Affirmative Action

Sofia - When reporting a crime I agree that the ethnicity of those involved ought not be a matter of interest, and perhaps if we all sought to show no interest in it, the media--who exist to give us what we want--might stop citing those facts.

However, in police work information regarding the appearance of the criminal is quite pertinent and often necessary in identifying and apprehending a criminal.

There was a case many years back where a woman on a college campus in the North East (US) was attacked and raped. She identified her attacker as a black male and stated that she believed he was a student. An investigator from the local police called the campus and requested a list of all black male students at the university, so that they could begin narrowing down the field of likely suspects. After a major uproar, the cop was suspended and reprimanded and the person at the college who turned over the list was fired.

I have no reason to believe that--had the woman identified her attacker as white--the police or the staff at the college would have acted any differently. The ethnicity of the attacker was a vital piece of information. Ignoring it would simply be stupid. Should the police have asked for a list including white women as well? Should they have treated white women as suspects?

Clearly there are abuses and cases where race is considered where it should not be, but I think the opposite can and does happen. We treat elderly Jewish women in airports as if they are just as likely to be terrorists as young Arabs in the name of "fairness". Real fairness means we should not infer a profile without evidence to support it. Ignoring profile information when we have it is simply insane.

Just some thoughts...

The difference is that people give far too much emotional importance to words.

Let's face it, we're all people of color. Some people are colored kind of pink, some are kind of tan, some are kind of brown... So why does that term bother people?

From a purely pragmatic point of view, if you're a black person and someone calls you a nigger, what do you do? If you over-react and throw a fit, aren't you giving the person exactly the reaction they're looking for? Don't you encourage them by reacting to the word?

If people would stop and think about it, none of these words would exist in today's world if someone out there wasn't getting the emotional reward for using them. Words only have as much power as we give them. Choose not to give them control and power over you.

I can't believe I have found a person who sees it exactly as I do.

Lookin hot there today Buffy.

Cephus, WELCOME to A2K - to another Californian! c.i.

Thanks, we gotta stick together.

especially on A2K. LOL c.i.

To me the strongest argument in favor of affirmative action is that it helps offset challenges a person may face through no fault of their own. If a person grows up in low socioeconomic neighborhood, has to work 20 hours a week to help support his/her family, care for his/her younger siblings, can't afford books and such, and is forced to go to a school with limited funding, balloning classrooms, inexperienced teachers, and violence as a commonplace, they should certainly have their accomplishments (participating in a science fair etc) more highly regarded than someone who didn't have to face such challenges.

I believe that since the past injustices we are trying to compensate for occured in the past to a generation that's no longer even alive, instead focusing on factors that still apply such as socioeconomic class makes more sense.

I think that a white person growing up in a neighborhood where he had to face the same challenges mentioned above should get the same benefits that a black person in similar circumstances should recieve.

If that is AA's strength, its weakness is that it makes no effort to determine whether someone has faced such hardships. AA simply looks at arbitrary data like skin color and gender and then plays favorites.

I have in-laws who are rich. They are also black. My brother-in-law is a great guy who grew up with money while I did not and now gets preferential treatment at hiring time because he happens to have black skin. Even he thinks this is wrong.

BTW, his ancestors were not slaves in this country, yet affirmative action makes no distinction of that fact. You cannot guarantee equal outcome, you can only work to guarantee equal access, and let people do with that freedom what they will.

Just a thought here scrat, when applying for state/government jobs, I have always been allowed extra points for Vet status, I have always declined such preference believing it was not justified. perhaps there are others of minority status per AA that could do the same? Like I said this is just a thought.

I refuse to cite my race on any form. I suspect there are others who do likewise for similar reasons. (I have even begun refusing to offer gender information unless it is pertinent, as in the case of medical paperwork.)

I'm not sure how an applicant could ensure that bias was not used in his or her favor, but there are probably people out there that try to prevent it, who want to make it on their own merits.

What We Should Remember on Martin Luther King Day: Judge People by Their Character, Not Skin Color
by Edwin A. Locke (January 16, 2004)

What should we remember on Martin Luther King Day? In his "I Have a Dream" speech Dr. King said: "I have a dream that my four children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."

This statement means that in judging other men, skin color should be ignored--that it should not be a factor in evaluating their competence or moral stature. It follows that skin color should not be a factor in taking actions toward other people, e.g., hiring and admitting to universities.

What has happened in the years following King's murder is the opposite of the "I Have a Dream" quote above. Colorblindness now has been replaced with color preference in the form of affirmative action.

No amount of rationalizing can disguise the fact that affirmative action involves implicit or explicit racial quotas, i.e., racism.

Consider the realm of work as a case in point. Taking jobs away from one group in order to compensate a second group to correct injustices caused by a third group who mistreated a fourth group at an earlier point in history (e.g., 1860) is absurd on the face of it and does not promote justice; rather, it does the opposite. It promotes racism. You cannot cure racism with more racism. Singling out one group for special favors (through affirmative action) ignores the fact that people are individuals--not interchangeable ciphers in an amorphous collective.

Consider a more concrete, though fictional, example. Suppose that since its creation in 1936, the XYZ Corporation refused to hire redheaded men due to a quirky bias on the part of its founder. The founder now dies, and an enlightened board of directors decides that something "positive" needs to be done to compensate for past injustices and announces that, henceforth, redheads will be hired on a preferential basis. Observe that: (1) this does not help the real victims--the previously excluded redheads; (2) the newly favored redheads have not been victims of discrimination in hiring, yet unfairly benefit from it; and (3) the non-redheads who are now excluded from jobs due to the redhead preference did not cause the previous discrimination and are now unfairly made victims of it. The proper solution, of course, is simply to stop discriminating based on irrelevant factors. Although redheaded bias is not a social problem, the principle remains the same when you replace hair color with skin color.

The traditional solution to the problem of racism is colorblindness, or, from the other side of that coin, individual awareness. For example, in the job sphere there are only three essential things an employer needs to know about an individual applicant: (l) Does the person have the relevant ability and knowledge (or the capacity to learn readily)? (2) Is the person willing to exert the needed effort? and (3) Does the person have good character, e.g., honesty, integrity?

The rational alternative to racial diversity, focusing on the collective, is to focus on the individual and to treat each individual according to his own merits. This principle should apply in every sphere of life--from business, to education, to law enforcement, to politics. Americans have always abhorred the concept of royalty, that is, granting status and privilege (and, conversely, inferiority and debasement) based on one's hereditary caste, because it contradicts the principle that what counts are the self-made characteristics possessed by each individual. Americans should abhor racism, in any form, for the same reason.

On Martin Luther King Day--and every day--we should focus on the proper antidote to racism and the proper alternative to racial thinking: individualism. We need to teach our children and all our citizens to look beyond the superficialities of skin color and to judge people on what really matters, namely, "the content of their character."

http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=2399

from http://www.politicsforum.(org)/forum/viewtopic.php?t=5547


posted by smashthestate

posted by tex from the same thread...

I have a theory that the tendency of humans in general, and Americans in particular, towards revolution, is a kind of religion, in which achievement of the stated goal is much less important than the fact that there is a cause…any cause…which can be used as an excuse to commit outrageous acts, with some sort of justification.

For example, the early proponents of civil rights for black Africans were the abolitionists, prior to the American Civil War. Their cause was to "clear up" the single inconsistency in an otherwise fairly understandable and simple Constitution. The founding fathers stated that all men were created equal, but then sought to avoid doing anything about the fact that some were slaves, making them unequal in actuality. A noble cause to be sure, but since the population at that time was either totally against that cause, or apathetic to it, radical measures had to be employed to coerce majority support.
This attracted many radical thinkers with a bent towards anarchy, who clearly subscribed to the idea that "the end justifies the means", and certainly fueled the fires in the controversy of states rights…which eventually progressed to civil war.

The Civil War was so catastrophic for so many people, that once the first step had been taken in righting the original wrong, it was nearly a hundred years (several generations) before the trauma had subsided to the point where the "equal rights" activists could influence sufficient numbers of "average citizens" to regain their prominence. It took several years of post-WWII prosperity among white citizens, while most blacks struggled in vain to attain some semblance of that same prosperity, before there were sufficient numbers of whites to take up the cause, once again.

Most of the original proponents of affirmative action were well-meaning, just as the original abolitionists had been, and were decent individuals who shouldered the burden of guilt for everyone. Their intentions were to merely "jump-start" the process of bringing black people into their rightful place in society, with affirmative action being a temporary and artificial way to introduce more blacks into the prosperity that any white person could achieve by diligence and hard work.

…enter the radicals…

Of course, as always happens when well-meaning people become impatient, they accepted help from those who could "whip up" a crowd, and in the 1960's, dozens of these could be easily found in the larger cities. And, as always happens, their cause got hijacked by those who seek to gain personally, in some way, by exploiting the misfortune of others. Rather than taking strident, but rational steps to indoctrinate the people, and letting things take a more or less natural course with the passing of the torch from one generation to the next, they elected to make one big leap, by introducing affirmative action.

One may reasonably argue that, after a hundred years of stagnation, a radical solution was justified, but as generally happens with radical and sweeping social change that is introduced artificially, there were unintended consequences. The radical leftists were emboldened and exhilarated by their success in cramming their ideas down the throats of those who opposed them, and they sought to increase their gains. For many years they had been futilely battering themselves against a monolithic conservative wall of opposition, with no apparent foothold to be gained. Now they had an environment of unrest among the masses that would open the door to other revolutionary ideas, and they were going to "strike while the iron was hot".

This "revolution," while accomplishing more in a short time than had been accomplished for minorities in the previous hundred years, led to many absurdities and contradictions, such as described in the article posted by smashthestate, in which the cure for the patient has made it violently ill. The temporary correction has blossomed into a "sacred cow" among liberal politicians, many of whom still campaign as "revolutionaries", and has resulted in a severe over-correction that is at least as racist as the injustice it sought to eliminate. Many blacks have not used this "jump-start" to improve the outlook for their future, but instead have settled for a handout, which, generations after Martin Luther King, they mistakenly believe that they deserve, by the mere virtue of being the descendants of slaves.

Meanwhile, those who fancy themselves as revolutionaries have gained such prominence among the national media that they can stifle any argument against the status quo by playing the "race card." The revolution continues aimlessly, led by demagogues, and no longer fueled by a great cause…but simply revolution for the sake of revolution.

Hmmm....

You might want to consider his views on the very topic on which you speak, since you (selectively) want to reference Dr. King's "DREAM". I think such words are a better determinant of what King thought 'fulfilling the Dream' would require. (You know... like the thoughts/feelings/words right from the sources mouth... ahmmmm.... instead of your interpretation and those of others who would limit what he said to a single soundbite...)

Well... I see your soundbite and a raise you a couple:
In an interview with “Playboy” magazine, King was asked:
“Do you feel it’s fair to request a multi-billion-dollar program of preferential treatment for the Negro, or for any other minority group?”

King responded:
“I do indeed. Can any fair-minded citizen deny that the Negro has been deprived? Few people reflect that for two centuries the Negro was enslaved, robbed of any wages – potential accrued wealth which would have been the legacy of his descendants. All of America’s wealth today could not adequately compensate its Negroes for centuries of exploitation and humiliation…”

King himself was clear, as much as some would deny it. In 1961, after visiting India, King praised that nation's "preferential" policies that had been put in place to provide opportunity to those at the bottom of the caste system, and in a 1963 article in Newsweek, King actually suggested it might be necessary to have something akin to "discrimination in reverse" as a form of national "atonement" for the legacy of slavery and Jim Crow segregation.


The most direct articulation of his views on the subject are found in his 1963 classic, Why We Can't Wait. Therein, King discussed the subject of "compensatory treatment," and explained: [list] Whenever this issue is raised, some of our friends recoil in horror. The Negro should be granted equality, they agree, but should ask for nothing more. On the surface, this appears reasonable, but is not realistic. For it is obvious that if a man enters the starting line of a race three hundred years after another man, the first would have to perform some incredible feat in order to catch up.[/list]

In his 1967 book, Where Do We Go From Here: Chaos or Community? King argued:

A society that has done something special against the Negro for hundreds of years must now do something special for him, to equip him to compete on a just and equal basis.


Operation Breadbasket: Proof that MLK believed in Affirmative Action/Set-Asides - aka The "ShakeDown"?

Here's how Dr. King described the program in Where Do We Go From Here?

Operation Breadbasket is carried out mainly by clergymen. First, a team of ministers calls on the management of a business in the community to request basic facts on the company's total number of employees, the number of Negro employees, the department or job classification in which all are located, and the salary ranges for each category. The team then returns to the steering committee to evaluate the data and to make a recommendation concerning the number of new and upgraded jobs that should be requested. The decision on the number of jobs requested is usually based on population figures. For instance, if a city has a 30 percent Negro population, then it is logical to assume that Negroes should have at least 30 percent of the jobs in any particular company, and jobs in all categories rather than only in menial areas, as the case almost always happens to be.

In fact, King's writings - taken as a whole, rather than the out-of-context quotes right-wingers prefer - make him sound pretty much like any current defender of Affirmative Action.

"Whenever the issue of compensatory treatment for the Negro is raised, some of our friends recoil in horror. The Negro should be granted equality, they agree; but he should ask nothing more. On the surface, this appears reasonable, but it is not realistic."

I'm sure that speaks directly to what he thought about "colorblindness"!

MLK believed in Reparations?? Say it ain't so!.... That and exposing other myths and mischaracterizations of Conservatives and other "DREAMERS"

In his 1964 book, Why We Can’t Wait, he wrote:

No amount of gold could provide an adequate compensation for the exploitation and humiliation of the Negro in America down through the centuries…Yet a price can be placed on unpaid wages. The ancient common law has always provided a remedy for the appropriation of a the labor of one human being by another. This law should be made to apply for American Negroes. The payment should be in the form of a massive program by the government of special, compensatory measures which could be regarded as a settlement in accordance with the accepted practice of common law. ...


___ So, if you like, you can argue all you want about the utility of race, affirmative action, etc. all you want... but you expose yourself as either ridiculously IGNORANT or insiduously ARROGANT to try to assign what it amounts to *YOUR* ideas/opinions and associate/attach/assign those ill-fated, ill-concieved, half-baked ideas to Dr. King.

Those of us who aren't in denial and without an agenda counter-to-Dr. King's know better. You would do better to strictly argue your point in terms of whether such programs and such an outlook is founded or needed any longer rather than trying to say they contradict what MLK stood for. As I said... those of us who aren't in denial, who happened to be well read and who don't have an agenda counter to what MLK fundamentally understood and stood for would not make the silly assertions you have which are so popular amongst conservatives who were never 'friends' of Dr. King in the first place. And don't try that Liberal vs. Conservative crap either. If King transcended "race" then he most certainly transcended the narrow scope of American political ideologies of which neither Democrat or Republican are married to the Civil Rights issues then or now. Whatever support at whatever time are like most all things that are not the core platform of the parties, just mere reflections of politics and the things people do for votes.

So, just in case you missed it... I'm here to let you know that you are in no wise qualified to speak about what he believed regardless of you ideology especially the current manifestation of a conservative one which is without a doubt in opposition to MLK's DREAM and the reality he faced and knew would have to be dealt with for years.

So go ahead and enjoy you ridiculous and disingenious PONTIFICATION. Just have some integrity and leave Dr. King out of it, seeing as how you apparently won't touch what he actually said about real-life situations. Go ahead and DREAM, Pontiff! DREAM!!! (that you know what the hell you are talkin' about!)____

I see Noah has resurfaced with yet another handle. Do we at A2K really want to support this multiple personality problem that became so rampant at that other site?

cjh, Not to worry. If Noah goes over the boundaries TOS on A2K, he'll disappear very quickly.

Criminy, I had a post get whacked here today. It really surprised me because it wasn't THAT bad. But someone must have taken offense.

cjh, So, you're one of the bad guys?

I guess...geesh.

I see you are a paranoid one yourself.

If I was Noah and had multiple personality problems why would I use his name however qualified or described via adjectives, etc.? If I was Noah and wanted to hide my resurfacing, again, why would I use the name, Noah?

I see you are the gullible type and are so easily confused and persuaded by the slightest of suggestions. FYI... I know Noah The African from another site. And it's obvious you carry your paranoia from one site to the next. I purposely used Noah's name to see what the reaction would be to it. Without a doubt, yours was anticipated and so predictable.

I see you didn't care to respond to the content of my post but rather was all too concerned about who may have posted it. Let's play (another) game!! How about actually responding to the content of what I posted?

Also, for the record, all things I posted in blue whether they are links or not (most are) are quotes of MLK and/or others introducing or explaining what he believed in. I'd rather you not waste your precious time worrying about who I am and engage the forum here in what it is suppose to be about - discussion and/or debate of ideas, not personalities.

Thank You for your support!