What is your position on Affirmative Action? For or against?

Personally I am AGAINST it in it's current form. Although I believe there are still socioeconomic circumstances that stack the odds against a lot of minorities,these conditions can apply across the board.

Today, I think this society is divided more on socioeconomic status, the haves and have nots, then it is on racial lines.

Which is why I think Affirmative Action should be based on socioeconomic status, rather than ethnicity.

Affirmative action based on race is inherently divisive.  I say its time has come and gone.  I would rather see benefts given based on economic need not race.

There are many right-wingers who say the same thing, but underneath the rhetoric, you'll find they want Old Boy network and upper class privilege to reign supreme and no affirmative action whatsoever.

I would also like to see the narrowing of the yawning gap between the haves and the have nots.  The affirmative action I want to see starts before the beneficiary is even born.

Having a bit of perspective here, when affirmative action was introduced in its modern form in the
60's(there has always been AA, in the past, here in Massachusetts the Irish benefited greatly in the
late 1800 early 1900's, though they do try to forget) it was to address the fact that African Americans
had been denied employment simply on the basis of race. Qualifications did not mean anything.  AA
was supposed to address that fact, instead it devolved to a just show us the numbers mentality. 
Sadly, there were some who didn't believe any African Americans were qualified for anything so it
didn't matter which one you hired as long as you could show that you had them on payroll.  It was
also resented because  a lot of the civil service and union jobs that had been passed from father to
son without any regard for fitness for the position, became open to competition.  That being said, I do
believe it is time to evolve the notion of AA as being a strictly minority/women program and open to
socio-economic factors.  I think that at this point in time, with the stratification of the classes and the
opportunities being stripped away from the working classes it is necessary to stop the doors from
closing on any program that would benefit anyone in need without regard to factors other than economic.

Having a bit of perspective here, when affirmative action was introduced in its modern form in the
60's(there has always been AA, in the past, here in Massachusetts the Irish benefited greatly in the
late 1800 early 1900's, though they do try to forget) it was to address the fact that African Americans
had been denied employment simply on the basis of race. Qualifications did not mean anything.  AA
was supposed to address that fact, instead it devolved to a just show us the numbers mentality. 
Sadly, there were some who didn't believe any African Americans were qualified for anything so it
didn't matter which one you hired as long as you could show that you had them on payroll.  It was
also resented because  a lot of the civil service and union jobs that had been passed from father to
son without any regard for fitness for the position, became open to competition.  That being said, I do
believe it is time to evolve the notion of AA as being a strictly minority/women program and open to
socio-economic factors.  I think that at this point in time, with the stratification of the classes and the
opportunities being stripped away from the working classes it is necessary to stop the doors from
closing on any program that would benefit anyone in need without regard to factors other than economic.

It is true on the one hand that the flood of 19th century Irish immigrants faced terrible discrimination.  And it is true, on the other hand, that the Irish had a much easier climb than African Americans.  Tammany Hall-type political machines did wonders for the Irish.  I don't think it is fair to compare the plight of the Irish with the struggle of African Americans, nor do I believe it useful to compare immigration in the 19th century to immigration today.  The times and the economy are very different.

I think it is a bad idea the way it is now.  While I know there are still people who won't hire because of racial prejudices, it is not the norm.  I think it is wrong that the person most qualified for the job doesn't get it because of race.  It isn't right to force someone to hire someone not qualified just to fill a quota. 

I believe that people should be hired based on experience or ability to do the job, not race or gender etc. 

There should be some kind of law in place to stop people from hiring based on race, gender, religion, etc but it would be hard to prove, therefore hard to enforce. 

I think it is a bad idea the way it is now. While I know there are still people who won't hire because of racial prejudices, it is not the norm. I think it is wrong that the person most qualified for the job doesn't get it because of race. It isn't right to force someone to hire someone not qualified just to fill a quota.

I believe that people should be hired based on experience or ability to do the job, not race or gender etc.

There should be some kind of law in place to stop people from hiring based on race, gender, religion, etc but it would be hard to prove, therefore hard to enforce.



How do you feel about Affirmative action being socioeconomic based though? There are people who need it for those reasons...

How would you figure someone's socioeconomic status though? Educational level may play a part in it as well. Usually, the lower the socioeconomic status, the lower the educational level. IMHO, I think AA could use some tweaking. However, in this day and age, if you completely eradicate it, you will see a lack of people of color and women (who is the majority, not the minority) in the workplace and in many colleges/universities.

Tanya

How would you figure someone's socioeconomic status though? Educational level may play a part in it as well. Usually, the lower the socioeconomic status, the lower the educational level. IMHO, I think AA could use some tweaking. However, in this day and age, if you completely eradicate it, you will see a lack of people of color and women (who is the majority, not the minority) in the workplace and in many colleges/universities.

Tanya



There are different factors. Myself, I will be the first person in my family to graduate from High School, and certainly the first one to go to college if I choose to do so. Who right now the way things are, will have more chance of acceptance, me? Or someone's who's father went there, and his father went there, and so on?

That is one example of socioeconomic status, I think.

There are different factors. Myself, I will be the first person in my family to graduate from High School, and certainly the first one to go to college if I choose to do so. Who right now the way things are, will have more chance of acceptance, me? Or someone's who's father went there, and his father went there, and so on?

That is one example of socioeconomic status, I think.

You're in high school?  Wow!  I thought you were much older.
:o

You're in high school?  Wow!  I thought you were much older.
:o



LOL, nope. I am a Senior in High School..

16.8 years old(I am graduating one year early)

How would you figure someone's socioeconomic status though? Educational level may play a part in it as well. Usually, the lower the socioeconomic status, the lower the educational level. IMHO, I think AA could use some tweaking. However, in this day and age, if you completely eradicate it, you will see a lack of people of color and women (who is the majority, not the minority) in the workplace and in many colleges/universities.

Tanya


Color people are the majority?  Last time I checked White non-hispanic made up 69% of the U.S. population.

Down with reverse discrimination!  Hire the more qualified candidate!  Don't judge on race.

I'm really talking about Affirmative Action in terms of College.

There are whites who are in as bad socioeconomic positions as a lot of blacks. They need extra help with college too, yet they don't get it, just because the color of their  skin. I think that's wrong.

I'm really talking about Affirmative Action in terms of College.






Like UGA?  At the University of Georgia (UGA) you must have a 7.0 to get in.  Heres how it works:

The paper will say something like ''add 0.5 points if you have at least a 3.5 GPA.''  Or ''add 0.75 points if you have at least a 4.0 GPA.''  Or ''add 1.0 if you scored an 800 in math on your SAT.''  UGA being one of the best colleges in the south in hard to get into.  You see how it works, right? 

On the same form it honestly says: ''add 0.5 points if you're are a female'' and ''add 1.0 if you are a person of color.''  Isn't that wrong, just by being a woman of color you already have 1.5 points out of the 7.0 required, while a possibly more qualiified person who may be a white male starts off with 0.  That is wrong, in my opinion.

Well, yes and no, GWB.

I don't think it should be based on race/gender, but economics.

Let's say, if you are first person in your immediate family to graduate from High School, maybe add .03 points.

Because like I said, the way it works now, let's say I(who will be the first to attend college in my family if i apply), apply to go to a Uni, and so does this other guy, but his father and grandfather both went to college there, his dad is a doctor etc. Who do you think is more likely to get in?

GW, I was talking about women. Read more carefully, please!

As for college terms, I didn't receive help based on my skin's color. I received it based on my merit. Quite frankly, I don't understand this statement. Are you implying that most students of color (African-American, Hispanic, Asian, Native American, etc) receive help for college based on their race, not their merit or abilities (academics, athletic, musical, otherwise)? What sources are you quoting?

I think this misinformation causes the extra drama when referring to this topic. For the record, my sorority sister received a full scholarship b/c she traced a female relative from the Daughters of the American Revolution. There are scholarships out there that benefit white students as well.  There is help for every student who is willing to look for it. It doesn't fall into your lap.

For the record, I worked as a financial aid counselor for my alma mater as I paid for graduate school. I helped more white students than any students of color.

As for points, it's always best to have something extra in your application. Didn't your counselor always tell you that? Don't assume that you are automatically in b/c you are a white male (which is why so many people are crying foul). Join 4-H, pick up an instrument, play golf, do something. as for legacies, you could be of almost any occupation and have your child enter your alma mater. My children will be legacies solely b/c I (as well as my husband) are college and graduate school graduates. I'm a teacher and he's an accountant. Just a little something extra.

Besides, usually one thing will cancel another. If you are a woman of color, race/ethnicity may cancel out gender.

Tanya

GW, I was talking about women. Read more carefully, please!

As for college terms, I didn't receive help based on my skin's color. I received it based on my merit. Quite frankly, I don't understand this statement. Are you implying that most students of color (African-American, Hispanic, Asian, Native American, etc) receive help for college based on their race, not their merit or abilities (academics, athletic, musical, otherwise)? What sources are you quoting?

I think this misinformation causes the extra drama when referring to this topic. For the record, my sorority sister received a full scholarship b/c she traced a female relative from the Daughters of the American Revolution. There are scholarships out there that benefit white students as well.  There is help for every student who is willing to look for it. It doesn't fall into your lap.

For the record, I worked as a financial aid counselor for my alma mater as I paid for graduate school. I helped more white students than any students of color.

As for points, it's always best to have something extra in your application. Didn't your counselor always tell you that? Don't assume that you are automatically in b/c you are a white male (which is why so many people are crying foul). Join 4-H, pick up an instrument, play golf, do something. as for legacies, you could be of almost any occupation and have your child enter your alma mater. My children will be legacies solely b/c I (as well as my husband) are college and graduate school graduates. I'm a teacher and he's an accountant. Just a little something extra.

Besides, usually one thing will cancel another. If you are a woman of color, race/ethnicity may cancel out gender.

Tanya



Some interesting points. Didn't realize there were things like that out there.

My point is still though, that why should Blacks and Hispanics get extra points for who they are? I think everyone should get help based on economics, not their background. Just what I think.

As for extra curric, I attend an alternative high school and we don't have any.

Anyway, I personally, more likely than not, will not attend college. I may take some college classes at a community college, but I have no interest in really going to college(meaning university, getting a degree and so on).

Believe it or not, El, going to community college shows you have prior experience and you could get points for that too!

As for economics, I can see what you are saying. Even then someone will say there's too many Blacks, Hispanics, etc b/c of the uneven socioeconomics status in comparison to whites. It will always be something someone can disapprove of or find fault with.

Tanya

Yeah. People would probably still complain, your right.

Part of the reason I am not interested in geting a degree is because I have other routes of making money besides employment.

Well, kind of. I will work for my father for a few yearings, during which that time I will save up money to help me start my own business.

Also, he will be receiving a hefty settlement for medical damages(that nearly killed him and did permanate damage to his health) sometime in the next 2-3 years. We will probably be looking at getting 500,000 minimum. My father has promised to give me somewhere in the range of 100-200,000 to investy, and to put in accounts and collect interest on. My goal is through investment of this money, and having set up my business successfully, I will be living on a fixed income by the time I am 30. I will still have to oversee a business, but I mean I plan not to be a 9 to 5'er.

However, if I was not lucky enough to have these circumstances with my father(which I realize I am lucky i dont take it for granted), I would definitely go to a 4 year college, because it is hard to make a good living nowadays without a degree in most cases.

Color people are the majority?  Last time I checked White non-hispanic made up 69% of the U.S. population.

Down with reverse discrimination!  Hire the more qualified candidate!  Don't judge on race.

Conservatives weren't the ones singing that song 50 years ago.  White males weren't complaining when the shoe was on the other foot.  It doesn't make "reverse discrimination" right, of course.  Mind you, I don't think all racially based affirmative action programs can be fairly called "reverse discrimination."  Fewer now than 20 years ago. 
I get the overall sense that conservatives haven't taken the lessons of inequality to heart, and would go back to those good old days in a snap if they could.

Conservatives weren't the ones singing that song 50 years ago.  White males weren't complaining when the shoe was on the other foot.  It doesn't make "reverse discrimination" right, of course.  Mind you, I don't think all racially based affirmative action programs can be fairly called "reverse discrimination."  Fewer now than 20 years ago. 
I get the overall sense that conservatives haven't taken the lessons of inequality to heart, and would go back to those good old days in a snap if they could.


Democrats are the party of hate.  Look back at the election of 1860, Lincoln (a republican) ran against democrat Breckenbridge (spelled wrong.)  Brenkenbridge was VERY pro-slavery.  And won almost all the southern states, losing only a few to Bell.  Lets see, who helped pass the civil rights act?  Who's side is Robert ''Sheets'' Byrd on?   

Not only that, just a few years ago South Carolina was flying the confederate flag over its state capital.  It was a democrat who placed it there.  The flag was place on the building only a couple of years and was almost instantly taken off when the NAACP caught wind of it.  So thats nothing old.

Don't tell me republicans are the only ones who have bigots.

After years of religious, racial, and sexual hate, isn't it time for the democrats to step aside for the party of the future (republicans)?

::) There he goes again. Miseducation is a powerful tool.  There isn't any dispute that the Republican
party as the Party of Lincoln died April 15, 1865.  There is so much history involved and this is so
far off topic I would suggest you learn the facts before diminishing yourself further.

::) There he goes again. Miseducation is a powerful tool.  There isn't any dispute that the Republican
party as the Party of Lincoln died April 15, 1865.  There is so much history involved and this is so
far off topic I would suggest you learn the facts before diminishing yourself further.


Tell me what I said that wasn't true, tell me i'd like to know.  And then back it up.  I'd sure like to know what I said that wasn't the truth.

How do you feel about Affirmative action being socioeconomic based though? There are people who need it for those reasons...


Let me start out by saying I am impressed.  You are very mature and well thought.  I was surprised to learn you are 16.  Stay that way, you will make it far.

I hadn't thought about it in the socio-economic light.  College is important, but I am going through the job search right now and most entry level jobs require college (which I don't have)  I know it is important, but it is hard to find a job that pays me enough to support my family.  I still don't know that it is right to tell an employer to hire me over someone with a degree just because of Affirmative Action.  I will have to think harder on the subject.

You made me think, I like that.

::) There he goes again. Miseducation is a powerful tool.  There isn't any dispute that the Republican
party as the Party of Lincoln died April 15, 1865.  There is so much history involved and this is so
far off topic I would suggest you learn the facts before diminishing yourself further.

The Democratic party was the party of Southern whites from Reconstruction through FDR.  Things started to really change in the Civil Rights movement.  Most of the Dixiecrats became Republicans, but Zell Miller stayed.
Poor GWB, he really sounds like he had a Hannity overdose this week!

I have never really formed an opinion about affirmitive action. There are many pros and cons to it. First of all, I feel ashamed that we NEED it-yes we do need it because whether people want to believe it or not, there is still much discrimanation in this country. And yes, Jim Crow is still alive and well. That is very sad and scary. I feel that someone shouldn't be hired or not hired because of their gender, color of their skin, or religion, or whatever. It should be if they are qualified. However, it does happen-more than most realize.

As far as colleges go, I think it is a RIGHT for anyone who wants to go and has the aptitude should be able to go. Unfortunely, in this country the almight $$ determines if someone can be educated or not. So there are extremely smart people who live in the inner cities, the trailer parks, and housing projects not living up to their potental because they can't afford the basic needs nevertheless education. Who knows, maybe some of those people could be the next Einstien or Hawking, but we will never know because they are not given the chance. So they don't have a chance to pull themselves out of their economic situation. And of course we all know it is because they are lazy. (Yes, that is sarcasm) As Dagwood said, most good jobs require a college education. It is really sad that many who want to go are denied and some who have their education paid for by "mommy and daddy" use that time to party their brains out and could care less about learning. So after four years (or more) the only thing they have learned was how to chug beer but they got that peice of paper that says they are educated and only use it to get a job instead of using it to THINK!!!

When I was in high school, my gym teacher had a bumper sticker posted on the bulletin board that said, "If you think education is expensive, try ignorance".




Cat

I have never really formed an opinion about affirmitive action. There are many pros and cons to it. First of all, I feel ashamed that we NEED it-yes we do need it because whether people want to believe it or not, there is still much discrimanation in this country. And yes, Jim Crow is still alive and well. That is very sad and scary. I feel that someone shouldn't be hired or not hired because of their gender, color of their skin, or religion, or whatever. It should be if they are qualified. However, it does happen-more than most realize.

As far as colleges go, I think it is a RIGHT for anyone who wants to go and has the aptitude should be able to go. Unfortunely, in this country the almight $$ determines if someone can be educated or not. So there are extremely smart people who live in the inner cities, the trailer parks, and housing projects not living up to their potental because they can't afford the basic needs nevertheless education. Who knows, maybe some of those people could be the next Einstien or Hawking, but we will never know because they are not given the chance. So they don't have a chance to pull themselves out of their economic situation. And of course we all know it is because they are lazy. (Yes, that is sarcasm) As Dagwood said, most good jobs require a college education. It is really sad that many who want to go are denied and some who have their education paid for by "mommy and daddy" use that time to party their brains out and could care less about learning. So after four years (or more) the only thing they have learned was how to chug beer but they got that peice of paper that says they are educated and only use it to get a job instead of using it to THINK!!!

When I was in high school, my gym teacher had a bumper sticker posted on the bulletin board that said, "If you think education is expensive, try ignorance".




Cat


"A mind is a terrible thing to waste" said an NAACP poster, very true. 

There seem to be some misconceptions re AA.  Quotas have been ruled illegal, for openers.  Second, AA, when linked with "equal opportunity" means that of 2 qualified applicants you favor the group defines as disadvantaged and nothing more.  3rd, a college education is about more than getting a good job, although lots of conservatives would like to reduce it to job training.  4th, I would suggest that the privileged white minority, those with fat check books and lots of connections, need to get a grip on reality.  They aren't the only smart people around.  5th, if memory serves, it was LBJ (a good Texas Dem) who puched both the civil right and the voting rights acts through congress (Oh yea, GWB wants to reestablish literacy tests, I almost forgot), but neither party can claim clean hands when it comes to race in this country.

So, although I wish it were not the case, I think AA should continue, although I also agree that it should be extended to include those who are economically disadvantaged regardless of race and/or gender.  And by the way, I think that a college education should be just as much a right open to all as a high school education, at least at public colleges, and I oppose "legacy" admissions.

"A mind is a terrible thing to waste" said an NAACP poster, very true. 

There seem to be some misconceptions re AA.  Quotas have been ruled illegal, for openers.  Second, AA, when linked with "equal opportunity" means that of 2 qualified applicants you favor the group defines as disadvantaged and nothing more.  3rd, a college education is about more than getting a good job, although lots of conservatives would like to reduce it to job training.  4th, I would suggest that the privileged white minority, those with fat check books and lots of connections, need to get a grip on reality.  They aren't the only smart people around.  5th, if memory serves, it was LBJ (a good Texas Dem) who puched both the civil right and the voting rights acts through congress (Oh yea, GWB wants to reestablish literacy tests, I almost forgot), but neither party can claim clean hands when it comes to race in this country.

So, although I wish it were not the case, I think AA should continue, although I also agree that it should be extended to include those who are economically disadvantaged regardless of race and/or gender.  And by the way, I think that a college education should be just as much a right open to all as a high school education, at least at public colleges, and I oppose "legacy" admissions.



Speaking of legacy admissions, it's strange Bush is opposed to Affirmative Action, it was a form of AA that got him into Yale. That form of AA being legacy(his father and grandfather went there).

Tell me what I said that wasn't true, tell me i'd like to know.  And then back it up.  I'd sure like to know what I said that wasn't the truth.


Although I would say it goes back to Andrew Johnson reneging on the "40 acres and a Mule" this
expresses it well.

Why blacks shy away from the GOP

By OSCAR EASON JR.
GUEST COLUMNIST

In his farewell speech in 1901, Rep. George White, a Republican and the last African American to leave the U.S. Congress following the Reconstruction period, said, "Phoenixlike, he (the African American citizen) will rise up some day and come again."

There were 22 African Americans serving in Congress from 1870 to 1901; two were senators and most, if not all, were Republicans. Today, there are 39 African Americans in Congress and they're all Democrats.

Anyone who is politically curious has seen present-day Republican pundits proclaim their party to be historically "the party of Lincoln"; what is unfailingly left out of this declaration is the historical metamorphosis of the Republican Party after Reconstruction. Anyone who does not understand this genealogy cannot hope to understand the predominately white face of today's GOP.

The famous "Hayes-Tilden Betrayal" is said to have reversed many of the political, social and economic gains made by African Americans during Reconstruction. The 1876 presidential election was similar in many ways to the 2000 election in that Republican Rutherford B. Hayes and Democrat Samuel Jones Tilden ended up in an almost dead heat. Tilden won a majority of the popular vote. The electoral votes in South Carolina, Louisiana, Florida and Oregon were disputed, causing a special commission to decide the election.

It is said a deal was cut that gave all disputed ballots to candidate Hayes in exchange for a guarantee that all federal troops would be removed from the South, leaving African Americans vulnerable to white Southern retaliation. Hayes was then elected president by one electoral vote. Once that deal was solidified, a retaliatory blood bath targeting African Americans promptly ensued throughout the South.

In the late 1940s President Truman, a Democrat, decided it was time to racially integrate the armed forces, causing outrage among some white Southern Democrats. As if this weren't enough, in 1948 the Democratic Party publicly declared its support for the civil rights movement. That was more than some white Southern Democrats could stomach, so they formed a "states rights" ticket that was appropriately labeled the Dixiecrats.

In the mid 1960s, the Dixicrats switched from the Democratic to the Republican Party to assist Barry Goldwater in his unsuccessful bid for the presidency against Lyndon Johnson. They were, however, pivotal in the Southern strategy that won the White House for Richard M. Nixon in 1968. President Reagan, a Republican, is credited with bringing all factions of the Republican right-wing conservative movement together, steeped in the Dixiecrat states' rights tradition.

During Reagan's administration, the issues and concerns of the Dixiecrats became principally those of the Republican Party. It was precisely at this juncture that the Republican Party ceased being the Party of Lincoln and evolved into what it is today to the vast majority of black America -- almost racially exclusive and dedicated to protecting and maintaining the status quo. In this context, it is difficult to imagine how the average civil rights-sensitive black citizen could blend in to today's Republican Party.

It is noteworthy that, in order to be welcomed into the fold, those few African Americans who now call themselves Republicans seem compelled to publicly denounce the shared reality of the average black citizen. They declare a level racial playing field in America where there obviously is none; they insist that America's racial problems are over, when it is intuitively not the case; they speak contemptuously of established black leadership, and adopt an individualistic, every-man-for-himself mantra that is the essence of social isolation.

Nearly 90 percent of African Americans voted for the Democratic candidate in the 2000 presidential election. African Americans must have accepted Rep. George White's challenge from the floor of Congress more than 102 years ago as rationale for the racial strife, periodic violent confrontations, civil conflict and the social movement that followed in the history of this nation. Few knowledgeable Americans would deny that the African American civil rights movement has been the primary catalyst in the reshaping of America's moral conscience. There seems to be a visceral distrust and uneasiness in the African American community today, a shared suspicion that our civil rights legacy is being purposefully misinterpreted and politically manipulated.

At present it would appear as if those issues and concerns of African Americans sensitive to civil rights are positioned diametrically opposite to those of the controlling elements in the Republican Party. There does not seem to be any political justification for the Republican Party to belabor issues near and dear to the African American community; these issues are simply not on the agenda, owing to the fact that there is no internal pressure to bring civil rights concerns to the table. It can almost be said that any minority group joining this party with a civil rights issue would certainly cause a degree of discontinuity; which explains why many Republicans are quick to say they welcome members of minority groups "as individuals."

Still, there is concern within some quarters of the Republican Party that the party is a bit too "white" and must absorb conservative minority individuals in order to truthfully boast of being the "All-American Party." Before there is a desire on the part of African Americans to leave the Democratic Party, however, there would have to be political, social and economic incentives to prompt this action. After all, African Americans did not abandon the Republican Party; the Republican Party abandoned African Americans.

Oscar Eason Jr. of Seattle is former national president of Blacks In Government and former president of the Seattle branch of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People.

Speaking of legacy admissions, it's strange Bush is opposed to Affirmative Action, it was a form of AA that got him into Yale. That form of AA being legacy(his father and grandfather went there).


How many people do you know could be rejected from Texas Law School then accepted at
Harvard Law?  He has lived his life just singing the "my daddy" song.

The famous "Hayes-Tilden Betrayal" is said to have reversed many of the political, social and economic gains made by African Americans during Reconstruction. The 1876 presidential election was similar in many ways to the 2000 election in that Republican Rutherford B. Hayes and Democrat Samuel Jones Tilden ended up in an almost dead heat. Tilden won a majority of the popular vote. The electoral votes in South Carolina, Louisiana, Florida and Oregon were disputed, causing a special commission to decide the election.

It is said a deal was cut that gave all disputed ballots to candidate Hayes in exchange for a guarantee that all federal troops would be removed from the South, leaving African Americans vulnerable to white Southern retaliation.


In case anyone didn't want to read the whole article I posted, I thought I would pull out the above quote.
Deja vu, and those who forget the past(or are miseducated about the facts) are condemned to force a
repeat of it on the rest of us.

Simplify: If 3 construction firms vie for the same job...you choose them based on thier past performance...NOT thier race.

Thanks, Danoota! Whew, I haven't seen a better argument for fixing America's schools. I guess we really represent who we plan to vote for!

Tanya

Danoota,
Three cheers for your essay!
:)

Danoota,
Three cheers for your essay!
:)



Ditto



Cat

Simplify: If 3 construction firms vie for the same job...you choose them based on thier past performance...NOT thier race.


A nice thought. I work in construction. More often than not the who gets the job is based on
relationship, price, kickback.  ???

A nice thought. I work in construction. More often than not the who gets the job is based on
relationship, price, kickback.  ???


In our crony capitalist systemits more often who you know than what you know.

Great essay.

In our crony capitalist systemits more often who you know than what you know.

Great essay.

When it comes to state contracts there's always as degree of political patronage.  Speaking of, I'm delighted to hear Massachusetts House speaker Tom Finneran is stepping down today.  This is a great blow against the nasty old political machine that gums up the state legislature year after year.  Finneran is a Democrat, but not not my kind.

Another instance of Affirmative Action not working in the current form (or at least being easily loopholed) is the Alan Bakke reverse discrimination case in 1976. Bakke, a Jewish American, was denied a scholarship to Cal-Berkely. He blamed Affirmative Action, because he claimed that the college board gave "his" scholarship to an African-American based on her race. He won, causing a rift between blacks and Jewish Americans. While I agree to a reform to AA, I also agree that it should be use to help all minorities, not just African-Americans. 

I am wondering when someone is going to sue for admittance claiming someone got in with lesser
qualifications because of their parents money, influence, legacy, or celebrity.  The suits are always
geared to minority affirmative action, not to those who recieve entrance through privilege.  After
seeing the performance of the bush twins at the convention it would be embarrasing to consider Barbara
a scholar from one of the top US universities.  As long as they keep us fighting ourselves they will
continue to do as they please.

When it comes to state contracts there's always as degree of political patronage.  Speaking of, I'm delighted to hear Massachusetts House speaker Tom Finneran is stepping down today.  This is a great blow against the nasty old political machine that gums up the state legislature year after year.  Finneran is a Democrat, but not not my kind.


I was so sick of looking at his arrogant face, but the people we elected who don't stand up to him are
worse.  Byron Rushing was the only one who went half way there, while everyone else beat feet. 
Now we will have to see what happens with DiMasi, personally I think they should get someone
from somewhere outside of 128, as long as the Boston politicos rule it will be business as usual.

I was so sick of looking at his arrogant face, but the people we elected who don't stand up to him are
worse.  Byron Rushing was the only one who went half way there, while everyone else beat feet. 
Now we will have to see what happens with DiMasi, personally I think they should get someone
from somewhere outside of 128, as long as the Boston politicos rule it will be business as usual.

You're telling me!  I live in Amherst, and these bozos can't see past Worcester.  Cowardice is a big problem in Massachusetts politics, but sometimes the fears were well-founded.  I'm glad DiMasi is pro-choice, pro-gay rights, and against the death penalty. 
Democrats have to learn to stop being so fractious, especially when it REALLY matters.  We wound up with this Mormon monster, Mitt Romney, because the Democrat support was split up among Tolman, Reich, Birmingham, and O'Brien.  Who do we wind up with as our candidate?  Shannon O'Brien...from Springfield!
::)

You're telling me!  I live in Amherst, and these bozos can't see past Worcester.  Cowardice is a big problem in Massachusetts politics, but sometimes the fears were well-founded. 


It is true, these guys can get ugly, the Bulger Story is a Boston ,story of how politics here is a crime, and
crime is political.

A nice thought. I work in construction. More often than not the who gets the job is based on
relationship, price, kickback.  ???
Sad but more often than not, true :-\\

So, okay on the Bakke case. He argued that the African-American woman got her place b/c of her race. So, why did it matter that he was Jewish-American? Wasn't it trying to play up his religion for a spot?

Tanya

So, okay on the Bakke case. He argued that the African-American woman got her place b/c of her race. So, why did it matter that he was Jewish-American? Wasn't it trying to play up his religion for a spot?

Tanya

I remember the basics of Bakke, but I don't recall Bakke was playing up being a Jewish American.  I'm not doubting he was, I just don't remember that part.

I never held it against "minorities" for taking advantage of affirmative action programs.  You got a card, you play it.  Some white students suspected certain "minorities" of doing underhanded things to get ahead.  This increased tensions on campus.  My attitude, was hey, you don't like it, write your congressman.

So, okay on the Bakke case. He argued that the African-American woman got her place b/c of her race. So, why did it matter that he was Jewish-American? Wasn't it trying to play up his religion for a spot?

Tanya


Oh yeah, I remember that.  Robert Bakke was a guy who sued to get a spot in some California college.  He had very high marks, but didn't get in because, I THINK around 18 of the schools 100 open spots were reserved for black people and other minorities.  That does sound bad, losing a spot in college just because you're not black.

Oh yeah, I remember that.  Robert Bakke was a guy who sued to get a spot in some California college.  It had very high marks, but didn't get in because, I THINK around 18 of the schools 100 open spots were reserved for black people and other minorities.  That does sound bad, losing a spot in college just because you're not black.

I'm not so wild about that kind of quota either, but it doesn't compare to the injustice of decades prior in which Blacks couldn't even THINK about applying to law school!

I remember reading somewhere that she finished school ahead of him in the standings.  Less
qualified, better student. 

I remember reading somewhere that she finished school ahead of him in the standings.  Less
qualified, better student. 


Okay, now who hell is she?

I found the court case info:

Affirmative Action in College Admissions


University of California Regents v Bakke (1976)

Alan Bakke, an engineer with high grades, applied to several medical schools in the hopes of one day becoming a doctor. Bakke was rejected by all of the schools he applied to but the University of California at Davis encouraged him to apply again. The next year Bakke again applied and was again rejected. Bakke then found out that the University's affirmative action program reserved 17 places for minority candidates regardless of qualifications. Bakke sued the University claiming that he was the victim of "reverse discrimination." The university argued that the creation of quotas was needed to ensure minority admission to college under their affirmative action program.

In a two part ruling the court ordered Bakke to be admitted to medical school. The court ruled that Bakke had, in fact, been discriminated against. The court did, however, uphold the legality of affirmative action programs. The court cited Harvard Universities affirmative action program that created guidelines for admission rather than strict quotas.

--So I made some mistakes, first off his name is Alan, not Robert like I had said.  Also it was 17 spots, not 18.  Either way, i'm proud that I could remember that much from something that happened in 1976.

I think Chris Rock has a good comedic point here. "I don't think I should get a job over a white person if I scored a lower mark on a test. I don't think I should get into a school over a white person if I score a lower mark on a test. Buf if it's a tie... f**k 'em!"

I think Chris Rock has a good comedic point here. "I don't think I should get a job over a white person if I scored a lower mark on a test. I don't think I should get into a school over a white person if I score a lower mark on a test. Buf if it's a tie... f**k 'em!"


Ha!  ;D

Tanya

I think Chris Rock has a good comedic point here. "I don't think I should get a job over a white person if I scored a lower mark on a test. I don't think I should get into a school over a white person if I score a lower mark on a test. Buf if it's a tie... f**k 'em!"


And that was the result of the Bakke case.  No more quotas, but if its a tie...


I am wondering when someone is going to sue for admittance claiming someone got in with lesser
qualifications because of their parents money, influence, legacy, or celebrity. The suits are always
geared to minority affirmative action, not to those who recieve entrance through privilege. After
seeing the performance of the bush twins at the convention it would be embarrasing to consider Barbara
a scholar from one of the top US universities. As long as they keep us fighting ourselves they will
continue to do as they please.


And here, in her usual lucidity and insight, Doon identified the real problem.  But you know, when the neocons get favorable treatment, its what they deserve.  When we people of color (and I are one, at least to some) get a leg up, its reverse discrimination.  They are such f...ing hypocrites.

I think her name was Toni Freeman or Toni Jordan. It was mentioned on the PBS documentary "Eyes On The Prize", which details the original intent of Affirmative Action and how people like Bakke and his lawyer tried to twist it in their favor.


Okay, now who hell is she?

Conservatives weren't the ones singing that song 50 years ago.  I get the overall sense that conservatives haven't taken the lessons of inequality to heart, and would go back to those good old days in a snap if they could.


Oh really?  Lets look at the Civil Rights Act of 1964: 

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed largely due to the support of Republicans. According to Congressional Quarterly, in the Senate, 82% of Republicans voted for the Civil Rights Act, while only 69% of Democrats did.  In the House, 80% of Republicans voted for the Civil Rights Act versus 61% of Democrats. 

Upon signing the Civil Rights Act, President Johnson cited Republicans for their "overwhelming support" of the Act.

If you wanted to steer clear of racists, you may want to shy away from the direction of Democratic Senators like Al Gore Sr.(the former VP’s dad) and former KKK member Robert Byrd, who participated in an unsuccessful 74-day filibuster in an attempt to stop the Civil Rights Act.







   

Oh really?  Lets look at the Civil Rights Act of 1964: 

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed largely due to the support of Republicans. According to Congressional Quarterly, in the Senate, 82% of Republicans voted for the Civil Rights Act, while only 69% of Democrats did.  In the House, 80% of Republicans voted for the Civil Rights Act versus 61% of Democrats. 

Upon signing the Civil Rights Act, President Johnson cited Republicans for their "overwhelming support" of the Act.

If you wanted to steer clear of racists, you may want to shy away from the direction of Democratic Senators like Al Gore Sr.(the former VP’s dad) and former KKK member Robert Byrd, who participated in an unsuccessful 74-day filibuster in an attempt to stop the Civil Rights Act.
   


Once again you haven't been paying attention.  The Democrats who voted against the Civil Rights Act
were the Dixiecrats who promptly changed parties to the Republican Party and are now Republicans.
And If you want to go into lineage how about checking out Prescott Bush, you do know about Prescott? No you probably don't.  Well, google "Prescott Bush" and "Nazi", actually you don't have to add Nazi, it will come up on its own

Once again you haven't been paying attention.  The Democrats who voted against the Civil Rights Act
were the Dixiecrats who promptly changed parties to the Republican Party and are now Republicans.
And If you want to go into lineage how about checking out Prescott Bush, you do know about Prescott? No you probably don't.  Well, google "Prescott Bush" and "Nazi", actually you don't have to add Nazi, it will come up on its own


Wow nice change of the subject.  And tell me what party is Robert ''Sheets'' Byrd CURRENTLY in?  The Prescott Bush is garbage and has nothing to do with the current President, and you know it.  Sickening, it really is.  Do you not think we couldn't find a link that weak with Kerry?  When you feel like talking about Affirmative Action, get back to me, otherwise at least maintain some dignity and stop trying to compare Bush to the socialist NAZI party and/or Hitler.  Moveon.org already did a commercial about Bush being like Hitler, and according to www.readmylipz.com it was the only commercial, approved or 527, that was rejected by a majority of undecided voters.  So go ahead, stay on Bush-Hitler, we'll see if it works.

Once again you haven't been paying attention.  The Democrats who voted against the Civil Rights Act
were the Dixiecrats who promptly changed parties to the Republican Party and are now Republicans.
And If you want to go into lineage how about checking out Prescott Bush, you do know about Prescott? No you probably don't.  Well, google "Prescott Bush" and "Nazi", actually you don't have to add Nazi, it will come up on its own


Oh look, I managed to find something on it from ''The Straight Dope'' a non-partisan site which answers question about any and everything:

Dear Cecil:

I read in the New Yorker that George W. Bush's grandfather and great-grandfather worked for Brown Brothers Harriman, and had clients who funded the building of the Nazi regime. I searched the Net and found hundreds of sites giving volumes of details and listing sources like the New York Times and the Library of Congress. Conspiracy theories aside, what's the truth about our president's family? --Matt Tiegler

Cecil replies:

Remember how during the Clinton era there were all those rabid EOBs (Enemies of Bill) who seemingly devoted their every waking hour to propagating scurrilous stories about the president and his family? Well, an equally dedicated crew is now spreading sensational allegations about Dubya and his forebears. (Sample: the president's grandfather not only financed the Nazis, he used concentration-camp prisoners as slaves.) So each side gets a chance to drag the other through the mud. Is this a great country or what?

Though the Bush family's detractors are legion, one of the most prominent is John Loftus, a former federal prosecutor and past president of the Florida Holocaust Museum in Saint Petersburg. In 1994 Loftus coauthored a book with Mark Aarons entitled The Secret War Against the Jews: How Western Espionage Betrayed the Jewish People. The book alleges various misdeeds by George W.'s father, George H.W., his grandfather, Prescott Bush, and his great-grandfather, George Herbert Walker. Since space is limited we'll focus on the accusations against Prescott Bush, which in my opinion are the most serious.

The central charge against Prescott Bush has a basis in fact. In 1942, under the Trading With the Enemy Act, the U.S. government seized several companies in which he had an interest. Prescott at the time was an investment banker with Brown Brothers Harriman (BBH), which had funneled U.S. capital into Germany during the 1920s and '30s. Among the seized companies was the Union Banking Corporation (UBC) of New York, which was controlled by German industrialist Fritz Thyssen. Thyssen had been an early financier of the Nazi party--in fact, in 1941 he published a book entitled I Paid Hitler. Ergo, Prescott helped finance the Nazis.

An article by journalist Toby Rogers posted on Loftus's Web site makes an even more explosive charge. Another company in which Prescott and his associates had a stake was the Silesian-American Corporation (SAC), which owned several industrial concerns in Poland. The Auschwitz death camp was established in a district where SAC already had a steel plant. The plant allegedly used forced labor from Auschwitz during World War II. The article asserts that "a portion of the slave labor force in Poland was 'managed by Prescott Bush,' according to a Dutch intelligence agent." (See www.john-loftus.com/Thyssen.asp.)

The slave labor charge is easy to dismiss. SAC plants in Poland were taken over by the German government after the Nazi invasion of 1939, and the Auschwitz prison camp wasn't established until 1940. No one can seriously claim that Prescott Bush managed camp inmates in any of those plants.

Prescott's involvement with Nazi finance is more complicated. Though Thyssen had been an ardent backer of the Nazis in the early days, he broke with them in 1938 after the Kristallnacht pogrom against the Jews. He fled to Switzerland the following year, and Hitler confiscated his fortune and stripped him of his citizenship. In I Paid Hitler Thyssen confessed his role in financing the Nazis and denounced the Få²® Arrested in Vichy France, he spent the balance of the war as an Axis prisoner. Prescott Bush, for his part, owned a single share of stock (of 4,000) in UBC, the Thyssen bank. According to a 2001 Boston Globe piece, the New York Herald Tribune ran a story in July 1942 headlined "Hitler's Angel Has 3 Million in US Bank," in which Prescott and other BBH partners "explain to government regulators that their position was merely an unpaid courtesy for a client."

So, did Bush and his firm finance the Nazis and enable Germany to rearm? Indirectly, yes. But they had a lot of company. Some of the most distinguished names in American business had investments or subsidiaries in prewar Germany, including Standard Oil and General Motors. Critics have argued for years that without U.S. money, the Nazis could never have waged war. But American business has always invested in totalitarian regimes--witness our dealings with mainland China.

Loftus tells me there's more to it than that. He says that the value of German industrial assets in which Bush and friends invested increased during World War II, in part due to slave labor, and that Bush benefited from this increase when the assets were returned--supposedly he got $1.5 million when UBC was liquidated in 1951. I'll buy the claim that Bush got his share of UBC back--it was an American bank, after all--but the idea that his German holdings increased in value despite being obliterated by Allied bombs is ridiculous.

--CECIL ADAMS