the class wars in America begin.  It's about d*# time.

tish

[Tom]

Until proven otherwise, I am a white male. My mom was adopted and she told me that she found her family. We are either part Cherokee or part Sioux. Enough that I am either 1/8 or 1/16. Enough to register as native american and join a tribe. The research required to determine the matter would take a while. Then there is a matter of the requirement to be an active participant in the culture of whichever tribe I am part of. Either I am a tax credit for my employer or I am not. It has not really been important.

[Celeste]

MJ-12 and Tisha
 Well said! Many people are sleeping. This is the corporate age.  Suzuki said , "...we are in a car speeding 100mi/hr towards a brick wall and we are arguing over where we are going to sit."  
Keep the masses confused, ignorant,in fear & entertained. Sometimes it's just too painful to watch... celeste

Here's an article concerning Bush-case anyone's interested.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,482-543296,00.html

[PeacefulWarrior]

Tisha, why did you say "forget the race wars" if you obviously support racism?  Affirmative action is racism!  Don't take my tone to be offensive, I am standing up against racism, not you...

The bottom line is that I have watched, personally, white males be turned down for scholarships and jobs because of their skin.  Skin color doesn't and shouldn't matter, period.  Sure, Bush's acceptance to Yale or wherever is a good point, but not regarding race...it's about CLASS.  Everybody knows that $ rules the world.  That's what racism was all about.  Sure, ideological racism exists (and is dwindling rapidly for the most part) but it will hold on longer if affirmative action sticks around.  I really feel affirmative action causes more racism because it pisses people off and makes them think more along the lines of race.  The whole premise is, "Hey, it's our turn now".  Many black people will tell you the same thing I am...they don't want hand outs and gimmies, they want an even playing field...so sure, finacial aid, etc etc. is all good, but as soon as we use race as an indicator then we perpetuate hate and racism[!].

People keep seeming to get mixed up about race and class.  MJ 12 has the right idea...unless you are part of the 1-5 % of the population that belongs to the elite rich, then you are oppressed, regardless of your skin color[].

[Adrian]

Greetings,

I would just like to make an observation based on what people of African origin say of themselves.

They do not like to be called "blacks" but rather "non-whites". The latter seems worse to me, because it implies that there are "whites" and then "non-whites" using "whites" as the benchmark. Surely they would be better off accepting what they are, i.e. of proud African origin, and being positive about it?

With best regards,

Adrian.

[PeacefulWarrior]

Thanks Adrian...

Here in the US blacks liked to be called blacks.  Some of them prefer African-American, but I was just enrolled in a Race, Class and Gender course here at the University of California and there were numerous blacks in the class.  We spent nearly an entire hour discussing the terms we would be using during the course to address one another and our individual cultures and race...the blacks OVERWHELMINGLY wanted to be called "blacks"...and whites "whites".  Other groups, however, such as Latinos and Asian-Americans had a lot more to say about what they wanted to be called.  

The "terms" used to classify people into their distinctive racial groups seems to very mutable and in any given case you are likely to offend someone.  Many, for example, don't think we should distinguish one another racially...but how the heck are you supposed to describe your friends?

[PeacefulWarrior]

The following are two horror stories involving discrimination that should make any logical person see the huge problems that inevitably arise when racial discrimination is practiced in ANY form.  The first one is about a black business man who didn't want the hand outs being offered him and he was punished!  ...and I'll let the second one explain itself.
--------------------------------
Austin punishes black business
owner for NOT accepting
racial set-asides!
News Release Dec. 22, 1998
Campaign for a Color-Blind America
Contact Marc Levin (713) 626-0943

Today, the Campaign for a Color-Blind America expressed its deep disappointment at federal Judge Sam Sparks' dismissal of a racial discrimination suit filed against the City of Austin by an African-American BBQ seller who was improperly fired for not agreeing to accept special treatment based on his race. In a case that has raised the interest of the U.S. Senate, Mr. John Goode, the owner/operator of Mr. Bones BBQ, filed suit on March 6, 1998 against both the City of Austin and its contractor Fine Host Corporation for a wrongful and unfair dismissal that has left him destitute.

Mr. Goode sold BBQ and other products to patrons of Palmer Auditorium, the Austin Convention Center, and the City Coliseum in Austin, TX during special events from 1989 to 1996. In the Spring of 1996, the Austin City Council passed an affirmative action plan which required minorities seeking contracts or subcontracts to fulfill specific requirements in obtaining certification as a minority owned business. There were no such requirements, to our knowledge, for white contractors and subcontractors doing business with the City.

John Goode declined to certify himself as a minority owned business because he felt his BBQ could stand on its own merit and he did not want any special treatment on account of his race. He simply wanted to be included in the 75% of subcontractors who didn't have to prove minority status.

However, in an August 2, 1996 letter to Mr. Goode, Fine Host Corporation terminated its contract with Mr. Goode stating, "Due tot he lack of proof of M/WBE certification with SMBR (formally known as the Office of Minority and Business Affairs), and the fact that we do not show an application pending from Mr. Bones BBQ, nor do they show Mr. Bones BBQ as having ever been certified as a Minority/Women Owned Business Enterprise, we cannot continue this business relationship." They go on to state that, "Our commitment to the City of Austin is to do our best to maintain a 25% concession percentage with certified minority/women owned business enterprises. In order for your partnership to be included in our percentage you must be a certified M/WBE with the City of Austin department of Small and Minority Business Resources."

In other words, Goode was penalized for not accepting the "benefits" of affirmative action. He could have easily been included in the 75% of the remaining contracts, but he was never given that chance. As a result, Mr. Goode lost his business, his house, and now has nothing. Mr. Goode has even testified about his case before the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee.  However, despite this overwhelming evidence of racial injustice, Judge Sparks flippantly dismissed this very serious case. Keith Lauerman, an attorney representing Mr. Goode on a pro bono basis, said he is "I am very
disappointed with Judge Sparks' decision and am currently working on a motion to reconsider which I will file within ten days."

Campaign for a Color-blind America Executive Director Marc Levin said "I am profoundly disturbed that Judge Sparks would dismiss this case and, thereby, deny Mr. Goode the opportunity to present his evidence at a trial.  I am simply stunned that, in the face of the tremendous amount of evidence of insidious racial discrimination against Mr. Goode, a federal judge would not even allow the case to go to trial. I hope that, for the sake of Mr. Goode and in the interest of equal rights and due process under the law, Judge Sparks will recognize his error and allow Mr. Goode to have his day
in court before a jury of his peers." The Campaign for a Color-Blind America is a 501(c)(3) not-for-profit organization whose Board includes nationally prominent civil rights activists, social scientists and legal scholars. The goal of the organization is to challenge race-based public policies and educate the public about the injustices of racial preferences.  Since 1993, the Campaign has challenged racially gerrymandered voting districts throughout the country and race-based admission policies in public schools.

Campaign for a Color-blind America Contact Information:  www.equalrights.com

OR HOW ABOUT THIS:
Black Female Sheriff
Hires Her Own!
Non-minority Officers Win Reverse
Discrimination Lawsuit

         16 non-minority deputies in Georgia's Fulton County Marshall's department were forced to sue this Georgia police department for 'reverse discrimination'.

Defendants: Ms. Jackie Barrett is the Fulton County, Georgia sheriff who imposed 'reverse discrimination' on the white officers in her department. Ms. Barrett is a black female who was elected to the Sheriff's job as a democrat.

         The Court found that Ms. Barrett and the Fulton County, Georgia Sheriff's department were guilty of practicing 'reverse discrimination' and 'anti-white diversity' policies in this Georgia police department. The Court found that Ms. Barrett's policies systematically excluded qualified 'non-minority' employees of the department from advancement solely for racial reasons.

         The Court found in favor of the 16 'non-minority' complainants, and has directed that they be paid $812,000 in damages (which amount includes $180,000 in punitive damages assessed against the Fulton County Marshall's Department).

         Fulton County, Georgia officials have stated for the record that "If the $180,000 punitive damage award is allowed to stand, we think Sheriff Jackie Barrett should have to pay this amount out of her personal funds."

Feb. 6, 1996: Appeal by Fulton County, seeking to overturn the Judge's finding of 'reverse discrimination' against the 16 non-minority officers. Fulton County democrats felt so strongly about this issue that they spent $244,000 of taxpayer funds opposing and appealling the Judge's Order against Fulton County.  Hmm.   Using your tax dollars to fight against your constitutional rights... it doesn't sound right, does it?

Aug. 17, 1996: Fulton County Commissioner Mitch Skandalakis has publicly stated that the black, female Sheriff, Ms. Jackie Barrett, who bears the responsibility for the 'reverse discrimination' policies against the 16 officers, should be required to pay the $180,000 punitive damage award out of her own pocket!

         Well, Ms. Sheriff Jackie Barrett, it seems that your 'reverse discrimination' is going to cost you a lot of money! We hope that your unconstitutional, prejudiced management style has a significant, negative impact on your paycheck!

Footnote:  It was an election year for the Fulton County Sheriff, and the bombing incident at the Olympics that summer overshadowed the local reportage of the Sheriff's contest and the "reverse racism" issues.  While the bombing was a tragedy that certainly deserved wide news coverage, it is too bad that Ms. Jackie Barrett's racist vendetta against white officers was overlooked during all the press coverage of the bombing.  Regrettably, she was re-elected.

         You can contact Ms. "Anti-White" Barrett at:

                   Justice Center Tower
                   185 Central Avenue, S.W.
                   Atlanta, Georgia 30303
                   (404) 730-5100
                   ATTN:   Sheriff Jacquelyn H. Barrett

----------------------------------------------------------------------

[MJ-12]

bf

[Tisha]

Peaceful Warrior, real affirmative action is not racism.  A little bit of HR (human resources) education for everyone:  

Affirmative action is (proper) action intended to level the playing field.  It is NOT racism against white people.  Ignorant people do stupid things in the name of affirmative action.  Ignorant people do a LOT of stupid things in the names of a LOT of ideals, i.e., Christianity, Democracy, Peace, etc.  That doesn't mean affirmative action is bad.

Considering race from among a VARIETY OF CONSIDERATIONS when making field-leveling decisions is OK, LEGAL and PROPER.  Using race as the ONLY consideration is racism, pure and simple, and it is ILLEGAL.  

Here are examples of proper Affirmative Action:

A.  A manager has three equally qualified candidates for a promotion.  However, one candidate is a minority that is underrepresented in that salary level in the company.  Can the manager choose the minority candidate?  You bet your bippy.  However, choosing a LESS qualified minority to fill that job, although legal, would be a travesty, and an offense, to whites and minorities both, especially if done in the name of "affirmative action."

B.  An engineering firm is lacking minority and female engineers.  They're hard to come by in the first place, because only a small percentage of the engineering workforce is minority or female.  Can the firm go out of its way to find minority and co-ops and interns to groom into engineers, even pay their tuition?  You bet. As long as white males are considered for the same positions, with the same access to tuition funds, it's absolutely legal.

Anyone who truly cares about the Michigan case should read/hear both sides of the story.  The Republicans got their facts wrong, and I believe in the end it will show. The white law students weren't denied admission "because they were white" (although they'd like to think so).  They were denied admission because, when everything balanced out - - test scores, grades, race, legacy, community involvement and who-knows-what-other factors), other people scored higher than they did.  Maybe those other people happened to be minorities. If their minority status was the tie-breaker, it's still legal, because a diverse student body is a valid objective.

Michigan's enrollment policies have passed muster at several judicial levels because they meet the intent of the LAW:  The University considers race, along with SEVERAL factors, that are balanced out at the end, the end result being (hopefully) a diverse student body, diverse in gender, race, religion, social background, academic background, you-name-it.  And that's a good thing for society.

My point stands:  White people need to quit whining, because we are priveleged beyond our wildest imaginings, such that when we actually EXPERIENCE racism for once, it feels like a kick in the head.  Well, imagine spending your whole life among people who think that due to your skin color, or gender, you are automatically a member of a lower strata of society. Then grow up. You don't have it so bad.  

It's a big, colorful playground out there, and and a few priveleged white boys are hoarding the toys.  As long as this is the case, class and race will be inseparable in people's minds.  Face it!  The wise will know it's all about class, but the priveleged white minority (whom the Republican Party courts) will use race as a wedge issue to make the oppressed fight among each other.  And then, when we're not looking, they will raid our pockets.  Let them know we're wise to them.

[James S]

Tisha has raised one very good point in her last post:

quote:Anyone who truly cares about the Michigan case should read/hear both sides of the story. The Republicans got their facts wrong, and I believe in the end it will show.

When we here of such stories it is being presented to us by a media corporation that is undeniably biased and has an agenda. Anybody who believes that they can pick up a newspaper or magazine, read an article and get all the facts of the matter are kidding themselves.

It has been pointed out, and correctly so by a few people here that there will always be "jobs for the boys", the elite few who are assured a place in the workforce because of who they are.

Below that level though I believe that Affirmitive Action, or as we have here in Aus - Equal Opportunity Employment, does work when used properly.

One other factor that often arises and has to be taken into account, something that Tisha will no doubt have seen in her line of work, is where an employer has to consider the team or group of people that a candidate is being placed with. A white male will not be well placed with a group of predominantly asian and latino women, neither would a muslim be well placed amongst a team largely made up of baptists.

Candidates for such positions might come in all races or religions, but an employer often has to look at the overall good of the team, and will not willingly employ someone who might be at odds with that team. Thats not being prejudiced, it's just being practical, as both parties are likely to end up feeling uncomfortable. The trouble there will be if someone gets a bee in their bonet about the fact that they were overlooked for the position in favour of someone of a different race / religion. They'll then start going to solicitors or the media and the whole situation will end up getting completely bent out of shape.

James.

[cainam_nazier]

Well, I for on ehave NEVER seen affirmative action work correctly or as it was intended.  The system is flawed, and was from the begining.  By saying a company or entity has to have X amount on any race to be considered  "diversified", often to recieve certain equaties from other companies, groups, or governments, is flawed.

I say this because I work for a non-profit hospital.  We are required to have a certain amount of minorities working at various pay levels.  If we don't, the company can loose very important government money, and tax breaks.  As a result un-qualified people are put in to jobs to meet quotas.  I see it every day.

This kind of stuff happens because companies, groups, and organizations, are encouraged to "diversify" with money.  No "diversity"= no money.  And I would bet that 99% of the people who sit on a board or committy see exactly that way.  Despite the way it was intended to work.

The whole thing should be tossed out the window.  
The idea is good, but the working model leaves much to be desired.

I know I will catch hell for this but think about it for a minute.

It is much the same as Communisim.  In theory Communisim is the best for of Government there is.  Every one works, Every one gets paid the same, every one gets a house, medical, food, ect.  But we have all seen that the working model does not work.  Because every one get paid the same weather they work or not.  Corruption runs wild because people are trying to make money on the side.

Now back to Affirmative Action.  Because we give money, benefits, and other perks out to companies who are considered "diversified" the idea has been corrupted.  The incentive is not to be fair, or offer a level playing field.  The incentive is in the wallet.  So then why should any one be hired because of what they can do or how qualified they are.  It comes down to what color thier skin is, or what thier gender is.

So what are we going to do next?  Are we going to say that you have to have so many people with blue eyes, so many with green, or so many people with red hair, or curly hair?

It all has to end some time.

[Tom]

Next we will be seeing people rejected on the basis of risk factors for health insurance. People who smoke, drink alcohol, have health problems, who are too old, or who take too many risks. It is already beginning where I work.

[Tisha]

First, the argument about discriminating based upon eye color, hair color, etc., is lame.  (the person isn't lame, but the idea sure is! hey, I love you guys) The reason it is lame is because the U.S. does not have a long history of oppressing people based upon their eye or hair color.  Sure, in some parts of the country, blondes are still given preference in dating, but who cares, we're not talking about dates, we're talking about education and jobs.

Furthermore, the idea that a white person being denied enrollment to an exclusive college is somehow analogous to a black person being rejected at a lunch counter in the Jim Crow south is DOUBLY lame!  PLEASE! EVERYONE!  (I'm not being grumpy here, I'm just excitable.)  Lunch counters, and about 80 percent of the colleges and universities in the U.S., are not allowed to discriminate (they're called "nonselective colleges" for a reason).  But exclusive colleges and universities (about 20%) are by their very nature exclusive.  People are going to get excluded. Here is the point system for the U of Michigan undergraduate school:

Grade point average:  Max 80 points
SAT/ACT Scores:  Max 12 points
Residency:  Michigan residents 10 points, Underrepresented Michigan county, additional 16 points, Underrepresented state, 2 points
Legacy:   Parents 4 points, Other family 1 point
Essay: Max 3 points
Personal Achievment:  Max 5 points
Leadership and Service: Max 5 points
Socioeconomic Disadvantage (race neutral): 20 points
Undderrepresented minority:  20 points
Men in nursing:  5 points
Scholarship Athlete:  20 points
Provost Discretion:  20 points

OK, maybe my personal values might affect how I weighed the different factors . . . but the fact remains that using this point system almost guarantees that generally high-qualified candidates are going to be accepted into the university at Michigan.   A poor quality minority candidate just isn't going to make it.

Ironically, the admissions office at Graduate School at Michigan does NOT use a point system. The admissions staff does a mental balancing of many factors, with race being just one of them.  The plaintiffs in the Michigan case were law school applicants.  HMMMMMMMM.  What does that say to you?

Interesting facts I read in Newsweek:

To blacks, Affirmative Action means outreach to qualified minorities
To whites, Affirmative Action means quotas, and hiring the non-qualified

I don't think anyone argues your point that quotas suck. (Quotas are only legal when they are court-mandated, after there is documented proof of deliberate, long-term discrimination. By the way, the 1978 Bakke vs. California case that legalized the use of race in college enrollment decisions frowned upon quotas).  

Basically, quotas backfire.   Many power-holders (mostly white males), faced with their EEO mandates, reluctantly do the minimum required, to APPEAR as if they're doing something.  Being true sexists and racists (often without realizing it), they secretly think there aren't any qualified minorities or women. They think outreach to find qualified minorities/women is "too hard," or that qualified handicapped people "just aren't out there." So they grab whatever minorities/women/handicapped they see and put them in jobs to meet (often self-imposed) quotas, so they look like they've done the outreach they never actually did.   When this approach is used, people often fail at what they were chosen to do.  Then the racist/sexist whites say, "SEE? I TOLD YOU THEY COULDN'T SUCCEED!"  The cycle repeats itself, giving whites all the emotional ammunition they need to maintain their racist/sexist views.

A better approach is to DO THE WORK to find the qualified minority candidates.  They're out there, you just need to find them.  Since their numbers are small (for instance, blacks are 13% of the population and only about 10% of them are university educated), sometimes it's like finding the needle in the proverbial haystack.  THIS is the work of Affirmative Action:  Getting more (qualified) minorities into college so they can get educated and qualify for the more high-paying jobs.  And ensuring that when they DO graduate, they are not overlooked.

(By the way, affirmative action is also supposed to ensure that we outreach to people with physical disabilities, to ensure that they are given the same educational and employment opportunities as everyone else. There is a lot of discrimination against the handicapped - - people presume they are less intelligent, in less need of income (!?!), and too much of a bother to educate or employ.  It takes a lot of work to overcome these barriers, and it is that WORK that is the work of Affirmative Action)

Now, after all this work defending Affirmative Action, I'm going to suggest a COMPROMISE!    A progressive upward-mobility program based upon socioeconomic status.  It could start out as race-neutral, until/unless it became evident that all benefits were going to poor whites, which would be a MAJOR red flag because the poor in the U.S. are generally non-white, at least in urban areas.  Applicants would still have to be high-qualified, or in the case of the very young, high-potential.  

Guys/gals, work with me on this.  What do you think?  

[Shawn McCaffrey]

Why are you arguing over this?
Everyone knows between right and wrong instinctively.  
The only reason people go against it is either to get ahead in their own personal ajendas. (greedy money makers, etc.)
Or they are letting what they have been taught over the years cloud their mind.  
I just don't understand why peopel argue over this, it's so obvious.
That's my 2 cent's worth.
Spread the love, don't obsess over the hate.
[|)]

[cainam_nazier]

It just seems to me that using race/gender as a basis for anything is wrong.

"Now, after all this work defending Affirmative Action, I'm going to suggest a COMPROMISE! A progressive upward-mobility program based upon socioeconomic status. It could start out as race-neutral, until/unless it became evident that all benefits were going to poor whites, which would be a MAJOR red flag because the poor in the U.S. are generally non-white, at least in urban areas. Applicants would still have to be high-qualified, or in the case of the very young, high-potential.

Guys/gals, work with me on this. What do you think? "

To me basing benefit programs more on this line of thinking would be more level.

[PeacefulWarrior]

One of my posts has dissapeared...maybe I was censored, who knows.  Anyway, the last post by cainam_nazier is music to my ears...why?  Because it's logical, it's not based on race or sex...it's based on socioeconomic issues.  Poor, uneducated people come from all walks of life, all races, both sexes.  I would even add to this "upward mobility program" some sort of clause about families, ie. children coming from broken homes should recieve additional aid as they climb their way to the top.  

I can admit to one example from my own life which has led to me to see the truth.  In high school I was near the top of my class, GPA wise.  When it came time to apply to schools, of the top 10 students, one guy in particular got "hooked up".  He was and still is a friend of mine.  He got a FULL-RIDE scholarship to USC (wort approx. $100,000).  He got it because he had good grades AND because he is of Hispanic origin (Garcia).  He got it because of his last name in effect.  Did he deserve it more than other students?  Well, he lives in a 2 story, $300,000 house.  Both of his parents are professionals, etc. etc.  He had his own PC when not everyone did, a car...you get the picture.  I myself barely got in to a private university and of course started taking out loans because I didn't get scholarships, and my dad, a school teacher, definetly couldn't foot the bills.

Tell me that's fair...

I am really not complaining[], I am going to make it regardless.  More power to my buddy...but even HE ADMITS it's a joke.  Now what about another kid who was poor, white and has only descent grades...this describes quite a few of my old buddies.  Now some of them are drop outs, mechanics, etc.  (not that there is ANYTHING wrong with being a mechanic!)  but the point is that a system that fosters racism, or in essence tries to make up for past injustice with injustice, is morally dispicable.  

Let's focus on the real goals: []peace, equality, prosperity, unity...and upward mobility for those who really need it, based on class, education, etc.[]

I also want to add this article as an appendage to what I have said:

WHERE AFFIRMATIVE ACTION GOES WRONG
WILLIAM MURCHISON (edited)
May 26, 1997
In Texas, the backlash against the backlash against affirmative action is ginning up. Hands are wrung in high places; "progressive" social thinkers View with Alarm. The hand-wringers imply that the civil rights laws mean, or should mean, the opposite of what they say. In other words, the University of Texas Law School shouldn't be forced by the federal courts to disregard race when offering admission.

What the law school wanted, and apparently still would relish, was to keep racial discrimination but fine-tune it: twirl some knobs and come out with just the right, socially progressive mix of races. Right according to whom? To the fine-tuners, the experts: whom we can trust -- y'know? Who have at heart our best interests, on account of their academic pedigrees and enlarged social consciences. Alas, the civil rights laws aren't written that way. The laws don't say, let the experts decide for mystical reasons revealed to them alone. The laws say no racial discrimination. Bless their bleeding hearts, the experts have identified at least half a social problem: the lagging credentials of black and Hispanic applicants.

But turning race from a neutral factor into a scale-tipping one won't cut it. Not in Mississippi, Louisiana and Texas anyway -- the states where, so far, Hopwood exclusively applies. How we get beyond all this is anyone's guess. Government-decreed "affirmative action" is widely recognized as unjust, and not merely by Ku Kluxers. Look at California's vote last November to shut down state-sponsored discrimination. The general sense is that a thumb on the scales, benefiting one kind of customer over another, is un-American. As Shelby Steele, the black lawyer-scholar, has written, "Racial preferences, like segregation, are conveniences that have created an ancestral entitlement right in the middle of a democracy and are fundamentally an assault on democratic principles."

Can subjective racial criteria truly be kept out of play? It's hard. A new Texas law intended to address Hopwood's effects requires state colleges to admit all graduates in the top 10 percent of their high school classes. This may work better as a legal defense than as public policy. The valedictorian from an educational wasteland may fare worse in college than the goof-off from a rigorous high school. How kindly is Texas really treating the former? Well, you see, the experts are taking the bull by the tail, instead of the horns. Infinitely more useful than tinkering with admissions requirements would be a general upgrading of pre-college education -- for everybody.

How about, for starters, school vouchers? No less urgently required are social measures (e.g., the phasing out of welfare dependency) that would help rebuild the two-parent family, membership in which continues to predict and underwrite academic success.


COPYRIGHT 1997 CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.

[PeacefulWarrior]

I believe that racism was and still is wrong.  Using race as a factor in determining who should or should not get jobs is plain wrong.  No matter how you look at it or feel about it, you must admit that affirmative action is a racist policy because it uses race to determine who gets ahead or doesn't.  

Lately here in the US the topic has heated up because a number of students were not admitted to law school due to the fact they, despite their qualifications/grades, had the wrong color skin (white).

President Bush has chosen to stand up and defend these students and, of course, he is going to be labeled a racist.  It's totally absurd.
(read about this:
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/World/2003/01/16/11947-ap.html

Here are some articles regarding the topic I have chosen to post:
---------------------------
Affirmative Action
Affirming Another Kind of Racism

Affirmative action policies often times determine an individual's place and relative income position in society by the ethnic or gender group to which that person belongs as well as that group's "fair share" of jobs, education, and monetary reward. But is atoning for the sins committeded against minorities in the past fair to people who are not minorities in the present?

According to scholars ranging from well-known philosophers like the late Robert Nozick to minority activists such as Ward Connerly and Walter Williams, affirmative action is not just wrong -- but also morally wrong. Government quotas and state-enforced affirmative action usually harm the very people they are intended to help, amounts to "reverse discrimination," and punishes the innocent for the past inequities of the guilty.

Before we can understand the problem caused by affirmative action, it is necessary to understand the argument for affirmative action. There are two arguments for affirmative action, according to Brian W. Jones: "The remediation of disadvantage caused by past discrimination; and the desire to promote diversity" (1).

Theodore M. Shaw, a defender of affirmative action, is largely concerned with societal diversification. "The goal of affirmative action is to break the cycle of discrimination, and to enlarge opportunity for everyone"(2) according to Shaw.

But, as Jones notes, major diversification centers "such as college campuses and municipal employment have often become toxic as a result of increasing racial antagonism." For every Tracy Davis whom affirmative action has helped, there is a Cheryl Hopwood (of Hopwood v. Texas) who has paid a price. The price paid by those who are denied acceptance because they are not a minority is reverse discrimination, a plainly un-American concept.

"Our Constitution is color blind and neither knows nor tolerates class among citizens (3)," said Supreme Court Justice John Marshall Harlan. America is based upon equality of status; that is to say that everyone should be allowed the same rights regardless of race, creed, religion, ethnicity, background, or sexual orientation. Could Marshall have ever imagined that the America he knew -- the America based upon not denying "to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws (4)" -- presently fosters inequality in the form of allocating "special rights" to "special people?"

Affirmative action is not the best way to help minorities, as even well respected minority community members admit. According to Walter Williams, a black Economics Professor at George Mason University, "We can better serve the interests of large numbers of blacks by focusing our energies on ... education, disintegrating families, and inner cities with climates that are hostile to economic development and personal safety" (5).

But not only is affirmative action not a good program -- it is also blatantly unfair. Women, African-Americans, and Hispanics are not the only groups that have been oppressed or discriminated against by the U.S. government, yet they are the only groups who claim the need for affirmative action. Why? Because there are strong, well-financed groups in those communities (such as NAACP or NOW) that have a lot of special interest power. If the case for affirmative action ever will be fully established, those who argue in its favor must take into account past U.S. government oppression of minorities such as Japanese Americans, Jewish Americans, and homosexual Americans -- few of whom are currently calling for affirmative action.

In 1939, a ship filled with about 1,200 European Jews headed to Florida with hopes of dropping the Jews off in America. It was denied entrance into the port of Florida, and returned to Nazi Germany. Why? Because of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, always hailed a political hero. Are the Jews asking for affirmative action? No.

In the early 1940s, internment camps were set up in the western U.S.; they harbored Japanese Americans, who were considered barbaric animals to American standards. Are the Japanese asking for affirmative action? No. Because the Jews and the Japanese have made it in America through the only way you can make it in America: hard work, smart investing, and personal responsibility. Groups such as African-Americans, Hispanics, and women should learn from the experiences of their oppressed brethren (namely, the Jews and the Japanese).

Affirmative action amounts to no less than reverse, government-enforced racism, as the U.S. Supreme Court upheld -- both through the U.S. Constitution and through Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 -- in 1978's University of California Regents v. Bakke (6). "Affirmative action has also failed to reach the most economically and or socially disadvantaged minorities in our country. The fact is that affirmative action currently disproportionately helps those (middle class and wealthy minorities and women) who need it the least (7)," according to the Congress of Racial Equality, an organization led by black brothers Niger and Roy Innis.

Think about it. People are kept down because of the past actions of their ancestors. The innocent are punished because of what the guilty have done. In his essay on affirmative action, James Webb states that the isolated leaders have "mandated an equal opportunity bureaucracy in the military, government,
and even industry that closely resembles the Soviet 'political card'." In this system, the sole function is to report 'political incorrectness' and to encourage the promotion of literally everyone but him and his kind (.

The goal of affirmative action is to "improve the employment or educational opportunities of members of minority groups and women (9)," a notable, worthwhile and reasonable goal. Unfortunately, affirmative action often harms the very people it is attempting to help. At the University of California Davis, every 16 out of 100 openings are automatically given to minority students. What happens to white students who may be smarter than the minority students? The white students are left behind because, if they aren't left behind, "racism" is screamed.

While there are compelling arguments on both sides of the issue, it has been well over thirty years since affirmative action programs began. The time to end
them -- once and for all -- is now. Equality of status is an important concept that America is based upon. It should be fostered and taught to our children and children's children. God forbid that Americans once again stand tall for equal rights and pounce upon special rights granted to special individuals -– regardless of ethnicity, religion, creed, or sexual orientation.

Notes:

1. DeGeorge, Rob (ed.). Government by the People. Pearson Education (2002): 363.

2. DeGeorge, Rob (ed.). Government by the People. Pearson Education (2002): 362.

3. Justice John Marshall Harlan, dissenting in Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 US 537 (1896), cited in DeGeorge, Rob (ed.). Government by the People. Pearson Education (2002): 360.

4. U.S. Constitution, Amendment 14, cited in Woll, Peter. American Government: Readings and Cases. Longman (2002): 470.

5. Williams, Walter. "Affirmative Action Can't Be Mended." The Cato Institute. December 15, 1997.

6. DeGeorge, Rob (ed.). Government by the People. Pearson Education (2002): 361.

7. Innis, Roy and Niger Innis. "Advice to the next President of the United States on matters of Race." The Congress of Racial Equality. August 22, 2000.

8. Webb, James. In Defense of Joe Six-Pack. Bedford Publishers (1997): 400-401.

9. Merriam Webster College Dictionary OnLine. 2000.
Read article online at: http://www.rationalreview.com/archive/guestcolumnists/aaronbiterman050102.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------

[RTCovenant]

SOOOO, on to MY POINT! The white middle class needs to quit whining. The white LOWER class needs to: 1) admit that they are lower class because there is nothing wrong with it; and 2) join hands with the non-white lower class and FIGHT FOR DECENT SCHOOLS, instead of fighting each other over scraps.

Everyone, forget the race wars. May the class wars in America begin. It's about d*# time.

Quit whining? Did anyone ever see "Remeber the Titans"? Remember when the white coach gave the black player extra slack, Denzel Washington did not take it, he said you treat everyone equally and show no favoritism.

My point is you should treat everyone the same. Affirmative action is almost a rasicst policy itself because it almost implies that minorities are not as smart as whites.

The argument that "non-whites" are poorer than whites is doomed to failure, because your showing favoritism to rich minorities or hatred to poor whites.

It would be better to base the system of affirmative action on family income level than race. That would make more sense, and most likely would be more fair.

Lets treat everyone the same. Your skin color should not give you priority  over another candidate. I have many white friends that won't work hard in school because they know even if they are best, they still won't be able to get into an IV-League college.

(I will admit affirmative action on jobs make sense though in some situations. It prevents companies from keeping a race in poverty levels)

[Tom]

Due to the time intervals between posts, my attitides have changed again. I think that these arguments are based on the idea that there is not enough to go around for everyone so we can only fight about how to split it up. As individuals the best thing we can do is to realize that we can always have enough of everything for ourselves and more to share with other people. The next step is to begin convincing other people to work their lives the same way through our example.

[Jenadots]

Selecting people for anything based on race is about as effective as selecting them based on shoe size.  

I would favor affirmative admissions for lower income kids, but race is obsolete.  I have seen kids with wealthy parents get affirmative action admissions to colleges and win scholarships.  

Income based scholarships assuming high grades and test scores would be fair to everyone.  Universities that have gone to this kind of a sysem do end up with a diverse student body as there are poor smart kids all over the place.  

It is a contradiction to ask for equality and then expect preferential treatment as supporters of racial affirmative action do.  

Racism exists in this country and affirmative action as it has been applied has only perpetuated it rather than eased its effects.  

And I really resent the preferential bonus points given to the athletes as if the kids on the Debate Team or who play an instrument or paint or do community service are any less valuable as students.  The difference I suppose is that the athletes bring in those big bucks from the Alumni and corporations.  Any student who excels at any activity should get the same points or no points given at all for extracurriculars.

[Chimerae]

I was a white (female) manager for over a decade.

Our company was growing, but too small to be targeted by affirmative action quotas.

Still, when I hired our first black man there were many hidden obstacles for him that had everything in the world to do with lack of inclusion.  People LIKED this man . . . he just wasn't welcome in the "Old Boys Network"  and that meant that there were all kinds of opportunities that never materialized for him.

I wasn't part of the "Old Boy's Network" either, but they looked out for me.   Chivilry is not dead, just a little bent.  

Affirmative action is a badly crafted attempt to level the playing field.  In about one more generation, it will be about as level as it's gonna get and will have outlived it's usefulness.