It's Time to Have an Honest Debate on Affirmative Action

[Bullet1987]

I'm tired of people, especially Democrats, coming on national television allowing the anti-AA propaganda to continue without objection. This is a flagship argument for the right-wing and has been since the Reagan years, but probably goes back to the LBJ executive order. FIRST of all, affirmative action is not now...nor has it ever been based solely around RACE! So why the hell is it always talked about and framed as such in the MSM? Again with no correction by supporters of it. Affirmative Action was supposed to stifle prejudice against all non-Protestant, non-male white men. Including, but not excluded to, Blacks, Asians, Hispanics, Gays and Lesbians, Muslims, Women, etc. With the recent Sonia Sotomayor nomination...AA has been talked about outside of how it may have benefitted just Blacks. But they're still making it an unbalanced and unfair discussion about race and that's misleading.

SECONDLY, and this has been oft repeated on message boards, but there ARE NO QUOTAS!!! This is an important aspect of the argument because people like Pat Buchanan want to make it seem like there is. As if all of these white males are losing out every year to undeserving Blacks and Hispanics. Even though the college ethnic breakdown for instance hasn't changed all that much over the years at the most pretigeous universities.

[firedupdem]

1. Rec'd n/t

[iconocrastic]

29. So the debate to date hasn't been honest?

hmmmm ...

[BlooInBloo]

2. The day white folks, as an aggregate, are honest about anything race-related...

will be a wonderful day.

[bliss_eternal]

3. amen.

:)

[Fire1]

4. +1

[vadawg]

10. yeah because all white people must think the same way, as must all black, brown etc etc

you do realise that like any group of people, white folks as you call them are as diverse as any other group you can think off. Believe it or not theres even a large proportion of these so called white folks who dont even use the term white to describe themselves, but i guess that dosent fit your model

[BlooInBloo]

12. I'm very sorry you don't know what the phrase "as an aggregate" means.

[vadawg]

14. yeah i do, i just think that there is a lot of white folks tone to a lot of your posts

and im just pointing out in case you didnt know that the majority of white folks are not members of the aryan brotherhood etc and do not even identify themselves as white but rather by their ethnic groups.

[bliss_eternal]

15. lol.

the presumption that a non-ethnic person, has to be a member of the aryan brother hood to have "issues" around race, ethnicity, gender, sex, etc. is a myth.

intolerant people aren't always wearing pointy white hoods, or spewing slurs.

[vadawg]

20. exactly, and some of those intolerant people may gasp have different coloured skin

or any other of a myriad of identifiers. intolerance comes in all shapes and forms and all ethnic groups.

[bliss_eternal]

34. Absolutely...

...caucasians were generous with lessons of intolerance, and taught all ethnic groups how they too could "hate." :evilgrin:

[vadawg]

35. rofl again, i didnt see that coming touche

[Beacool]

87. Hear, hear!!

Intolerance comes in all colors, religions and genders.

Holder said that we are a nation of cowards regarding the race issue, I disagree. I think that we are a nation of hypocrites when it comes to an honest discussion about race.

:(

[rowena]

98. You do realize

that the term "ethnic" applies to groups of white people who share the same racial/cultural heritage, right?

[BlooInBloo]

16. (shrug) Just call me a race-traitor and be done with it. You bore me.

[iconocrastic]

30. The day white folks, [...] - wow, that's a bullshit remark

Racism is found in many places, even among blacks.

How much more mileage do you think you an get out of that broken-down horse?

[bliss_eternal]

32. Yes, of course...

...they learned it during slavery, from caucasians. :evilgrin:

[vadawg]

33. rofl, im still intrigued by this group called white folks, im wondering if im part of it

or if my wife is a member, or is it just a generic group that covers everyone outside of african or asian... and the benefits i think i must have missed due to a scheduling conflict when the enrollment meeting was held.

[rowena]

99. Yeah...

because people in Africa didn't enslave prisoners of war from other African nations and subsequently begin selling them to Europeans. Right...

Edited to take out ""

[BlooInBloo]

36. Selective snipping is funny.

[Number23]

43. I think I'm beginning to love you.

[BlooInBloo]

44. Don't worry. It wears off soon.

:P

[AspenRose]

50. I saw him first.

;-)

[Number23]

59. Why are half the sisters on DU fighting over Bloo?!

:rofl:

He must be exuding some Chocolate Essence that we're all responding to. :)

[BlooInBloo]

64. lolz! I prefer to think of it as Rationalilty Essence...

but if it gets girls to like me, then you can call it whatever you want. :P

[Number23]

66. lol Chocolate Rationality

NOTHING sweeter. ;)

[Empowerer]

72. I've noticed that, too. But I don't mind . . .

In fact, I feel kind of flattered that so many women are after my Bloo . . .

[Beacool]

86. Bad taste?

:shrug:

[Number23]

94. Considering you are not a sister, why did you feel the need to respond?

He must have tickled your fancy too for you to come somewhere a day after the fact and try to put him down.

[Raineyb]

97. Aren't you the one who liked the Obama sock monkey?

If so you're not one to talk about taste.

[angee_is_mad]

69. Me2

get in line, lol.

[Number23]

79. lol Somehow this has turned into the **Sistas Heart BlooinBloo** thread

I'm sure that he's appropriately embarrassed... and flattered as all hell. :rofl:

[vaberella]

73. It's not going to happen, but I wholeheartedly agree with the sentiment.

It will normally be framed as the failure of a paticular group to not rise while some can.

[Political Heretic]

96. Word. +1

[billyoc]

5. Good luck.

[lilytea]

6. Lalala

your right,lets talk!

[BlooInBloo]

7. Is this part of a fundraising drive or something?

:rofl:

[lilytea]

8. maybe,it's a secret

so keep it in the DL:)

[firedupdem]

9. Yup.....need more tea bags and poster boards. n/t

[Lord Helmet]

11. Did you forget where you are? It's more like the Oppression Olympics here.

[bliss_eternal]

13. I applaud the effort, Bullet1987...

..but as long as you have people teaching other people (in any way, shape or form) that ethnic minorities are less than caucasian people (through intelligence, ability, work ethic, skills, etc.) these issues will continue to persist.

I know of ethnic physicians that shared w/me that fellow medical students (non-ethnic), presumed they got to medical school because of "affirmative action." Surely they couldn't have parents that helped to pay for their education, and certainly weren't smart enough to be there.

And excuse me, but given the existence of "w"(...among others), since when are caucasian males the smartest, most capable, highest achievers on the planet? :shrug: ...according to caucasian men on tv (i.e. fox), of course. ;)



edited for typos and clarity.

[Renaissance Man]

17. Until misconceptions about Affirmative Action die...

...we will continue to deal with people like Pat Buchanan and the ignorance and blanket assumptions that are made about people who are beneficiaries of Affirmative Action.

One of the most brilliant women that I know is what many would consider a beneficiary of Affirmative Action. She tought me Federal Civil Procedure in law school, and she told me stories of how she was hated for her achievement when she attended an SEC (Southeastern Conference) law school in the 80s (you know, little over a decade after Affirmative Action was installed) -- a time during which the law school student body was comprised primarily of Caucasian males. When she attended, there were only two African-American students in the entire student body (and she was one of them).

While she was in law school, she kicked ass on the Moot Court Board, and made Law Review (which was more than impressive, considering that there were only two African American students admitted in her class), and eventually went to Columbia Law School (based on her merit and professional accomplishments) and got her LLM in Constitutional Law. Ironically, a large percentage of her scholarly legal writing focuses on equal educational opportunities for minorities.

A friend of mine in high school (black male that attended high school in rural southern Louisiana) scored above 1500 on his SATs, had in excess of a 4.0 GPA and attended Yale on a full scholarship and now works for the Obama Administration. Both tell me stories of the blanket assumptions about their scholastic prowess that were made when they attended these schools. It's downright disgusting hearing the stories of things that they had to endure.

[Enthusiast]

78. It doesn't surprise me in the least.

Hell, white people don't even treat other white people right.

[DURHAM D]

18. an honest debate What's to debate?

What we need is for more people to know what it actually means.

The Republicans and the MSM have been feeding the public bs and propaganda on this policy issue for so many decades that 85-90% of the population is completely misinformed.

What we need is education on the subject - not debate.

There is nothing to debate unless you are a white male and afraid to compete on an equal playing field.

[AspenRose]

51. +1

Excellent.

[Bullet1987]

56. I agree DURHAM D

But there is already a debate over whether it should still exist or not...in the media. But the debate is not honest and filled with misinformation. That's why I said an HONEST debate.

[Hansel]

19. We DO have a quota system where I work

It demands that our work force is approximately equal to the demographics for the area in which the branch is located. After the system was implemented we had to hire 6 white males in a row because they were so under represented. Our work force is well integrated, including a healthy representation from the gay and lesbian community. I think it's a good system that works well. We are required to engage in 2 diversity events a year, which are actually pretty fun and informative.

[DURHAM D]

22. That sounds like a company (or institutional) configuration.

Not a government imposed quota.

[Hansel]

23. I didn't say it was government imposed. But it is a quota system. nt

[DURHAM D]

24. Not in this context. nt

[Hansel]

27. Not in this context what?

I was making a statement about the way we do it and that I like it. It's a quota system. Not a government run quota system, but a quota system just the same. Maybe affirmative action should be framed in a similar way so there isn't this white male versus minority crap.

[DURHAM D]

28. Maybe you should review the OP - particularly the last paragraph. nt

[Hansel]

40. Okay.

Companies use to address affirmative action by firing white males in order to replace them with women or minorities. My brother was fired from his job solely because they needed to hire a minority, which in this case, turned out to be a black female. That was in the 1970's when the inequities in hiring were severe. That is what Buchanan remembers and there were some legitimate grievances about this practice at that time.

Sure, they are not implemented in the same way today, but trust me, companies have their own self-imposed quota systems in place in order to prevent lawsuits. The reason my company, which is a huge company, has this system in place is 2-fold. 1st it is a good marketing tool when people in the community see people like themselves in the stores. 2nd, they know how to defend against a lawsuit.

Even though there is not a government imposed quota system, the effect of the law has been for corporations to self-impose some sort of quota system in order to prevent lawsuits. Because if you cannot prove that you did not discriminate in practice in the way you handle either a hiring or firing, you are up a creek without a paddle.

I'm just saying that I like the way my company does it because it covers everyone and doesn't focus on minorities alone, like most companies' policies do.

And Buchanan is a racist uninformed f*ck.

[DURHAM D]

42. Sorry but I don't really buy the "grievance" as you state it.

If your brother was fired for the reason you state that means that the EEOC had reviewed the company hiring practices (more than likely subsequent to a complaint) and found them to still be practicing discrimination. Then the company had to clean up the mess they had created.

Companies do have affirmative hiring plans (not quotas) in order to meet the standards. Much of the focus is on how the candidate pool is derived. If you can show equitable pools (equal access) and legitimate hiring standards there is no other problem.

I do understand that companies have their own work force diversity plans. They are still not quotas in this context.

[Empowerer]

52. Any company that has to fire white people to implement "affirmative action"

is not engaging in affirmative action and had likely completely ignored any opportunities to hire the most qualified persons in the first place, leading to the situation that you describe.

I've seen this many times. Rather than fairly consider people of all races in their hiring process on an ongoing basis, some companies continued to hire only white men, despite the avaibility of highly qualified (and usually more qualified) minorities. Then when push came to shove and they had to report their numbers or had their diversity scrutinized, they looked around and said, "Oh, SH*T! We don't have enough black people. We've got to get some in here quick!" And the only way they could do that was to go out and hire some black folks right away, which meant getting rid of some of the white folks they had hired. And, unfortunately, because they hired the minorities in such a rush, often without any regard for whether they were actually suited for the job, in many instances, the minorities they hired washed out - leaving openings that they promptly filled with more white people - and so on and so on . . .

It's a stupid way to operate and, in some cases, I believe, was done intentionally in order to be able to say, "See - affirmative action doesn't work and it victimizes white people."

Affirmative action carried out properly - the fair consideration of all qualified people, regardless of race and, in some instances, when necessary, taking affirmative steps to ensure the recruitment of qualified minorities who might not ordinarily apply. When it's done right, it works quite naturally since, unless one wants to argue that somehow minorities are just not as qualified as whites, a fair and open process will naturally create a balanced pool of applicants and result in a diverse workforce. It is an excellent and still much-needed measure, notwithstanding the naysayers - most of whom have consistently fought tooth and nail every attempt to make our society fairer.

[gorfle]

21. On affirmative action.

I used to be against affirmative action. And at face value, I am still. It is wrong to use anything other than raw ability in making hiring or admissions decisions. It should not matter what color I am, what sex I am, what sexual orientation I am.

I am now for affirmative action, for one reason only: Children generally rise to the expectations and level of their parents. If your parents were a janitor and a maid, you may well look to them as your most important role models and figure that being a janitor and a maid are "making it" in this world. Many other children instead realize how abysmal their parents' situation is and decide there is no hope for doing better, and instead turn to crime and drugs. Too many black people have been relegated, due to prejudice, lack of education, and lack of opportunity, to low-income, low-prestige job opportunities. Breaking this cycle through normal "market forces" will take a very, very, very long time.

Instead, affirmative action helps speed this cycle by "unnaturally" seeding black people into prestigious, responsible, well-paying positions. Children born to such people will have an entirely different outlook on what it means to be a successful black person. Instead of seeing a future of being a short-order cook like daddy, they can see a future of being a lawyer like daddy.

It is very important that all children feel they have the opportunity to be whatever they choose to be, and that they have good role models to help them make that choice. Affirmative action does this. It's not "fair", but it pays dividends that are worth more than the cost.

[BlooInBloo]

25. It's precisely as "unnatural" as the 100s of years of affirmative action for white folks...

I.e., it's a corrective.

[gorfle]

31. I agree. n/t.

.

[Bullet1987]

57. To Gorfle...

When AA was first implemented by LBJ, there were still many places in the country that would not hire a Black, Muslim, Woman or various other persons...even after the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed. That alone meant there needed to be a more forceful approach. That's another reason I hate the current debate about the policy, no one puts it into its proper historical context. People act as if being a minority whether racial or sexual in the '60s and '70s and trying to get a decent job or admitted into a really nice university was as easy as it is now.

[muntrv]

26. I believe it was Pukecannon's boss Dick Nixon who signed into law many

affirmative action programs.

[Empowerer]

53. He did - over Buchanan's strenuous objections.

[bkozumplik]

37. honest debate is unlikely

no one has an honest debate about anything in this country.

I will say that at the college I wanted to go to my best friend and I applied together and he got in and I didnt, and I kicked his arse in every single aspect of everything. Everything. Only he was a minority. So I went elsewhere. It all turned out fine, and I'm not bitter, but some people who complain about this have a legitimate complaint.

[FrenchieCat]

39. So because you applied together and he got in and you didn't

you assume that it was due to his race?

You guys weren't siamese twins or something, were you? :wtf:

Perhaps his recommendation letters were better than yours.
or his essay.
or his extra curricular.
or his sports abilities.

The fact that you are saying that you kicked his Arse in
everything, and I mean everything, sounds quite narcissistic,
and superior sounding.

I'm gonna say now that I'm not buying what you are selling
on this anonymous posting board.

[BlooInBloo]

41. It's whack-a-mole month. Don't get too excited.

[chknltl]

100. After further research:

+1

[Lilyeye]

46. You totally read my mind.

[Empowerer]

54. I'll bet plenty of white people whose "arses" you kicked "in every single aspect of everything" also

got in while you didn't. Maybe one of THEM, not your minority best friend, took the spot you felt belonged to you.

Why not reference any of them, who far out-number the minorities who got in to the school? Is your beef against your minority friend the only "legitimate complaint" worth mentioning?

[bkozumplik]

55. so wait

Empowerer, I have two good data points. I don't need all other data points to discuss the differences between the two data points that I have.

And moreover, this is what affirmative action is. Look it up. weights applied from merit are combined with weights applied from race and are mixed together in a formula. MY experience in college admissions is exactly what the system is designed to do. We're not talking about pure meritocracy here people (as some of you seem to be suggesting), thats the point of this topic. We are talking specifically about race weighting in college admissions. Its not an accusation or a conspiracy theory, its a fact. Its what we do on purpose.

Its releveling the playing field, which means the application of advantages to certain groups. Its what you do instead of of just one day starting to be color blind, because the system of advantage and disadvantage has already run on its own, and to deny its existence would be in itself another heaping of disadvantaging.

Know your enemies, people, know the thoughts they will bring to the debate, and talk about them before hand. hash out good answers. Thats why we are here. My experience is exactly what righties get bent out of shape about, and I'm saying it has traction in a lot of minds. So you people who resorted to ad hominem attacks right off the bat, step back, and at least think about an answer before resorting to ad hominem attacks.

[Empowerer]

58. You're actually demonstrating my point

Two of fallacies of many of the anti-affirmative action arguments are: 1) that affirmative action consists merely on giving "extra points" to minorities that no non-minorities can get; and 2) that, absent affirmative action, the relevant institutions would be pure meritocracies. Both arguments set up false premises on which affirmative action opponents build their claims.

First, affirmative action is NOT solely "weights applied from merit combined with weights applied from race and are mixed together in a formula.". And I don't need to "look it up," since I have considerable experience and expertise in this area. Among other things, I served on an admissions committee and know exactly how affirmative action in higher education works since I was responsible for developing and implementing it.

Since the basis for admissions decisions are confidential, I sincerely doubt that you actually know on what basis your friend was admitted. There could be numerpus reasons, unrelated to his race bus solely based on his merit, that the admisisons committee believed he as more qualified for admission than you were.

Moreover, as I noted earlier, there are all manner of non-"merit"-based criteria that are used to consider whether a student is admitted, including legacies, geographic preferences, family connections, family money and power, etc. - most of which substantially benefit white applicants yet, for some reason, these never seem to provoke the outrage of those who demand the imposition of purely objective merit-based admissions criteria for minority applicants.

I don't know that this applies to you, but for many affirmative action opponents,subjective considerations are not a problem at all if they benefit whites, but if they believe that a black person might get an advantage over a white person, then suddenly the rules change.

[firedupdem]

62. Thank You!

:yourock:

[Brewman_Jax]

65. Quite right

those were the basis of the U. of Michigan admission cases before the Supreme Court. In the undergrad case, the plaintiff complained of the 85 black students with lower test scores that were admitted instead of her, but had NOTHING to say about the 1400 white students with lower test scores that were admitted instead of her.

[Empowerer]

70. You are absolutely correct. But this phenomenon is not a new one . . .

Historian Roger Wilkins explained this perfectly in his book, Jefferson's Pillow:

In 1675, after poor Virginia blacks and whites joined forces to rebel against the elite, the ruling class was terrified, Wilkins wrote. The rebellion fizzled but

"{t}he events taught powerful lessons on the dangers of class antagonism with the population. The major men in the colony would work to ensure that their descendants would acquire the education and polished manners necessary to secure the deference of the lower ranks of whites. And more significantly, the elite learned that class consciousness and racial hatred were potent adhesives, capable of creating a coalition that could threaten the existing ruling structure. The elite would subsequently turn racial hatred inward and use it to stifle class conflicts among whites. The power of Bacon's rebellion had sprung from the union of poor blacks and whites against a perceived common enemy; when the Native Americans, at least at home in Virgina, proved too elusive to serve as an effective distraction, the role fell to blacks, whose utility as slaves was already being demonstrated in the colony.

"Power would continue to be concentrated in the hands of the wealthy, and the system would be fine-tuned to diminish the number of landless (and therefore dangerous) white men entering the society. These men had proved how hungry and aggressive they could be, and how much of a threat they posed to the social order and to the security of the ruling class. Blacks would now be clearly installed at the bottom rung of the l. The legislature and the courts began codifying slavery in the laws of the colony, thus sealing the fate of the growing numbers of blacks who began to be imported at the turn of the century. Poor whites could therefore form their identities around their whiteness rather than around the resentments of the rich . . .

"Interestingly, just as poor whites were being invited by the lords of the colony to join a sort of white social club, the actual social distance between them and the rich was widening. They would be explicitly reminded of their lower status by the increasing rigidities being constructed into the social system and by the barriers developed to protect the position of holders of power and privilege. As social mobility decreased, personal frustration grew. The rage inspired by the personal suspicion of not being good enough to reach the top - a rage that might otherwise be transformed by a skillful demagogue into rebellious impulses - was now directed at the "others" whose manifest failures were even greater than those of the lower-class whites. Poor whites were thus given two things by the new system: a floor of failure below which they could not fall, and human targets at whom they could direct their own self-loathing. As a result, a persuasive argument could be made that the aftermath of Bacon's rebellion marked the institutionalization of race and racism in the North American culture."

Sound familiar?

[Brewman_Jax]

76. The result of Bacon's Rebellion

and the beginning of the racial caste system that continues to the present day.

[Number23]

80. That is simply a fantastic post

Thanks for that, Empowerer.

[Lilyeye]

67. Your post reminds me of a cartoon.

[Empowerer]

71. EXACTLY! That's fabulous!

[bkozumplik]

75. logics not your strong point here...

how is #1 a fallacy exactly. Elaborate. Race is a factor in admissions, period. Since you're so knowledgeable about the process at some institution, educate me here.

and how is #2 important exactly. pointing out that there are other questionable aspects to the admissions system isnt a basis for alleviating scrutiny on this questionable practice. Your whole idea is a red herring to distract and derail.

And in your third paragraph, you "sincerely doubt" that I know how my friend was admitted (which is wrong, but thats not really important), and you go on to say it could have been merit.. Once again--- race plays a factor in admissions. Once again, its a fact. Whether it happened in the case I cited isnt really important. Race plays a role in admissions. Period. Trying to confuse merit basing with affirmative action is disengenuous.

Tackle the real issue instead of trying to latch onto my case and play "maybes". Because neither one of us can prove this single case. can we. But the issues are plain. Discuss the issues.

[Empowerer]

77. In fact, logic IS my strong suit - and that's why I see right through your arguments

and why I can also see that you are twisting yourself into almost laughable knots trying to continue an argument that you are clearly not equipped to make in a discussion with someone who actually knows something about this topic.

[bkozumplik]

82. err. right

Wow, Your stunning reasoning and detailed knowledge has overpowered me, you are right. I am clearly not on the same level as you. You are the 'winner'. congratulations.

PS, once again, you fail to cleanly make any point, or even address my questions. Not even evasiveness or bad logic this time, just a bland personal attack (*yawn*). I dont think you really are in charge of a college's affirmative action program, because hopefully someone in that position would be in the habit of making a better case. You say you "see right through my arguments", but you never addressed them. If you see through them, maybe you should share your keen insights with the rest of us.

But really, its probably best to cut this short.

[Raineyb]

83. That you fail to see the point made does not mean it was not in fact made.

And I seriously doubt you know anything about why your friend was accepted as institutions do not go into details as to why they do or do not accept someone. I doubt that this institution told you why they accepted your friend when I'm sure they did not tell your friend why they accepted him. For you to declare that you do know is mere fantasy on your part.

I wonder, does your friend know that you think so little of his abilities that you think the only reason he got into the school he was accepted to was because of his races? I suspect that if he does know your friendship will soon be moved to the erstwhile category. I know I wouldn't remain friends with someone who thinks I'm inferior in every way.

[Empowerer]

84. Your point is an interesting one and highlights another anti-affirmative action fallacy

Many affirmative action opponents love to insist that affirmative action "stigmatizes" minorities because it leads people to believe that they did not earn their achievements through merit.

Aside from this being a obnoxiously paternalistic attitude, it requires another double standard to accept. White people, as we've noted, benefit from countless artificial privileges, yet I have yet to hear any of these folks who are SO concerned about minorities self-esteem and reputation ever even suggest that white people are in danger of being stigmatized by their privilege.

Do you know any white person who felt held back or besmirched or unappreciated for their efforts because George W. Bush was born on third base? Of course not. But for some reason, these people think that because THEY believe that all minorities are unqualified and can only succeed if given an unfair advantage, that I must internalize their bigotry and condescension.

It's a pretty amazing argument to make.

[dorkulon]

38. I'd like to see our society's inequities addressed at the root.

I'd like to see equal opportunity in early childhood, with equality in public schools and public safety. Even with these, some form of AA may be necessary to counter simple racism, but it seems a terribly incomplete solution to subject a person to these inequities and then thrust them into a situation they may not be adequately prepared for.

[burning rain]

81. Forget those crazy thoughts, you crazy dude.

America is based on massive poverty and misery, and the best you can expect is for poverty to be evenly distributed rather than in some nasty discriminatory way.

[boppers]

45. Something my father once said: "Affirmative action is another form of political racism."

"I hope it can be eliminated in my lifetime."

Sadly, the reason for having it in the first place has not been eliminated in his lifetime, so the solution remains.

[phleshdef]

47. I think affirmative action is slowly but surely becoming something that won't be needed...

It really comes down to geographical location at this point. There are plenty of areas in the country where people of all colors are treated equally when it comes to finding employment, yet there are still some areas where non-whites are struggling with racist employers. But I don't think its something that was ever intended to last forever.

[uponit7771]

48. *****STATISTICALLY MORE WHITE WOMEN HAVE BENEFITTED FROM AA THAN BLACKS****

...as a whole mostly because he number of white women alone in America more than doubles the whole of the black community in America.

I think that part is left out of the AA debate and that's what kills me the most.

[Solomon]

49. Which means white people got more out of affirmative

action than anyone. But, shhhh!!!..., that doesn't count.

[Uzybone]

60. Kinda like how white people got more out of welfare

but that doesn't count either.

[bliss_eternal]

63. Reagan sealed the deal...

...when he vilified welfare recipients of color.

His tall tales of "welfare queens" wearing designer clothing, driving cadillacs and bringing home piles of money (while not working) created the idea in the public that women of color were "getting over" while defrauding the govt.

:eyes::puke:

[bliss_eternal]

61. thank *you*!

you are correct!

:applause:

[vaberella]

74. Finally. Ugh, people have even said it's more White males.

White Women pwned in comparison to other groups.

[burning rain]

68. A peculiar thing about affirmative action is,....

at the outset it wasn't a partisan issue. LBJ began it, and Nixon and Ford continued it. It's a basically conservative policy in that it doesn't cost anything, doesn't involve raising those dreaded taxes. It doesn't serve to reduce the poverty level on balance, and pretty much presumes continued massive poverty and education poverty: key factors in the need for affirmative action. It's probably better considered a center-right policy, but the GOP is pretty much a far-right party these days, and opposes it as such.

[Empowerer]

85. Great point

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

88. You're right. The SCOTUS struck down the use of Quotas in hiring/admission practices.

Race can be used as A factor, not as the SOLE factor!!

[EffieBlack]

89. We do have a racial quota in this country

It's a quota for white men - who can never be represented in numbers below their numbers in the larger society. As long as white men are represented in every area (except sports) in numbers equal to or larger than their percentage in the country, all is well. But if that number dips below that quota, screams of "reverse discrimination," "identity politics," "political correctness," "unqualified minorities displacing white men," etc. are sure to follow.

Case and point - the Ricci case. We are being told that the fact that whites passed the test in overwhelming numbers while no African Americans made the cut just means that the white firefighters were better prepared, more qualified, etc. But imagine what the reaction would have been if none of the white firefighters passed the test and only black firefighters made the cut. The test would have been immediately suspect.

Another example, white men, who represent only 32% of the population, comprise 83% of the U.S. Senate. Women make up more than 50% of the population but only 16% of the Senate. African Americans, who represent 16% of the population, make up only 1% of the Senate. Imagine the reaction if, in the next couple of years, 65 women and 20 black senators were elected. We would no doubt be treated to all manner of questions about how this happened, why blacks and women are so over-represented in the Senate, why white men were being pushed out - and we would see an onslaught of efforts to adjust our electoral process to re-establish "fairness" in the system.

We have a quota system in America. And many of the powers-that-be are fighting to protect it at all costs.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

90. Sure we do, in practice. It's always been that way. It's a double standard.

It's o.k. for white men to be overrepresented in most sectors of society, public and private, but as soon as others begin to fight for their rights, the white men see it fit to start yelling 'reverse racism'. It's amazing to me...

[Empowerer]

91. Another example

Pat Buchanan's head-whipping double standard - of course, we know where he's coming from, but his perspective on this is a common one among anti-affirmative action opponents:

From MSNBC, May 27, 2009:

BUCHANAN: You got down to four women (for the Supreme Court nomination), not a single white male — all women.

NORAH O’DONNELL: Did it ever occur to you, Pat, that maybe there weren’t any white men who were qualified?

BUCHANAN: Yes. No, it did not occur to me. You mean there are no white males qualified? That would be an act of bigotry to make a statement like that . . .

Yet, when it comes to the Ricci case, the fact that no black firefighters made the cut is not evidence of any kind of discrimination but is just the natural result of blacks not being as bright or as well-prepared as whites:

From Hardball, July 16, 2009:

BUCHANAN: But you know as well as I do, if of the eight top applicants for lieutenant and captain, four of them were African-American, nobody would be looking at that test at all . . . That would have been just fine, but the very fact that African-Americans didn`t come in the top 19, that is why the test suddenly becomes suspect. Maybe the reason is the African-American firefighters didn`t study as hard. Maybe they didn`t work as hard. Maybe they`re not as bright. Maybe they`re not doing as well on these exams. But to automatically assume that some kind of discrimination must occur simply because the test results bring in 18 white folks and one Hispanic it seems to me is a rush to judgment.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

92. That larger issue is why MSNBC allows a known bigot to continue on as a commentator.

That shit is absolutely despicable!! :puke::puke:

[BlooInBloo]

93. He's the sacrificial lamb for white folks - he allows us to claim with a straight face...

that it's "just a few bad apples", allowing less obvious forms of racism to continue unfettered.

Brown folks don't buy it of course - but they don't have to. As long as white folks go along with it, it works - because we're the majority.

[Number23]

95. I don't use this word often but DAMN that is an "awesome" point

No black males qualified? "They're just not smart enough. Study harder, next time."

No white males qualified? "The system is stacked against them!!!one! Affirmative action will be the death of us allllllll....!!"

It's enough to make you want to sit on the floor and just WEEP.