Affirmative Action

Snood -- I sort of figured, but wanted to know more about "badass". Highly recommend that quiz -- please tell me how you do on it!

Tartarin, that article was great. THat's precisely what I was angry about from the beginning of the Blair witch hunt.
No doubt the concept of AA has developed tremendously, and so has the social reality. I would recommend to look at the writings of Glenn Loury on Developmental Affirmative Action (offering extra education to minorities to prepare them for college, jobs, etc. and then apply the same standards at the hiring processes).
However, I do maintain you have to take community into account. While DAA may work wonderfully say in Boston, or San Francisco, parts of New York, Washington DC, Baltimore or other poverty-ridden ghettos may not be influence one bit by such policies. There the quota may work much better to break through the vicious cycle of social backwardness, caused by isolation and poverty.

Slovakia, and the rest of Central and Eastern Europe has the process of integration of Gypsies into the society ahead of itself. We are where America was 50 years ago, at best. There is no de jure segregation, but there sure is de facto segregation - the Roma (Gypsy) kids often end up in the schools for mentally retarded (they constitute a vast majority in these institutions) only because they fail the Slovak language exam at the age of 5. They speak Roma at home. Even in regular schools you will find them concentrated in one classroom. Whites, the 90% majority, does not want to see any changes. There is over 15% unemployment in Slovakia, Roma represent more than half of that 15% - meaning about 70-80% of all Roma are unemployed. The Labor office used to keep track of them - putting a letter 'R' on their job application, just by eying them, not based on asking them to state their ethnicity. This meant their guarantee not to get employed. That is now illegal, yet the problem remains unchanged.
I believe quota AA would bring about the needed kick against the popular stereotypes and outright racism, for they will not go away before we see the Roma on everyday basis as colleagues, classmates, in services, etc. Not just as a lazy dirty scum that we have to pay social welfare for.

In other words, I am for affirmative action, of all types. One needs to consider the context, look at particular communities and their immediate needs. I don't think that in the U.S., at this point in time, this can be regulated on a national level.

I'm ambivalent about AA, Dag, in the following way: To say that AA is necessary because it's needed by certain people will inevitably (in my view) make those people feel alternately resentful and inferior. To tell the truth about AA -- which is that our society has failed in particular ways and this is the broad brush we're using pro tem to address that economic and social imbalance and failure -- that's okay with me.

But the underlying problem, underclassism -- in which (we are told)an underclass exists because IT has allegedly failed -- needs to be addressed straight through the culture and through a fresh look at the form of capitalism we subscribe to. Don't forget, capitalism NEEDS an underclass. Listen, I'm from a white, upper-middle-class, educated, yea privileged background, went to all the best private schools, and had parents who believed in "natural inferiority" (of others, of course!!). Top of the food chain. Then I lived a big chunk of my adult life outside of this country. When I came back, I was surprised at the extent and depth of the racism and underclassism in this country. It was all the more startling because it was not perceived by people who'd always lived here. On the contrary, we tell ourselves stories about the great old USA which precisely avoid facing that issue. I saw it -- and see it -- in our movies and TV dramas, in our language, in the ecology of our cities, in the ways we deal with each other socially -- B&W, rich and poor -- and to a large extent in our educational system.

I agree with you wholeheartedly on the non-federal approach to this. Makes very good sense. But whatever happens, we need some national truth-telling, and we need to stop calling "them" the problem. The problem is US, through and through.

At some point during the mid to late sixties I was sitting, lucky me, on my little hilltop in Spain reading a copy of the New Yorker which opened with a kind of editorial about the racial situation in America at that time. Everything that the writer said rang bells with me -- Yes! I kept thinking, I remember! -- and then I came across a paragraph which made my heart sink and which I knew to be true. It said something like this: We're having race riots and protests and eventually all those things will simmer down, but what's not going to go away for many decades [unless we make a successful effort, the writer implied] will be the resentment and anger of a people who are right to feel those emotions. These resentments on the part of the minority are not going to go away even after a "reasonable period." They are with us for our lifetimes and beyond. The reason my heart sank was because I recognized, as an American, how deep racism and "underclassicism" is, and how right the statement was. So now we're into a period when so many (non-minority) people, born in the late sixties and later, are saying, What's wrong with these people? Why are they still so mad? And that in turn creates a whole new atmosphere of oppression for the rightfully resentful...

I remember the anti-gypsy attitudes and actions in Spain. I'd have to think about it, but there are different elements in that set of prejudices...

I fully and totally agree. Although I do see strong parallels between the position of some minorities (in particular areas, perhaps not in general) and the Gypsies. We also blame them. Racism is more overt over there, people and media will tell you that Gypsies don't work, because they are lazy, asocial, dirty, uneducatable... I believe there were similar sentiments some decades ago against blacks, and many surely still believe so, albeit not overtly.
Gypsies were not dragged in, but they were enslaved by the local lords anyway, for they were nomads and had no status. They were chased away from villages, forced to settle in isolated settlements, there were hunts organized against them - much more severe than the lynching cases, for they involved hundreds of them at a time. The goal was to chase down and kill as many as possible.
40 000 died in concentration camps during wwII just in Slovakia. In 1959 they were forcefully settled - moved into cement blocks of flats, given jobs against their will and traditions and culture (everybody had to work, that was the law). After the communism fell, they no longer had the knowledge of their traditional crafts - basket making, blacksmithing, et... and the guarantee of work withered away. Suddenly they were left with nothing - their culture severly degenerated by the intrusion of the communist state, most of them unemployed and unable to get employed, without access to education due to systemic seggregation, etc. And that is now.
So I believe comparisons are viable and inspiring, we can learn from mistakes and successes here in the U.S., but you can't compare the present Slovakia to present US, but to the U.S. fifty years ago. Our cities did not burn yet. They may, if nothing is done, and it may happen soon.

Sorry to rant about Gypsies so much, but there is so few that listen, I take my chances whenever i can.

Scrat, You missed my point - entirely. c.i.

"Racism is more overt over there." I think you've nailed it. I had some interesting experiences with gypsies which illustrated (for me, anyway) the ambivalence felt towards that enclave -- an odd mixture of scorn and respect. We bought our farm donkeys (for ploughing) from gypsies. They "knew" animals better, but could also "cheat you blind" when selling you an animal. When my dog was lost, I was directed to las cuevas -- the caves -- where the gypsy head man listened sympathetically about the dog and said he'd put the word out among his people who lived and travelled all over the place -- they might find the dog. The dog was returned almost instantly. Ergo... ?! Ditto a lost wallet. I was directed to the main bar in the plaza and sipped expresso until a man (unknown to me... y gitano) climbed up on the next stool and introduced himself as The Finder. He asked for a description of the wallet, accepted a coffee, chatted for a moment, and left. Very shortly thereafter, when a neighbor was down at the fuente getting water, she was handed my wallet and asked to take it to me. No further explanation. Everything in the wallet was still there, down to the last duro.

In the language, "moro" (moor, Arab), "chino" (both Chinaman and pig), and "cale" (gypsy) meant slob, dirty, beneath contempt, etc. etc. At the same time, the gypsies were an integral part of the society.

Tartar, Your story just goes to show that bigotry is based on ignorance. People's negative impression about a whole race of people or culture never seem to pan out in the detail. There are always good and bad in all cultures, but many are unable to seperate the individual from whence they came. c.i.

Plus, CI, the approval of the home group based on getting together in hatred of another... Look at how harshly the KKK behaved towards non-conforming whites -- quite apart from what they did to the blacks. Travel on over to the thread about the French which contains some real examples of "pile on for fun."

Myths grow up around cultures we don't understand, around people who speak another language and who appear to be keeping something from us, laughing at us, whatever, as we sit in the cafe self-consciously drinking our boiled water...

I assure you I did not. What I did was to "get" your point, see the flaw inherent in it, and shine a big ol' kleeg light on it.

I believe I raised this point way back, but I'll raise it again to see if I can get some responses from AA proponents...

Assuming the federal government should be in the business of leveling the playing field, why not replace AA as we know it with a program that offers additional educational and training assistance to those in the lowest economic group in the US? If a given black person is economically disadvantaged due to the legacy of slavery and racism, he or she will be helped by such a system, without making race the determining factor.

Scrat, You're still missing the point. Your math doesn't make any sense. c.i.

May 27, 2003 10:00 a.m.
“Okay You Caught Me”
Getting schools to change their race-exclusivity policies.

Over the last year, the Center for Equal Opportunity (CEO) and the American Civil Rights Institute (ACRI) have sent letters to, at last count, 26 different universities complaining about their racially exclusive programs. By "racially exclusive," we are not including policies that simply count race as a factor in evaluating a student's worthiness (though we don't like that either). Rather, these are programs — typically involving internships or summer programs, on one hand, or scholarships and financial aid, on the other — for which being of the "right" race or ethnicity is an absolute requirement, and being of the "wrong" color means immediate disqualification.
Full article at:
http://www.nationalreview.com/clegg/clegg052703.asp
Another abuse of Affirmative Action.

au - Nice to see the tide turning on this issue. Thanks for the link.

Scrat.
To this point I have kept clear of this post since it had been discussed previously. I have however, serious reservations about the program. First and foremost I am at odds with who the beneficiaries have been. I can understand the justification for blacks who are decedents of American slaves. However, I see no justification for those Blacks who have come to this nation on their own volition, many of them in recent years, being the recipients of it's largesse. For example in recent years Blacks from Haiti points south and Africa have been pouring into this nation. What do we owe them?
Regarding Hispanics what is the justification for their being included as part of the program? They arrive here from South America, Mexico and all points south legally and illegally and because they have a Spanish surname are afforded preferential treatment. WHY?
Affirmative action had a noble and necessary purpose however, IMO the wrong criteria in determining the recipients was used and at this point it has served it's purpose and should be discontinued.

The Supreme Court has just upheld affirmative action in Universtiy of Michigan case. Dubya how has to resign himself to the "win some (the Presidency) to lose some." Hope they've removed all the pretzels from the White House!

Where in the constitution does it indicate special privileges be given to any group. Is the USCC empowered too interpret the law or generate it?

I think this decision was wrong, and here is why...

How would you feel about a University that gave white applicants a numerical edge in applications? If the program gave white students 10 points for being white--to ensure that they got the number of white students they desired--would you think it a good thing? Would any Supreme Court justice uphold such a system?

They ruled the point system unconstitutional...

The Supreme Court decision is a bit of a split one. It wasn't a clear win or lose for anyone. They said the school can consider race in selections for the Law School but not for undergrad admissions.

I think this decision was right, and the reason why is because its better than any alternatives so far offered.