Affirmative Action

Water water everywhere
Nor any drop to drink
Water water everywhere
and still the boards did shrink

--S. T. Coleridge, who also wrote:

Sir, i agree with your general rule
That every poet is a fool
But you yourself may serve to show it
That every fool is not a poet.

anybody read this? any comments?



NAACP executive director urges affirmative action policies, criticizes government challenges
By CORALIE CARLSON
ASSOCIATED PRESS

MIAMI BEACH, Fla., July 13 ?- NAACP executive director Julian Bond urged states that have abandoned affirmative action policies for higher education to ''come back into the Union'' Sunday while criticizing President Bush and his brother, Gov. Jeb Bush, for challenging race-conscious admissions.

Speaking at the 94th annual convention of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, Bond praised the recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling that upheld the use of race as a factor in university admissions policies. The Bush administration filed one of the briefs opposing the policy.
The court, however, ruled against the use of a point-based system for enrollment decisions, which was used at the University of Michigan.
''The court struck down the points but upheld the principle,'' Bond said. ''Since the opponents kept telling us that this was all about principle, I'd say we won!''
Bond said the decision ''gave legal sanction to what we knew to be morally, socially, and educationally correct.''
But he said he knows affirmative action policies will be continue to be challenged.
''The average KKK member may be stupid, but the well-financed forces of the radical right are not,'' Bond said.
He also vowed the civil rights group would be watching states, including Florida, that no longer use affirmative action policies to monitor their commitment to achieving diversity.
Bond criticized the Florida governor for his One Florida program, under which state universities can no longer consider race or gender in admissions decisions. High school students are instead guaranteed admission if they are in the top 20 percent of their graduating class.
''First Governor Jeb Bush became the only governor to carry out a pre-emptive strike on affirmative action,'' Bond said. ''And then President George Bush carried out a pre-emptive strike on Iraq, the only President in our nation's history to attack a country which did not threaten or attack us first. Both strikes were unnecessary and unwise.''
Bond also voiced his disappointment that neither President Bush nor his brother attended the 2002 conference in Texas or the 2003 meeting in Florida.
White House spokesman Scott Stanzel said Saturday the president's busy schedule prevents him from accepting all the invitations he receives.
Meanwhile, NAACP president Kweisi Mfume criticized some of the Democratic candidates for president who are not expected to appear at a Monday forum.
As of late Saturday, Sens. John Edwards of North Carolina and Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut and Reps. Richard Gephardt of Missouri and Dennis Kucinich of Ohio were not expected to attend. Sens. Bob Graham of Florida and John Kerry of Massachusetts were set to appear, along with former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, former Illinois Sen. Carol Moseley Braun and the Rev. Al Sharpton.



http://www.naacp.org/

AA is dead at least it should be.

au:

clarification requested, please: do you mean AA should be dead or that the thread should have been locked so I couldn't post the above story?

thank you

Sweet
I meant it should be dead.

Well, it ain't. Which puts au on the losing side of this equation. I'm not happy to see au on the losing side, but I'm very pleased indeed that what he says isn't so.

Looks like this is still up for debate.

Funny, i thought Jeb Bush was smarter than George. He certainly gave some fine speeches when he was in Toronto a week or so ago.

I've been mulling over than %age of each school approach. Trying to see if there is really a way for it to work well, or if there is a way for it to be taken advantage of.

AA, while many wish to displace it but offer nothing better, is being assailed for not being the cure-all, eqalitarian, without fault, attempt to alleviate 100's of years of blatent disregard for human and civil rights. Until such time as the political, economic and social restructuring occurs in America that can say, with a straight face, every man, woman and child, regardless of race, color or ethnicity gets the same shot at success, I will continue to support AA efforts made in that direction, faulted as they may be.

Just so, Dys.

blatham
Win some and lose some that's life. I think the AA has outlived it's time. In addition I have never agreed with the criteria used. I see absolutely no reason for newcomers to the US being able to take advantage of it simply because of the color of their skin or ethnicity. The 100 years of abuse so often spoken about certainly does not apply to them.

At the same time that you wish to prevent people taking advantage of systems because of their colour and ethnicity, au, how do you propose to prevent them being taken advantage of because of their colour and ethnicity?

ehBeth
There are enough laws on the books and agencies abound that would prevent that from happening. This is not 1950 it is 2003. AA was to correct passed abuses. Not to afford privilege to new arrivals. What ever passed injustices they have endured were not in the US. As a matter of fact they came to the US by there own free will to escape those injustices and in many instances poverty. We owe them no more than any other individual residing in the states. Do we? And if we do Why?.

I participated in the early pages of this thread, but had to give it up because of time constraints. Some good arguments have been presented all around. I, however, remain committed to AA as long as it is needed. Unlike AU, I think African Americans continue to suffer from the legacy of slavery and discrimination. Consider that even though there are laws in place to which blacks who are discriminated against may have recourse, that fact alone is not sufficient to solve our problem. First there is still discrimination from whites, disguised and toned down as it may be. Second, we have a very large African American population that carries within itself the scars of of those hundreds of years of slavery and oppression. These wounds and scars frequently cause young people to undervalue education until they cannot qualify for higher education even though they become motivated in their late teens.

AU, it is not a question of what do we still owe them. It is a question of what kind of society we wish for ourselves. Do we want a society in which there is a large segment of uneducated and therefore economically depressed people, or do we want an educated and fully productive civil society? If you choose the later, then AA is a good stepping stone to that end.

Sweetcomplication posted an interesting article detailing the Bush brothers plan of letting into the state universities anyone who finishes in the top 20% of their class. This is a plan that is to the advantage of anyone who meets that qualification. However, the Bushes would leave behind those late bloomers whose overall average is too low, but get serious about education in the last year or so of high school. Or, what about the kid who "graduates from high school with low scores, goes to work, gets serious, and wants to go to college? Opps! No help from the Bush plan. But AA has always been the salvation, often stunningly so, of these kinds of young people.

AU, I used to feel that we had a need to pay a social debt. I have been growing away from that view of the situation, but I really think we have to ask ourselves what kind of a society we want to live in. This could apply to the immigrant who arrives here as well. Do we want him or her educated and self supporting or do we want another dependant?

Hazlitt wrote, in part:

"AU, it is not a question of what do we still owe them. It is a question of what kind of society we wish for ourselves. Do we want a society in which there is a large segment of uneducated and therefore economically depressed people, or do we want an educated and fully productive civil society? If you choose the later, then AA is a good stepping stone to that end."

Precisely: what kind of society do we wish to have?

Hazlitt, you have written a good response that should hit home with the more conservative; ie, having a productive civil society as a benefit to them...

I come from a place of wanting justice, justice, justice for all people; not because of possibly having more people on the dole (or whatever it is you meant exactly) but because it is so obvious to me that a society has to be just for all its citizens because it is simply the only decent way to be.

sweetcomplication: Thanks for your post of Sun Jul 13, 2003 5:36 pm

Julian Bond obviously has a vested interest in AA and some of his statements are quite clever and demonstrate weak but effective tools in deflection and linkage used in political debates carried out in the media (which allows for one sided arguments via slight of hand because the other side cannot immediately respond).

A couple of quick quotes demonstrate this deflection:



and



Note the buzz word phrase of "KKK" and and the irrelevant linkage of GW Bush with "pre-emptive strike on Iraq" (read: aggressive attack) with the present administration's amicus brief to the US Supreme Court in relation to the Case regarding U. Mich.'s undergraduate admit policies. I just quickly reviewed the article but I found many of Mr. Bond's statements dubious and therefore subject to discount.

It is late and I must retire but I might recommend that if you have't you might read the beginning of this thread, blatham's original article and that of one supplied by Tartin, which demonstrates how the noble effort of AA quickly becomes perverted. Given you have, please give us your own thoughts.

Respectfully,

JM

Okay, JM, I'll go point by point:

You're welcome.

I disagree with your assessment of Mr. Bond and his statements.

Well, I thought I had given my own thoughts in my post directly before yours. I will add that I agree the 'noble cause of AA" has problems, but, given the fact that there doesn't seem to be any better way of dealing with the severity of the situation, I will argue for AA over doing nothing because of the enormity of the problem which, IMHO, needs to be (1) addressed and (2) redressed.

If you have any more questions of me, please do not hesitate to ask.

Respectfully,

SweetC

Equality and AA
dyslexia: (post of Sun, 6/13

You said "Until every man, woman and child, regardless of race, color or ethnicity gets the same shot at success, I will continue to support AA efforts made in that direction, faulted as they may be."

1. Was Gwyneth Paltrow helped because her father was a producer-director?

2. How about Kate Hudson? Not only is she the daughter of Goldie Hawn, but she also is a fantastic looking woman -- as judged by many in US. Did my daughter have the "same shot at success" -- given my lower income plus my "un-hollywood" looks.

3. Since AA (as the Supreme C. means it) discriminates against a white baby born today, then that white baby will not have the "same shot at success" . Therefore, you will support AA forever as the very license to discriminate is in the S.C. decision.

4. The S.C. decision is an elitist position. The wealthy will always get their children into good schools. When the citizens have a chance to vote on AA, they vote against the concept over-whelmingly.

5. Last thoughts on other classifications: Do all babies have the same intelligence? Do all families let their children watch TV the same amount of time? How about handicaps? musical ability to get int Julliard?

These last comments ignore the continuing privilege which white people afford to one another in a society which remains overwhelmingly white european protestant. I'm not sure that this justifies affording access simply on the basis of race, but the recent decision by the Supremes was two part, and struck down the general admissions policy of the University of Michigan, saying that race could be used, as one factor in many, and not as a sole, a priori determinant factor. I'd like to know where Donlasv comes up with the statment: "When the citizens have a chance to vote on AA, they vote against the concept over-whelmingly." Got something to back that up--i don't recall this ever having been the subject of a national referendum, and am curious to know to what you refer.

"Bubba"speak.

Kate Hudson and Gwyneth Paltrow indeed! The issue is inequality in education from pre-school on up. In spite of what the Bushboys say, the education system in Texas is unequal...

Whatever the color of your skin (what a criterion! ye gods!), if you pull the wrong straw when you're born and you wind up in a series of underfunded deeply rural schools or underfunded deeply urban schools, you're in trouble. If you add to that parents who can't, for whatever reason, contribute to your education (with help, attention, money, support, interest), you're "left behind." We've developed a habit of mind in this "no child left behind" nation that some people Just Aren't Worth It. Many of those believe that a dark skin means you're inherently dumber anyway, less worthy, so why bother. They get all frothy with indignation when remedies are proposed. I suggest they shut up and concentrate on providing a uniformly superb public education from pre-school onward in all areas, at all times, for all children, now and without fail. I think we should all do that. Perhaps an education equal to our resources (we're the most fortunate nation in the world but still have a low-rated educational system) will finally erase misperceptions that dedicated bubbas have -- indeed, eliminate bubba-ism altogether. After all, bubbas grew up victims of lousy education too or they wouldn't be bubbas.

Hating and wanting to get rid of AA is like hating and wanting to get rid of Mylanta when, if you were able to eat right, Mylanta wouldn't be needed.