Getting to the blood and guts of Affirmative Action

[election_2004]

Reading all the controversy over Howard Dean's comments on affirmative action, I just had to pose this question to the general populace at DU:

What do you believe are the most effective ways to practically apply affirmative action programs in real life? And don't be vague. Give some real-life examples of HOW race, gender, or other factors should be taken into account in certain situations? It's one thing to say you support affirmative action, but you really have to know what you're talking about. And I want to see how many of DUers really know what they're talking about.

Secondly, regardless of how they're implemented, AA programs are only going to go so far. An additional question that needs to be asked is how can we alleviate the greater problem of racism (as in people's attitudes) that still exists in our society? What can we actually do to change people's attitudes when it comes to how they view people of other racial backgrounds?

Even once an AA program is put into place, what can be done to curb any racial backlash?

I look forward to hearing some insightful and intelligent discussion on this issue.

DISCLAIMER: This discussion topic is not meant to be a forum to debate what Dean thinks or what Sharpton thinks or what any particular candidate *really meant* or intended to say...

[The Backlash Cometh]

1. The flaw in the way you set this up:

You're putting all the burden of Affirmative Action on minorities, and forgiving the reasons for its necessity. Personally, I think we'd go much further if we can expose the social networks that are creating the inequities in this country. It begins with small actions of prejudice and intolerance expressed by whites in every day events, and builds to decision-making in the personnel office. Minorities have tolerated being on the receiving end of these little prejudices for too long. We should tell our stories so that you (whites) can begin to see yourselves as we do. (I told such a story yesterday in another thread.)

It begins with indoctrination of your young. I personally have noticed that it's getting easier and easier to find examples of prejudice because private schools are getting empowered, and with that empowerment the prejudice grows. The Republican programs, especially with the voucher system, has done nothing to improve race relations -- what it's doing is enabling whites in private schools to express their disgust and distrust in minorities because their feelings have been legitimized by these programs. Private schools: good; Public Schools: evil.

[election_2004]

9. my response

You're putting all the burden of Affirmative Action on minorities, and forgiving the reasons for its necessity.

Could you point out to me where I did this in my original post?

Personally, I think we'd go much further if we can expose the social networks that are creating the inequities in this country.

I definitely agree. This is a good starting point for further discussion...

It begins with small actions of prejudice and intolerance expressed by whites in every day events, and builds to decision-making in the personnel office.

Are you referring to whites who hold positions of power in the workplace, or whites in general?

Minorities have tolerated being on the receiving end of these little prejudices for too long. We should tell our stories so that you (whites) can begin to see yourselves as we do. (I told such a story yesterday in another thread.)

Well, go for it. This is the place to tell such stories, since such narration is directly related to the topic at hand.

The Republican programs, especially with the voucher system, has done nothing to improve race relations -- what it's doing is enabling whites in private schools to express their disgust and distrust in minorities because their feelings have been legitimized by these programs.

Obviously, you're saying publicly-funded vouchers for private/parochial schools are a bad idea. I agree with that assessment.

So this still begs the question: how can we use the public school system to improve race relations?

[The Backlash Cometh]

Response:

First reply: Your post focuses on how to apply affirmative action and how to impliment it. What was missing is what came before. Why is it necessary? You said you wanted ideas on how to change people's perceptions, well, it helps to produce evidence. That's what was missing. You can't convince whites that AA is necessary, until they see the compelling evidence.

Second reply: Prejudice begins in the sandbox. White parents who feel they've had bad experiences with minorities teach these prejudices to their children. I have seen it. Racism is becoming a bonding experience for whites -- especially Republicans. It is becoming far more blatant and the Republican programs are reinforcing these prejudices by confirming that anything that has to do with minorities, be it AA, be it public schools, be it public assistance is a failure because minorities are somehow inferior and not deserving of any of it. People who go to private schools are not shy about expressing these prejudices as if they are fact. You take those everyday, prejudicial assumptions and transfer them into the business world, and you will create the financial inequities that exist today.

Third reply: Story can be found at

http://democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=610911#611496

Fourth reply:
Public schools alone will not be enough. You also need public assistance. And the most important element is having the right people running these organizations. The only people that can help the poor are the people who really give a damn about them. But, the assistance can't be applied in the manner it was done in the past. Bleeding hearts will only self-defeat the programs because they don't apply enough pressure. On the other hand, conservatives demand too much. What you need is something I call a Tough-love Liberal. Or, a social pragmatist. Someone who doesn't allow ideology of either party get in the way of results. Social programs should be a leg-up out of poverty, at a minimum, for the children of the poor. What social programs should never become is a method to indoctrinate people into one party or the other.

[election_2004]

51. further questions for you

First reply: I posed the question assuming that everyone here already knew the necessity (or at least were familiar with the arguments for it) of affirmative action. After all, this is DU.

Second reply: What you're saying isn't news to anyone. Parents pass on racism to their children and share it with neighbors. But in "common society," whites aren't the only racial group guilty of exacerbating racism. You can't blame it all on *whites* in general, because different white people are faced with different socioeconomic and demographic circumstances.

Third reply: what happened to your daughter was terrible, and reflective of the racism we're discussing.

Fourth reply: so what you're saying is that social pragmatists ("Tough-love liberals") are the ones who will make social program work the most effectively? Assuming this is what you meant, what do you believe are the best ways to administer those programs to get people out of poverty?

[The Backlash Cometh]

124. Feisty lil' ole thing, you.

First reply: I posed the question assuming that everyone here already knew the necessity (or at least were familiar with the arguments for affirmative action. After all, this is DU.

Never assume. Though newspapers report a synopsis of court opinions, they rarely spend much time writing about the compelling evidence presented in court. Even here on DU there's work to be done in that regard.

Second reply: What you're saying isn't news to anyone. Parents pass on racism to their children and share it with neighbors. But in "common society," whites aren't the only racial group guilty of exacerbating racism. You can't blame it all on *whites* in general, because different white people are faced with different socioeconomic and demographic circumstances.

This first lesson you learn about writing is to "write what you know." I know how racist upper middle class whites can be, because I live amongst them. And because they think I'm one of them, I hear it all.

Third reply: what happened to your daughter was terrible, and reflective of the racism we're discussing.

Yes, I know.

Fourth reply: so what you're saying is that social pragmatists ("Tough-love liberals") are the ones who will make social program work the most effectively? Assuming this is what you meant, what do you believe are the best ways to administer those programs to get people out of poverty?

Impossible to broad-brush. It would take a community effort which requires input from the members in the target group. Relationships built on trust need to be developed and communication should reach a very high level of frankness.

Poverty can be overcome but it requires elements that our consumer-oriented society does not regard highly. So, a strong support system needs to be put in place to help them deal with the psychological adversity that our consumer-class system will subject them to. On an individual level, it will take tremendous personal sacrifice. But, in return for those sacrifices, social programs should build guarantees that the poor can depend on. The feeling of futility will be overcome if families feel that they can work towards a goal without being screwed over by the system.

Because it takes tremendous personal sacrifice, you can't help them all. So, your first step is to identify those who will be willing to make the sacrifices; then give them the support and training they need to succeed. Apprenticeship programs are a great example of what can be offered. Teach them a trade and teach them sound business practices.

This is only the first wave. After they make it out, others will have confidence in the program.

The biggest challenge is to find a way to make the ties to this social support group just strong enough to give the individuals a leg up and out; but not so weak that they don't feel an obligation to come back and help those they left behind. The key is to get them established in the mainstream, where they can offer assistance to those that follow.

It's a work in progress.

[election_2004]

168. didn't you hear?...feistiness is in!

This first lesson you learn about writing is to "write what you know." I know how racist upper middle class whites can be, because I live amongst them. And because they think I'm one of them, I hear it all.

I'm sorry to hear you have to put up with those people as your neighbors. But I hope you don't assume that every white middle-class person is going to arbitrarily treat you with disrespect or harbor a racist attitude toward you.

[The Backlash Cometh]

173. I'm still waiting to bump into them.

I hope it's just this neighborhood, or this county. It also doesn't help that I have in-laws that speak freely about their bigotries. (Of course, they don't see it as bigotry). Between community and family, there is no rest for the weary. So it's time to expand the circle of friends, I say.

[election_2004]

180. So you're saying...

Every white person you've ever encountered has treated you with hate or disrespect?

[janekat]

162. I agree. I was in H.R. and there's still a BIG Problem with "covert racism

I'm white btw - so I would hear all kinds of comments from managers and supervisors. Most were not along the lines of "I refuse to hire blacks" but "If I have to hire someone black - I would rather hire black females than males because they're usually easier to get along with."

When I pointed out that this was also discrimination - a lot of the knuckleheads couldn't understand why...

I've seen many other examples of this type of behavior.

[Isome]

170. "I would rather hire black females than males ..."

Yes, we know. That's why some of us understand the reason for the higher percentage of Black females than Black males in corporate America, and are immune to the ignorant ramblings of those who claim Black men (or even women) use racism as an excuse not to "try".

[The Backlash Cometh]

176. Good point.

*

[pinerow]

2. I must agree with the person who made the first reply to this post.

AA=Alcoholics Anonymous...Lets call it by its'proper name;Affirmative Action

The discussion of Affirmative Action invariably leads to the consruct that somehow those in the majority will suffer some type of loss if those who did not historically have the same opportunity now have "may" a foot up, so to speak.

It never fails to amaze me the thre are still people who believe that the only reason a woman, African-American, Latino\a and Native Americans is because of some esoteric formulae used in assisting these folks reaching whatever level of accomplishment they have achieved.

Let's turn the argument on its' head; Why do some Anglo-Americans (not all) believe that some job or educational position is their due regardless of their ability to perform. Talk about entitlement programs.

You and I have experienced the incompetent middle manager or university professor, attorney civil servant; who would not be able to dress themselves without help.

It has been my experience that I and other men and women of color have to be twice as good as the least qualified Anglo in order to get that well deserved raise or promotion.

I realize this has been a long rant; biut your question seems to infer that the slave pay for his/her room and board.

[Lars39]

3. Husband recently applied for a job.

Received a form to fill out, wanting to know if he was a certain minority. We are both for affirmative action, but the way the letter was phrased gave us pause. They stated up front that this information was going to be used to narrow the interview process. It was such a poorly worded letter,that it came across as a possibly very divisive statement, and really made us wonder if someone would be hired regardless of qualifications, just to fill a quota. I can't imagine the reaction if someone who did not believe in affirmative action received the letter. Well, no, I can. And we've all heard the rants.
I guess what I'm saying, is that it could have been handled more discreetly, more personably. :shrug:

[spooky3]

5. this is in all likelihood illegal behavior.

The company ,if under an Affirmative Action program (voluntary or not) can use race as a tiebreaker between two comparably qualified candidates. But if the certain minority group you mentioned is NOT underrepresented, it can't use race as a deciding factor, nor can it be used if there is a substantive difference in candidates' qualifications.

[The Backlash Cometh]

7. You make a good observation there.

There are many corporations where minorities have successfully proven in court that the company practiced discrimination and the courts have approved AA as a remedy to alleviate the CORPORATION's past practices. So the program is legitimate, but the company expands on the race-hatred by telling white applicants that they HAVE to hire minorities. It's not the minority's fault that the corporation's practices were prejudicial in the past, but the corporation will hide this fact by telling white applicants otherwise.

Race hatred continues because corporations refuse to take responsibility for their past unfair practices. And then they create a hostile environment for the minority because everyone in the company hates them. The white employees become critical of their work, they don't offer assistance, and worse, they intentionally sabotage their work to see if the new hire is smart enough to catch the mistakes and fix it.

Is it any wonder that minorities who survive the gauntlet are your worst nightmare. Because we turn around and apply the same rules to you and guess what, you can't handle that level of scrutiny. For example, when a person applies the same high expectations on whites who are holding public office -- and their relationships with business entities -- your entire house of cards collapses. The truth of the matter is, that when the tables are turned on you, it becomes obvious who the real failures in this country are.

[ma4t]

11. backlash is understandable

"It's not the minority's fault that the corporation's practices were prejudicial in the past..."

This statement is certainly true. Also true is that it's not the fault of any current applicants or even the earlier sucessful applicants who benefited from a discriminatory corporate practice. Thus, it's certainly understandable that an applicant who is eliminated due solely to his race may think that he has gotten a bum deal. This is a natural human reaction and would be expected no matter whether it happened in 1953 or 2003. People who are surprised at a white backlash against discriminatory hiring, admission or contracting practices demonstrate a remarkable lack of understanding of human nature.

[The Backlash Cometh]

21. There is no suprise in the white backlash.

Especially when they are already coming to the table with their own prejudices in place. What they see only reinforces those prejudices. But those prejudices are the very cause of the inequities, so minorities need to learn to create their own networks and learn that support for upward mobility, will not come from whites.

Vertical growth is the only answer to break the cycle of discrimination. For a while, there will be two Americas, living side by side. Perhaps, when we break the final frontier and reach the top tiers, there will be no need for programs since each race has the where with all to help their own.

This scenario assumes that prejudice can never be defeated.

[sangh0]

23. White backlash is often based on a lie

As someone who has hired and fired, I am aware of how stressful it can be to tell someone bad news. Some people tell their rejected applicants that they were forced by AA to hire someone else (a minority) in order to avoid an uncomfortable conversation centering around the rejected applicants lack of qualifications.

[ma4t]

24. agree and disagree

I don't think one has to be prejudiced in order to feel wronged by racial discrimination. I certainly understand why a black man would feel wronged if he was dropped from consideration for a job just because he was black. Similarly I can understand that a Jewish applicant to an Ivy League school would feel wronged under the old quota system that once existed there. In the same fashion I don't think a white person would necessarily be prejudiced if he felt wronged because his race was the reason he failed to be considered for a position.

But I don't think that my position assumes that prejudice can never be defeated. I think it most certainly can be. I just think that government is a very blunt tool for working against prejudice. When prejudice is defeated it will be due to the work of people of conscience working together in small ways that will win the ultimate victory; in other words the defeat will be from the bottom up, not the top down.

[The Backlash Cometh]

36. "People of conscience"

You really have to point them out to me someday. I live in a society where the most intolerant, racist people call themselves Christians. Sorry, but nothing will change in this country on its own. If bigotry and racism exists unchallenged outside the workforce, I don't see how it has a prayer to change inside the workforce without government pressure.

[Isome]

47. Whoa! Where did YOU come from?

In my own circle, we talk about vertical building, versus our normal route of horizontal building, as the only sure way up and out from under...

[The Backlash Cometh]

55. Conclusions are my own.

Glad to meet ya. The other surprise, since I came to DU, is that I was calling myself a social pragmatist years before I heard that Nancy Pelosi considered herself one as well. I didn't even know the term existed before that.

[diamond14]

140. the U of Michigan victory was majorly fought by WHITE people

the Civil Rights victories in the 60's were passed by WHITE legislators and WHITE Presidents...people with conscience who STAND UP....

Black and White people working together is the ONLY way to get things done....

vertical growth for BLACKS has been tried and majorly failed (it's just your new term for racism)...Chicago vertical housing slums, historically Black Colleges (there's not one that has reached high academic levels, with the exception of maybe Howard U, and only in a few areas...Black students attending major Universities do much better)....Black people in separate fighting groups for WWII (integration in the military has been a boost to many Black people, that the vertical growth was not)....

yes, 'vertical growth' is just another form of racism...separating Blacks and Whites will never lead to equality for Blacks....

and your post assumes that we can NEVER be better, that we can NEVER build a better world for everyone...that there is no hope...

I disagree...I believe that prejudice CAN be defeated....

[The Backlash Cometh]

177. Well, no one is getting in your way on this side of the fence.

"and your post assumes that we can NEVER be better, that we can NEVER build a better world for everyone...that there is no hope...

I disagree...I believe that prejudice CAN be defeated...."

Have had it. I'll be your number one cheerleader.

[soupkitchen]

26. I've always argued since the beginning of Affirmative Action

That it was a mistake not to put a time limitation (let's say fifty years) on Affirmative Action programs. That way kids could be taught in school the reasons for Affirmative Active and that it is a temporary program needed to remediate injustices of the past that will enable America to achieve its ideals of equal opportunity for everyone.
The problem with Affirmative Action, of course, is that one doesn't want to see "preferences" institutionalized into the fabric of American society. And this Achilles Heel has been seized upon by those who really don't want to see equal opportunity in America to rationalize their opposition to the programs. And the truth of the matter is, the more progress that is made in redistributing opportunity, the less imperative it will seem to those growing up post Affirmative Action that preferences need to be employed. This is only natural since those that the eat the fruit usually don't appreciate the cultivation of the land or the planting of the seed.
What I'm saying is that a defined time limitation, would have made it easier to both argue the moral essentialness of Affirmative Action and the need to stay the course. That everytime a Constitutional idealist, (ha, ha,) would raise the issue that the American society was meant to be color-blind, the answer would be, "And if will be in 50, 40, 30...." many years." as it never was before.
Anyway in the absense of such time limitations the Affirmative Action argument has moved away from its historical context. In fact, is being debated by people on the grounds of idealism rather than remediation, that are too young to have any historical persepctive at all.
Anyway, my final thought on Affirmative Action is this: It's a lousy idea. In the sense it's too replete with irony: we will end discrimation by discrimating, to be a good idea. And yet, much of life is full of irony. And the truth of the matter is, that as lousy of an idea as Affirmative Action is, it is still the best of all the Alternatives we had at the time to making the American Dream accessible to all. And, though flawed, still is the best alternative. Though,I wish its framers having anticipated the loss of momentum that Affirmative Action would suffer as its success worked its way into American society, have provided the legal backbone, for it to run its course.

[Isome]

111. 50 years of AA

...will remedy centuries of laws designed to subjugate an entire group? First there were the laws to enslave, then laws to deny (manumission), then laws to segregate (Plessy -- no rights the law has to recognize)... all tidied up in a set number of years eh'?! pbbbbbbbbbbttttt!

[Isome]

48. "a remarkable lack of understanding of human nature..."

I strongly disagree with that, and suggest that the reverse is true.

In a situation where two comparably qualified applicants are considered for the same position, too often a white applicant believes that his/her hiring should be a foregone conclusion. Also, experience & education aren't the only qualifications used to evaluate an potential employee's suitability.

Hiring committees or individuals cite personality, demeanor, and their belief that the applicant will "fit in" as reasons for making a final hiring decision, and some go so far as to waive some job requirements if a white applicant is particularly well liked. On the flip side of that coin, evaluating a non-white applicant's qualifications is most likely to be by the numbers. (I've seen it.)

[election_2004]

12. TheBacklashCometh, can you provide some clarifications?

Is it any wonder that minorities who survive the gauntlet are your worst nightmare. Because we turn around and apply the same rules to you and guess what, you can't handle that level of scrutiny.

Are you saying that same level of scrutiny is selectively applied to lower-level or entry-level whites in the workplace as a way of "turning the tables," or are you applying it to the white workplace veterans who were responsible for initially perpetuating the problem?

For example, when a person applies the same high expectations on whites who are holding public office -- and their relationships with business entities -- your entire house of cards collapses.

I don't see anything unfair about an employer applying equally high expectations to ALL employees of ALL racial backgrounds.

The truth of the matter is, that when the tables are turned on you, it becomes obvious who the real failures in this country are.

Who are "the real failures," as you word it: the white power brokers whose policies have allowed for disproportionate treatment in the workplace for so long, or white workers in general?

[The Backlash Cometh]

22. The same laws don't apply to you.

You're dancing around the top of the pin. Because minorities face tougher scrutiny than whites in the workplace, those who survive and succeed will, understandably, turn around and apply the same rules to you. Whites get away with a lot in this country that would never be tolerated if the same behavior occurred in minorities. What happens to minorities in business gets filtered into the communities they live in. What whites accept as every day occurrences, for example, the way the pillars of our communities bribe, lobby or manipulate city officials in order to create profit opportunities for themselves, is seen as unacceptable corruption and cronyism. Respect is lost because we can see your hypocrisy clearly. Also, even minorities that don't succeed can see the hypocrisy. What happens to them is that they see the obstacles and just stop trying.

[election_2004]

50. Thanks for not answering my question...

But you avoided what I tried to politely inquire from you: are you actually saying that whites are, in general, inferior to any other racial group as workers?

Because minorities face tougher scrutiny than whites in the workplace, those who survive and succeed will, understandably, turn around and apply the same rules to you.

It may be *understandable*, but it is also just as severe and racist as when racial minorities experience it. This behavior is every bit as bad as what their white scrutinizers did to them in the past, because they are becoming exactly the type of people who wronged them.

And if you justify their behavior by rationalizing that they are upset (about past injustices they suffered) as a way of excusing their unfair treatment of their future white subordinates, then you are only contributing to the problem. In fact, you're making it worse.

That kind of apologistic, racially-narrow mindset will NOT help to solve race relations in this country. If I were you, I would rethink my entire philsophical framework for your argument.

[The Backlash Cometh]

54. It's always best to be direct. No use pussy-footing. It's a waste of time

It may be *understandable*, but it is also just as severe and racist as when racial minorities experience it.

eh? When minorities are inflicted with strict standards in the work force it's wrong to turn it around and apply the same standards to whites? Au contraire. You're actually creating meticulous workers. Since perfection is expected of them, so do they expect perfection from whites. Especially those who are in positions of authority.


This behavior is every bit as bad as what their white scrutinizers did to them in the past, because they are becoming exactly the type of people who wronged them.


Why would you object to being subjected to the highest standards of workmanship? As another poster said, we have to work twice as hard to get half the recognition. I don't object to working twice as hard, but I damn well expect to be paid twice as much for my efforts.

And if you justify their behavior by rationalizing that they are upset (about past injustices they suffered) as a way of excusing their unfair treatment of their future white subordinates, then you are only contributing to the problem. In fact, you're making it worse.

We'll worry about that when the rest of you begin to share your understanding of the monster you're creating. For now, raising your conscious is the primary focus.

That kind of apologistic, racially-narrow mindset will NOT help to solve race relations in this country. If I were you, I would rethink my entire philsophical framework for your argument.

You sound afraid. Yes, be very afraid. :-)

[election_2004]

122. Wow, what a forward-thinking attitude...

eh? When minorities are inflicted with strict standards in the work force it's wrong to turn it around and apply the same standards to whites?

It wouldn't be wrong if ALL minorities were uniformly experiencing the same unfair treatment all across-the-board, while ALL whites were getting a free pass. But that's not the current reality...it's an exagerated version of the hardships and social inequities that minorities face.

You fail to recognize that not all white people are gliding through life, while not all minorities are being spat on by every white person in society. People of all colors (predominantly black and Latino) are inexperiencing racism in the workplace and in education OFTEN - - but not ALWAYS.

If your employer mistreated you and acted like an asshole to you because he had a problem with the fact that you're a different race than him, then how is it any more acceptable for you to treat me in that manner (just because I'm white) when I become your employee?

It's like you're saying, "Well someone threw a rock in my window, so I'm going to go across the street and throw a rock in my neighbor's window."

Au contraire. You're actually creating meticulous workers. Since perfection is expected of them, so do they expect perfection from whites. Especially those who are in positions of authority.

So if it's about creating meticulous and efficient workers, why not hold ALL your employees to the same standard, not just the whites? Especially if you want to set a positive example for those who may succeed you after you've advanced/retired.

You seem to be saying that it's okay for a minority superviser to be selectively harder on his/her white employees just to "teach them a lesson." I hope this isn't what you're actually saying.

Why would you object to being subjected to the highest standards of workmanship?

I wouldn't - - as long as I'm not being held to a higher standard just because of my skin color.

As another poster said, we have to work twice as hard to get half the recognition. I don't object to working twice as hard, but I damn well expect to be paid twice as much for my efforts.

You shouldn't have to be expected to work twice as hard just because you're part of a racial minority group, and we all should be getting paid twice what we do, regardless.

We'll worry about that when the rest of you begin to share your understanding of the monster you're creating. For now, raising your conscious is the primary focus.

Would you please explain to me how I'm "creating" a "monster"?

Since your goal is to raise consciousness, please enlighten me.

You sound afraid. Yes, be very afraid.

Yes, I am afraid - - I'm afraid that reactionary people like you are going to escalate racial tensions in this country to a point of irreperable severity. If you choose to take your hatred and bitterness out on some miscellaneous white people who never personally did anything to cause you strife, then you deserve the karmic ill-fortune that you'll inevitably receive as payback.

And then there'll will be no point in having affirmative action or equal opportunity employment or anything remotely fair, because none of us (Americans of ANY skin color) will be left to enjoy it.

[The Backlash Cometh]

125. Just an observation.

You are obsessing terribly over the fear that minorities will someday subject whites to the same high standards. That day would be long in coming so why do you fear it?

If it's any consolation, you missed my point, but your reaction was interesting and I let you run with it to see how far you'd take it.

My original point was, that the gauntlet that minorities are subjected to results in creating individuals who are bent on producing a work product that is beyond reproach. But the work product is only one element. Why it would be a bad idea to subject every worker, white or black, to the same unrealistic standards is because you also create a person who becomes very distrustful. The motivating factor behind the work, IS distrust. That's generally not a good idea to do on a company-wide basis. You can't even begin to understand the level of hostility that minorities are subjected to, unless you yourself are a minority. But now we're going on a tangent.

The key to understand is, that many minorities DO survive the gauntlet. And once they do, they then have the right to turn around and use the experiences they were subjected to and judge you by the same standards. Note I'm talking about OPINIONS, not actions. I doubt very much they would have much taste to put you through the same experiences, even if they have the opportunity. They would not respect you for what you put them through and the last thing they'd want to do, is become anything like you. So fear not. I don't foresee a day when minorities will subject whites to the same inhuman treatment just for revenge. It's a waste of energy.

[election_2004]

131. You've got quite a chip on your shoulder...

You are obsessing terribly over the fear that minorities will someday subject whites to the same high standards. That day would be long in coming so why do you fear it?

Actually, I do indeed know that there are people of racial minority backgrounds who will treat their employees (regardless of race) decently and fairly once they've overcome that gauntlet of career obstacles to attain positions of authority. I'm not an idiot. Please give me a little bit of credit.

What I am saying is that it is racist for someone to defend a minority individual who selectively treats white subordinates unfairly so they can "get back" at "us" (whites) for all the hardships he/she endured while working his/her way up the ladder. It's very hypocritical to bitch about racial prejudice directed against minorities by whites, and then turn around and say that it's justified if minorities target whites by doing the same thing.

If it's any consolation, you missed my point, but your reaction was interesting and I let you run with it to see how far you'd take it.

If you were trying to make a point different from the way I interpreted it, then you didn't make your point very well. For someone who accuses me of pussy-footing, you sure have a talent for digesting that same stone you casted at me.

My original point was, that the gauntlet that minorities are subjected to results in creating individuals who are bent on producing a work product that is beyond reproach. But the work product is only one element. Why it would be a bad idea to subject every worker, white or black, to the same unrealistic standards is because you also create a person who becomes very distrustful. The motivating factor behind the work, IS distrust. That's generally not a good idea to do on a company-wide basis. You can't even begin to understand the level of hostility that minorities are subjected to, unless you yourself are a minority. But now we're going on a tangent.

So what you're actually saying is that such unrealistic work expectations shouldn't be imposed on anyone, regardless of their race? It only creates distrust and stress - - correct?

So why didn't you say that in the first place? If that's what you meant, please clarify.

The key to understand is, that many minorities DO survive the gauntlet. And once they do, they then have the right to turn around and use the experiences they were subjected to and judge you by the same standards. Note I'm talking about OPINIONS, not actions.

Opinions, actions - - same differénce...

If "they" (minorities) are going to be extra hard on "us" (whites) - - even silently and psychologically - - just because it's what they endured while they were experiencing the gauntlet, then they are no better than their racist white predecessors. If someone who's a different race than me is going to hold a superlative opinion of me simply based on my race just because that's how they've been treated by their white supervisers/employers in the past, then they're every bit as racist as those who mistreated them. Because their lofty *opinion* of themselves and their non-white subordinates is most likely going to negatively affect the way they treat me as an employee. That's racist.

I doubt very much they would have much taste to put you through the same experiences, even if they have the opportunity.

You made that clear above. But you yourself stated they will have lower OPINIONS of me (presumably compared to any non-white colleagues of mine), which will probably manifest itself in one way or another.

They would not respect you for what you put them through and the last thing they'd want to do, is become anything like you.

Excuse me, *I* didn't do anything to them. If I'm an employee who's just trying to make an honest living of my own, why should I personally be held accountable for the actions of those who mistreated them in the past? Just because I look (*somewhat*) like their white bastard former oppressors?

So fear not. I don't foresee a day when minorities will subject whites to the same inhuman treatment just for revenge. It's a waste of energy.

Maybe not the exact same *treatment*, but you've affirmed that we're still referring to opinions, to mindsets that minorities will still harbor toward whites as a group (according to you), and vice versa.

So explain to me again how race relations are going to improve as a result of group blame?

[The Backlash Cometh]

134. A strong sense of fairness..

Actually, I do indeed know that there are people of racial minority backgrounds who will treat their employees (regardless of race) decently and fairly once they've overcome that gauntlet of career obstacles to attain positions of authority. I'm not an idiot. Please give me a little bit of credit.

What I am saying is that it is racist for someone to defend a minority individual who selectively treats white subordinates unfairly so they can "get back" at "us" (whites) for all the hardships he/she endured while working his/her way up the ladder. It's very hypocritical to bitch about racial prejudice directed against minorities by whites, and then turn around and say that it's justified if minorities target whites by doing the same thing.

Your angle never crossed my mind me, but I found it interesting to read. What I was referring to was opinion. You can judge someone critically based on your experiences and still treat them fairly. Verbal dissent is healthy and necessary in order to point out the hypocrisy in the double-standards that exist.

If you were trying to make a point different from the way I interpreted it, then you didn't make your point very well. For someone who accuses me of pussy-footing, you sure have a talent for digesting that same stone you casted at me.

Actually, I was flippant or added a smiley where I stopped taking the conversation seriously. Go back and check the early posts.

So what you're actually saying is that such unrealistic work expectations shouldn't be imposed on anyone, regardless of their race? It only creates distrust and stress - - correct?

So why didn't you say that in the first place? If that's what you meant, please clarify.

I though I was very clear, particularly because I never gave any examples that would have led to your conclusions.

The key to understand is, that many minorities DO survive the gauntlet. And once they do, they then have the right to turn around and use the experiences they were subjected to and judge you by the same standards. Note I'm talking about OPINIONS, not actions.

Opinions, actions - - same differénce...

No it isn't. Opinions as I have been discussing, and actions which you have been describing are two very different things. I'm saying that minorities have a right to form negative opinions about the treatment they're receiving. They have a right to take those experiences, and judge the system and the people based on those experiences. Negative opinion of the treatment we receive is just one of the necessary cognitive steps to communication. What are you proposing? Take the beating and shut-up?

If "they" (minorities) are going to be extra hard on "us" (whites) - - even silently and psychologically - - just because it's what they endured while they were experiencing the gauntlet, then they are no better than their racist white predecessors. If someone who's a different race than me is going to hold a superlative opinion of me simply based on my race just because that's how they've been treated by their white supervisers/employers in the past, then they're every bit as racist as those who mistreated them. Because their lofty *opinion* of themselves and their non-white subordinates is most likely going to negatively affect the way they treat me as an employee. That's racist.

As long as we're talking about opinions, I disagree with you wholeheartedly. We can very well judge you in a negative way due to the treatment we receive. Dissent is imperative. Communication of that dissent is imperative. How else to we let whites know that it is intolerable? If we smile and say nothing, nothing changes.

You made that clear above. But you yourself stated they will have lower OPINIONS of me (presumably compared to any non-white colleagues of mine), which will probably manifest itself in one way or another.

Yes. Freedom of Speech. Freedom to disagree. It will manifest itself in the form of speech. Is that still allowed in America?

"They would not respect you for what you put them through and the last thing they'd want to do, is become anything like you."

Excuse me, *I* didn't do anything to them. If I'm an employee who's just trying to make an honest living of my own, why should I personally be held accountable for the actions of those who mistreated them in the past? Just because I look (*somewhat*) like their white bastard former oppressors?

You got awfully defensive rather early in this exchange. You shouldn't have unless you shared the same views as the whites I'm referring to. There's nothing happier for minorities in the work force than to encounter a white person who is honest enough to recognize that double-standards exist; but in my environment, that's very rare. I either deal with Republican-minded individuals, or southern Democrats who have some degree of bigoted/racist opinions. On more than one occasion, I have been silenced and shouted down in casual conversation when I tried to share experiences that would refute hardheld prejudices. They simply don't believe that the system is ranked against minorities. That view I find intolerable.


"So fear not. I don't foresee a day when minorities will subject whites to the same inhuman treatment just for revenge. It's a waste of energy."

Maybe not the exact same *treatment*, but you've affirmed that we're still referring to opinions, to mindsets that minorities will still harbor toward whites as a group (according to you), and vice versa.

So explain to me again how race relations are going to improve as a result of group blame?

By now you realize that I'm referring to opinions which will be communicated in the form of speech in order to raise consciousness among whites about the double-standards that are no longer tolerable to us. So I'm not sure what else you're suggesting since I believe that minorities have a right to those feelings and speech falls within the range of acceptable behavior.

[election_2004]

167. maybe I'm misinterpreting you? (we'll see...)

Your angle never crossed my mind me, but I found it interesting to read.

Could you clarify which comments of mine hadn’t ever crossed your mind before? (that will help me understand the context in which you’re speaking)

What I was referring to was opinion. You can judge someone critically based on your experiences and still treat them fairly.

Not if you’re judging them that way just because they’re a specific race (and you haven’t had any prior experiences with them personally). If you’re going to jump to that judgment without getting to know them on an individual basis, how is that treating them fairly?

Verbal dissent is healthy and necessary in order to point out the hypocrisy in the double-standards that exist.

So then, by that same token, are you saying it’s okay for whites to judge minorities critically just because they may have had bad experiences with individuals from those minority groups in the past?

Actually, I was flippant or added a smiley where I stopped taking the conversation seriously. Go back and check the early posts.

Well sorry, but I’m not telecognitive. I couldn’t see your facial expressions or hear your voice while you were typing that.

And I only counted one smiley face, after your “be very afraid” quip.

I though I was very clear, particularly because I never gave any examples that would have led to your conclusions.

Um, you just said it is okay for minorities to treat whites especially critically due to the gauntlet of racial discrimination that exists. One needs to look no further than that sentiment of yours to see your prejudice and hypocrisy.

No it isn't. Opinions as I have been discussing, and actions which you have been describing are two very different things. I'm saying that minorities have a right to form negative opinions about the treatment they're receiving. They have a right to take those experiences, and judge the system and the people based on those experiences.

Judging who?…the people who specifically mistreated them, or judging whites in general based on the fact that the people who mistreated them were white? It clearly sounded as though you were proposing the latter.

You can still be critical of the system and its inequities without directly taking it out on random people just because they have peach-colored skin.

Negative opinion of the treatment we receive is just one of the necessary cognitive steps to communication. What are you proposing? Take the beating and shut-up?

Of course not. You should scrutinize the mistreatment you experience. That doesn’t give you the right to hold those in powerless, subordinate positions responsible for it.

As long as we're talking about opinions, I disagree with you wholeheartedly. We can very well judge you in a negative way due to the treatment we receive.

How? If you have never met me before and you don’t even know me, then why should you assume that I’m going to mistreat you just because other whites have?

Dissent is imperative. Communication of that dissent is imperative. How else to we let whites know that it is intolerable? If we smile and say nothing, nothing changes.

When you speak out, you need to direct the blame at those people who’ve actually caused the problem…not at those of us who merely have exterior characteristics similar to those of the ones who’ve discriminated against you.

Yes. Freedom of Speech. Freedom to disagree. It will manifest itself in the form of speech. Is that still allowed in America?

You can say whatever you want. But if you’re going to prematurely hold a negative opinion about me just because I’m white - - due to your past misfortune with white people - - then you are being closed-minded and ridiculously prejudicial. Even if you try to pass off your racism as merely an “opinion.”

You got awfully defensive rather early in this exchange.

When you contend that you have the right to automatically hold a negative opinion of me (solely because I’m white and you belong to a racial minority group), you’re damn right I’m going to get defensive. Aren’t you similarly upset by the fact that there are people who will preemptively have a negative opinion of you because you’re a difference race than them?

You shouldn't have unless you shared the same views as the whites I'm referring to.

What views are those? I want to hear you tell me exactly what you believe my views are, and how you reached that conclusion.

There's nothing happier for minorities in the work force than to encounter a white person who is honest enough to recognize that double-standards exist; but in my environment, that's very rare.

When did I ever argue that double-standards don’t exist?

I either deal with Republican-minded individuals, or southern Democrats who have some degree of bigoted/racist opinions.

So someone is racist just because they’re a Republican? Any white Democrat from the South is automatically bigoted or racist?

On more than one occasion, I have been silenced and shouted down in casual conversation when I tried to share experiences that would refute hardheld prejudices. They simply don't believe that the system is ranked against minorities. That view I find intolerable.

Well, just so you know, I would never try to shout you down or silence you if you were trying to share a personal experience with me. And I do recognize that the system is still institutionally racist against minorities.

What I find intolerable is when you contend that it’s perfectly acceptable for you to prejudge me just because I happen to fall into the same racial classification as those who’ve oppressed you. So if I have a bad relationship with a person who belongs to the same racial group as you do, then would you find it acceptable for me to harbor a negative “opinion” of you before even getting to know you?

By now you realize that I'm referring to opinions which will be communicated in the form of speech in order to raise consciousness among whites about the double-standards that are no longer tolerable to us. So I'm not sure what else you're suggesting since I believe that minorities have a right to those feelings and speech falls within the range of acceptable behavior.

Are you saying that minorities are just using that *anti-white* speech in a strictly rhetorical fashion to make a (somewhat satirical) point that racial prejudice is stupid and senseless no matter who it comes from or who it’s directed against? If so, you need to find a new tactic/strategy to convey that point, because playing mind games with people (no matter how purposeful your objective actually is) will only lead to miscommunications and ill-will. It’s much better to just spell things out for people (of any race) honestly and directly, rather than speaking in riddles.

[The Backlash Cometh]

175. We will meet again.

"Your angle never crossed my mind me, but I found it interesting to read."

Could you clarify which comments of mine hadn’t ever crossed your mind before? (that will help me understand the context in which you’re speaking)

Maybe you should try lurking on some of the threads started by minorities. I feel that you and I are too far apart in our experiences to bridge the gap through this thread. You don't seem to even allow for minorities to express the most mildest of human reactions in response to what I define as intolerable abuse.

How difficult is it for someone to understand that at a very minimum, a human being will respond with distrust and a low opinion of you if you constantly subject them to abuse? You seem to take that response so personally, that you can't accept it.

But I believe you're sincere. So we will meet again when you do understand it.

[election_2004]

181. Taking the response "personally"...

How difficult is it for someone to understand that at a very minimum, a human being will respond with distrust and a low opinion of you if you constantly subject them to abuse? You seem to take that response so personally, that you can't accept it.

I knew it would only be a matter of time before you accused me of taking things "too personally."

The reason I'm taking things "personally" is because you're making them personal. When you tell me that your opinion of me is going to be prematurely negative because of the bad experiences you've had with other whites - - even if you've never met me before and know nothing about me - - then how do you expect me to react? Am I just supposed to sit back silently, and submissively allow your criticism to sting me in the face?

If you want people to realize the necessity of affirmative action, then it's never going to happen if you continue to incite the type of racial divisiveness you've displayed on this thread.

But again, thank you for answering all of my questions above. It's good to see you're not trying to avoid the discussion...

[Isome]

169. *gasping in mock surprise*

No I didn't just read the ol' "chip on your shoulder" routine? Tell me my lying eyes aren't to be believed!!

After creating a long post to expound upon a misinterpretation, the clarifying response is considered evidence of having a "chip" on one's shoulder. I'm shocked, shocked I tell you!!

[election_2004]

171. It's not that confusing

The following statements were directly made by TheBacklashCometh:

And once they do, they then have the right to turn around and use the experiences they were subjected to and judge you by the same standards. Note I'm talking about OPINIONS, not actions.

They would not respect you for what you put them through and the last thing they'd want to do, is become anything like you.

How can anyone NOT find those statements accusatory? Please, someone explain it to me so I can take off my dunce cap...

[The Backlash Cometh]

174. It's called justice.

The fact that you see it as a "chip on the shoulder" means that you don't get it. If you keep slapping someone in the face, don't be surprised if they look back at you with distrusting eyes. It really is that simple.

[election_2004]

182. okay, but how does that apply to me?...

How have I ever "slapped you in the face," TheBacklashCometh?

Or at least, what had I ever done to you that was so horrible before we *met* on DU?

[Isome]

189. Don't ask others questions...

Ask yourself why you concluded backlash has a "chip" on his shoulder, based on the posts in this thread.

If you answer yourself honestly, you'll be better able to understand how the figurative language "slapped in the face" is applicable.


Awww, hell, here's the answer: I don't think you'll be able to find one person of African descent in America who has not been told, by a caucasian, that they have a "chip" on their shoulder, at some point in their lives. Normally, we're told that during a discussion in which we have an opposing POV, or when asserting ourselves. If we're not smiling, nodding, always in agreement, or adequately deferential, out come the predictable superlatives.

[election_2004]

191. my comment to TheBacklashCometh

I wasn't saying that TheBacklashCometh had a chip on his shoulder because he/she was speaking vocally.

TheBacklashCometh has a chip on his/her shoulder because he/she is blaming me for the bad things that have happened to him/her.

[shepard]

64. Qualifications

The eyes see a reflective image of the past.You or I could look upon the same thing and see it two different ways.Both ways would be colored by the obstacles and successes we have had.Your path in life could have been long and easy ,where as mine could have been filled with ruts.So we may both be qualified,yet we both aproach it with different views.Ahe'ee Nehemah

[Lars39]

16. You described a back-stabbing type atmosphere perfectly.

The thing is, a person that received such a letter wouldn't even have to be hired by this company in order for the letter to be damaging. A prejudiced white person would just use this letter to further his outlook, taking this outlook to his next job and possibly infesting a decent company with his prejudices.

[election_2004]

13. taking it further...

Let's turn the argument on its' head; Why do some Anglo-Americans (not all) believe that some job or educational position is their due regardless of their ability to perform. Talk about entitlement programs.

I would assume because of the racist attitudes they've been raised with. My original post confronted the question of how we as a society should deal with this problem.

It has been my experience that I and other men and women of color have to be twice as good as the least qualified Anglo in order to get that well deserved raise or promotion.

The blame for this lies on the employer and/or the administrators.

I realize this has been a long rant; biut your question seems to infer that the slave pay for his/her room and board.

Where did I ever make that inference?

[angee_is_mad]

132. DITTO!!!!

Talk on my brother! It has been my experience as a African-American woman that it is always my job(when in a all white surrounding) to make white people comfortable to be around me. Now, I have been in that exact same environment and have felt nearly invisible-and this has been in a progressive group!
It's hard being a person of color in this society, especially in corporate America. As far as getting rid of racism, it will never happen in my lifetime and I'm in my thirties and I figure I have at least another 40 or 50years.
People will always need a scapegoat for their own deficiencies, so why not blame the Black woman who stoled the job promotion from you, because of Affirmative Action! We shall never forget that job promotion was your due!!!!
Yeah right, White men have had Affirmative Action alot longer than minorities and women. It's called the BOYS CLUB!!!!

[spooky3]

4. our objective should not be to change attitudes

but rather to change behavior of employers who unfairly discriminate. Then as more and more people in underrepresented groups get into higher level positions, changes in attitudes and stereotypes will likely follow.

The EEOC needs to be properly funded rather than starved, with a huge backlog of cases, as it has been for years. It is too costly for people with legitimate complaints to pursue them, and organizations consequently know that they can get away with a lot of bad behavior. The EEOC was supposed to level the playing field somewhat between the resources of the corporation to fight charges and the limited resources of the complainant, by taking on the investigation and pushing for remedy where charges were well-founded. But that is not what has happened in most cases, due to poor funding of EEOC.

In some areas, new legislation could be helpful. For example, right now, in most companies it is very hard for you to determine if you are being unfairly paid based on race, gender, etc., because of pay secrecy policies. If there were more transparency, people would be better able to see and assess the evidence. There would be more self-correction and more valid challenges where self-correction did not take place.

[AP]

6. The thing about changing attitudes, rather than policies...

...is that aiming for attitudes first isn't the roll of government. Government can only make policy and change attitudes as a consequence. Hypnotists and psychologists change attitudes without changing policy. The things governments do best is make laws and effect policies.

[ma4t]

8. amen brother

When people desire to use the power of government to restrain behavior we need safeguards to ensure that power is not abused.

When people desire to use the power of government to control throughts and attitudes it is truly frightening. I may not like the attitude that a bigot has but it is no business of government to try to regulate his thoughts. No matter how well-meaning those who wish to change attitudes via governmental action are, that is the first step towards tyranny.

[AP]

10. To clarify, I think it's important that governments encourage attitudes...

...like, let's not be racist, or lets save money, let's work hard, let's not hate foreigners, that, when the least among us is better off, we're all better off, etc.

What I'm saying is that, unless we'd rather elect hypnotists and psychologists to public office, the best way to do this is through smart legislation, and a public dialogue explaining why, say, it's important to pass legislation like a tax credit matching savings, or effect the notion through legislation that a well regulated marketplace resluts in a wealthier society.

What I'm also saying that it is ridiculous to pretend that a government can change those attitudes through anything other than legislation and policy.

[election_2004]

17. role of government

What I'm also saying that it is ridiculous to pretend that a government can change those attitudes through anything other than legislation and policy.

Maybe the government per se can't make the change.

Isn't that where the efforts of activists would come in?

[AP]

19. What are activists fighting for, if not...

...for the government to make policy change?

What governments do is make and pass law.

[election_2004]

20. As an activist myself...

That tells me two things: that you are personally much more informed on the importance of the EEOC than most people, and also that not nearly enough affirmative action proponents are invoking the significance of EEOC funding as part of the discussion. Because before today, I hadn't ever heard it brought up in any conversations relating to affirmative action, and I doubt many other people have either.

My objective is a combination of working to change public policies along with educating people on the realities of life.

Implementing the policy is great, but even after it's put in place, there's still the greater hurdle of overcoming racism as a greater social dynamic.

It is unrealistic to assume the government will be able to change the way people think. It is also unrealistic to think that the way people think will change as a result of government legislation. So why stop at the legislation?

[sangh0]

25. I disagree with that last part

It is unrealistic to assume the government will be able to change the way people think. It is also unrealistic to think that the way people think will change as a result of government legislation

I think that legislation does change behavior, and that behavior does affect belief. New behaviors expose people to new experiences, and those experiences DO help foster change in people's understanding.

Of course, this doesn't mean we should stop at legislation.

[AP]

27. that's exactly how I feel. n/t

[election_2004]

52. Somewhat true, but...

Legislation can change people's attitudes over time, but very slowly. At least several generations.

How the issue itself is approached from a social context is much more integral to the timeframe of solving the problem.

[AP]

53. If you read Clinton's speech below you get an idea about what

brings about change.

Clinton says that at age 16 he was one of only three southerners who voted at Boys Nation for civil rights legislation.

He describes how he actually saw how Blacks experienced America at his grandparent's store, which was the experience that formed his opinions about racism. He said that, had it not been for that, he would have had no interaction with Black people while growing up in Arkansas. He said that he loved going to movies growing up. In all that time, he never sat with a black person at a movie theater. He never swam with black people in the public pools.

He says that legislation which took down these barriers which prevented white people from realizing how the rest of America really lived was the reason we've made so much progress in the last 35 years. If we sat around waiting for all white people to have the more-or-less random chance he had of having white grand parents who happened to have a business which was located in a black neighborhood, then we'd be waitingn centuries for progress.

So, in some respects, it wasn't legislation which meant that our best president since 1968 had the transformative racial experience. But in many respects, legislation is the reason millions of other white Americans have had transformative experiences.

[sangha]

126. I have to disagree

My own experience over the last 40 years has shown me it doesn't need to take that long. Granted, it's not a short-term project, but it's not that long.

[election_2004]

133. Please elaborate...

N/T

[sangh0]

137. I grew up in NYC, a liberal city

where, as a child, the majority of white parents boycotted the schools to protest the busing of students into our neighborhood schools. I did not participate, and the protesters made the bigotry obvious. In going through the picket line, I was attacked by a parent, who was calling me a "nigger lover". I was about 12 at the time.

A few years prior to that, my friend's family, who lived across the street, decided to sell their house. The real-estate agent brought a young black couple to see the house. I suspect he was not too happy about this as he had already been fined by the Feds for "steering" black customers away from white areas. Anyway, the next day, thata house was fire-bombed. The black couple decided to buy in another neighborhood.

A few years later, this same real-estate agency was investigated again, and fined. The agency promised to not discriminate and was rewarded by being firebombed a half dozen times before the culprit was attacked. It's no wonder that my neighborhood was so highly segregated. In my neighborhood, if there were black people on your block, then there were NO white people on your block. If there were white people on your block, then there were NO black people on your block, and a black person would not dare walk down that street for fear of being brutally beaten. More than one black person must have been unaware of this, or unable to avoid it, because several people have been put in the hospital for simply walking in the wrong place.

The high school I attended had several race riots involving hundreds of students.

Since that time, school integration has been achieved, workplaces have been integrated, the majority of city residents are non-white, and bigoted stereotypes are no longer considered ordinary and inoffensive. The idea that blacks smell bad, all carry knives, are all on welfare, etc are now considered laughable.

[election_2004]

183. good to hear the social ills in that area have been rectified....

Since that time, school integration has been achieved, workplaces have been integrated, the majority of city residents are non-white, and bigoted stereotypes are no longer considered ordinary and inoffensive. The idea that blacks smell bad, all carry knives, are all on welfare, etc are now considered laughable.

So racial tensions no longer exist between whites, blacks, and other racial groups in that community? Racist attitudes have been virtually wiped out from that area, I take it?

[election_2004]

14. Good observations

to change behavior of employers who unfairly discriminate. Then as more and more people in underrepresented groups get into higher level positions, changes in attitudes and stereotypes will likely follow.

In an ideal world, one would hope that would be the case. However, what makes you think people's attitudes and sentiments are going to change solely as a result of a government mandate? How will people's mindsets truly change without proper social discussion of the issue?

The EEOC needs to be properly funded

This is the first time I've heard the lack of EEOC funding addressed in an affirmative action discussion...well, ever.

In what ways do you suspect the EEOC would be able to utilize such increased funding?

In some areas, new legislation could be helpful. For example, right now, in most companies it is very hard for you to determine if you are being unfairly paid based on race, gender, etc., because of pay secrecy policies. If there were more transparency, people would be better able to see and assess the evidence. There would be more self-correction and more valid challenges where self-correction did not take place.

Full (public) salary disclosure...I like it.

So why don't we hear these types of ideas proposed by affirmative action proponents more frequently?

[AP]

18. EEOC sets the tone in the courts.

I've heard this comment before, FWIW.

The nature of discrimination is constantly shifting and it's important for suits in the courts to set the tone -- to set legal precendetn -- from the top down in a manner that responds as quickly as possible to the shifting landscape of discrimination.

It's true that the EEOC is udnerfunded, which gives the competitive edge to the discriminators, and creats a very inefficient lag in the marketplace.

[Isome]

172. "attitudes and sentiments change as a result of a government mandate"

They're not/won't, I'm sure. But, more importantly, I don't give a damn if they do. All I care about is that the behaviors are curbed through government mandate(s).

People won't stop killing because there are laws against murder, nor will they stop raping, stealing, cheating on taxes, running traffic lights, or discriminating in their hiring or promotion practices because there are laws against those things. But, they can be punished for their behavior, and the punishment may deter the next bozo that wants to try to break the damn law!!

You don't have to like me, but you will do right by me.

[CWebster]

15. In the realm of my own personal experience

Being raised in almost entirely white neighborhoods and educated in almost entirely white schools, (even if it was a liberal education)--like many here I am sure, the experience of my AA workplace is one of profound importance. It is this environment where people are forced to interact on a daily basis and really get to know each other as individuals. Over time, it feels like family. And really, isn't that ultimately the point?

[mzmolly]

28. Wow, I'll give this a 'shot' ...

Then I'm out for today. My DU time is exceeding expectation.

Not to take this off topic, but at the time of the Dean statement Republicans were trying to 'end' Affirmative Action. Here is a speech by Bill Clinton from that time frame. I think Dean was presenting an offer 'they' couldn't refuse. Also Clinton shared the same position that AA should not stop at race/gender, but be expanded to reach more Americans.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/affirm/docs/clintonspeech.htm

"Still, I believe every child needs the chance to go to college. Every child. That means every child has to have a chance to get affordable and repayable college loans, Pell Grants for poor kids and a chance to do things like join AmeriCorps and work their way through school. Every child is entitled to that. That is not an argument against affirmative action, it's an argument for more opportunity for more Americans until everyone is reached."

And.

"Third, beyond discrimination we need to do more to help disadvantaged people and distressed communities, no matter what their race or gender. There are places in our country where the free enterprise system simply doesn't reach. It simply isn't working to provide jobs and opportunity. Disproportionately, these areas in urban and rural America are highly populated by racial minorities, but not entirely. To make this initiative work, I believe the government must become a better partner for people in places in urban and rural America that are caught in a cycle of poverty. And I believe we have to find ways to get the private sector to assume their rightful role as a driver of economic growth."

" Based on the evidence, the job is not done. So here is what I think we should do. We should reaffirm the principle of affirmative action and fix the practices. We should have a simple slogan: Mend it, but don't end it."

For me AA comes down first and foremost to education. Without an equal opportunity for education the opportunites that one has in the marketplace are very limited.

I think all Americans need to know from a very young age, that society cares about them. We need equity in education/schools before we can EVER have equity in the work place.

I like Edwards idea of giving every citizen a college education. In addition, I'd like to see public schools funded fairly as Dean did in Vermont. AA has to begin with our education system.

You also asked~Secondly, regardless of how they're implemented, AA programs are only going to go so far. An additional question that needs to be asked is how can we alleviate the greater problem of racism (as in people's attitudes) that still exists in our society? What can we actually do to change people's attitudes when it comes to how they view people of other racial backgrounds?

Again, schools should be instrumental in teaching diversity and respect. There needs to be a major initiative in schools to do this. Also, If we aproach AA from a perspective of 'equality' for all Americans, it may help to mend any racial tension surrounding the issue.

Even once an AA program is put into place, what can be done to curb any racial backlash?

I'd have to say educate people again. However, there will always be people who refuse to be educated and that's unfortunate.

Sorry I couldn't be more complex, I have a daughter who needs my time.

I will say AA needs to start in the early years and be carried on through real job opportunity. It doesn't do much good to implement AA if we dont give people an equal opportunity for education.

[AP]

29. A great quote from that speech, and proof of where Clinton's heart was:

He's talking about attending that Boys Nation program in DC at age 16 (when he got to shake JFK's hand):

It's hard to believe where we were just three decades ago. When I came up here to Boys Nation and we had this mock congressional session I was one of only three or four southerners who would even vote for the civil rights plank. That's largely because of my family. My grandfather had a grade school education and ran a grocery store across the street from the cemetery in Hope, Arkansas, where my parents and my grandparents are buried. Most of his customers were black, were poor, and were working people. As a child in that store I saw that people of different races could treat each other with respect and dignity.

At age 16, Clinton understood enough about the wolrd to understand that civil rights legislation was good.

[AP]

30. Another great quote:

The lesson we learned was a hard one. When we allow people to pit us against one another or spend energy denying opportunity based on our differences, everyone is held back. But when we give all Americans a chance to develop and use their talents, to be full partners in our common enterprise, then everybody is pushed forward.

[AP]

31. More great quotes:

Thirty years ago in this city, you didn't see many people of color or women making their way to work in the morning in business clothes, or serving in substantial numbers in powerful positions in Congress or at the White House, or making executive decisions every day in businesses. In fact, even the employment want ads were divided, men on one side and women on the other.
...

A lot has changed, and it did not happen as some sort of random evolutionary drift. It took hard work and sacrifices and countless acts of courage and conscience by millions of Americans. It took the political courage and statesmanship of Democrats and Republicans alike, the vigilance and compassion of courts and advocates in and out of government committed to the Constitution and to equal protection and to equal opportunity. It took the leadership of people in business who knew that in the end we would all be better. It took the leadership of people in labor unions who knew that working people had to be reconciled.

[AP]

32. Still more...

How did this happen? Fundamentally, because we opened our hearts and minds and changed our ways. But not without pressure – the pressure of court decisions, legislation, executive action, and the power of examples in the public and private sector. Along the way we learned that laws alone do not change society; that old habits and thinking patterns are deeply ingrained and die hard; that more is required to really open the doors of opportunity. Our search to find ways to move more quickly to equal opportunity led to the development of what we now call affirmative action.

[AP]

33. When AA doesn't work, it's not really AA...(Clinton quotes)

I know some people are honestly concerned about the times affirmative action doesn't work, when it's done in the wrong way. And I know there are times when some employers don't use it in the right way. They may cut corners and treat a flexible goal as a quota. They may give opportunities to people who are unqualified instead of those who deserve it. They may, in so doing, allow a different kind of discrimination. When this happens, it is also wrong. But it isn't affirmative action, and it is not legal.

[AP]

34. Clinton on hypocrisy of people who say they want class-based AA

I must say, I think it is ironic that some of those – not all, but some of those who call for an end to affirmative action also advocate policies which will make the real economic problems of the anxious middle class even worse. They talk about opportunity and being for equal opportunity for everyone, and then they reduce investment in equal opportunity on an evenhanded basis. For example, if the real goal is economic opportunity for all Americans, why in the world would we reduce our investment in education from Head Start to affordable college loans? Why don't we make college loans available to every American instead? (Applause.)

If the real goal is empowering all middle class Americans and empowering poor people to work their way into the middle class without regard to race or gender, why in the world would the people who advocate that turn around and raise taxes on our poorest working families, or reduce the money available for education and training when they lose their jobs or they're living on poverty wages, or increase the cost of housing for lower-income, working people with children?

Why would we do that? If we're going to empower America, we have to do more than talk about it, we have to do it. And we surely have learned that we cannot empower all Americans by a simple strategy of taking opportunity away from some Americans. (Applause.)

[AP]

35. And Clinton ultimately defending race/genderp-based AA:

Today, I am directing all our agencies to comply with the Supreme Court's Adarand decision, and also to apply the four standards of fairness to all our affirmative action programs that I have already articulated: No quotas in theory or practice; no illegal discrimination of any kind, including reverse discrimination; no preference for people who are not qualified for any job or other opportunity; and as soon as a program has succeeded, it must be retired. Any program that doesn't meet these four principles must be eliminated or reformed to meet them.

But let me be clear: Affirmative action has been good for America. (Applause.)

...

The job of ending discrimination in this country is not over. That should not be surprising. We had slavery for centuries before the passage of the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments. We waited another hundred years for the civil rights legislation. Women have had the vote less than a hundred years. We have always had difficulty with these things, as most societies do. But we are making more progress than may people.

Based on the evidence, the job is not done. So here is what I think we should do. We should reaffirm the principle of affirmative action and fix the practices. We should have a simple slogan: Mend it, but don't end it. (Applause.)

[mzmolly]

37. He did no such thing, he spoke about expansion...

I read the 'entire' thing. I agree with ALL what Clinton said, not just the select parts I want to hear.

So much for clearing out my ignore list. :eyes:

[sangh0]

41. Where did AP say that?

I don't see AP making any remarks about you. Stop flattering yourself

[mzmolly]

42. Well considering AP posted quotes from a speech that "I" posted

I assumed she infered "I" didn't actually read the speech.

Flattering myself? :eyes:

[AP]

43. You're crazy. That was a great speech. Put me on ignore.

I encourage everyone to read this speech. It's a great defense of the notion of taking race and gender into consideration when addressing racial and gender discrimination.

[AP]

46. He was talking about adapting to Adarand in a way that took race into con-

sideration.

He's explaining how he was still going to fight racial discrimination notwithstanding Adarand.

That's the whole point of this speech. He was saying he's not giving in to the sentiment expressed by Dean that we should give up on race and focus on class (which happens not to be a constitutionally protected category, so the RW could have made quick work of not fulfilling those promises, to which Clinton alludes in the speech).

[mzmolly]

39. Where Howard Dean's "heart" is...

Dean Statement on University of Michigan Decisions

http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/PageServer?pagename=policy_statement_civilrights_affirmativeaction

"I am delighted that the Supreme Court has upheld the principle of affirmative action in education. This was a victory for the civil rights of all Americans. The Bush Administration had urged the Court to reverse course in the nation’s historic march to equality, but the Court’s majority wisely refused to do so.

When President Bush used the inflammatory word “quota” to describe the Michigan program, I criticized him for distorting the facts. Now, the Supreme Court has rejected that misleading label. It is time for the President to stop using code words that divide Americans by race, gender, income, and sexual orientation.

As President, I would pursue policies that encourage racial diversity on college campuses because I know that diversity serves important goals -- it produces benefits for all students, and for society as a whole. The Supreme Court decision clears the way for policies that advance both equity and excellence."

Howard Dean's record...

Equality. Building on a commitment to equal rights for all Americans, Governor Dean has signed into law tougher penalties for hate crimes, as well as tighter restrictions against discrimination in the workplace, housing, public accommodations, and more. Vermont is the first state to legally recognize long-term committed unions between gay and lesbian couples.

Education. Unlike other leading states...Vermont has adopted a system of sharing educational dollars across the state, so schools in poor communities have the same financial backing as those in wealthy communities.


Health Care. "As access to health insurance has declined for all but the wealthiest, it's tempting to define America's health care crisis only in economic terms. However, our healthcare system isn't plagued only by costly insurance premiums, but also by the lingering impact of institutional racism and other assorted biases.

...As President I will:

Press for the immediate passage of the Healthcare Equality and Accountability Act of 2003 sponsored by The Congressional Black Caucus, The Congressional Hispanic Caucus, The Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus and The Native American Caucus. This bill is a road map to making America a healthier nation and I will follow it.
Create the post of Assistant Secretary for Minority Health within the Department of Health and Human Services. The job of the Assistant Secretary for Minority Health would be to not only coordinate all of the federal government's initiatives to eliminate racial health disparities in health, but to remind all Americans that it's their fight, too."

Capital Punishment-Equal Justice: "As President, I would:

Promptly instruct my Attorney General to evaluate the federal death penalty system, take steps to ensure that it is applied fairly and reliably, and reverse Ashcroft’s overzealous policies.

Push for passage of the federal Innocence Protection Act to strengthen protections against unjust imposition of the death penalty.

Establish a Presidential Commission on the Administration of Capital Punishment to analyze the causes of wrongful convictions around the country and recommend additional reforms at the federal and state level."

..."In 1997, Governor Dean signed into law the nation's most comprehensive mental health and substance abuse parity bill in the nation, ending discriminatory insurance practices against these major diseases."

Quotes on Affirmative Action and Discrimination.

“We need affirmative action in this country, and we ought to stand up and say so and be proud of it as a society.

I'm tired of being divided. I'm tired of being divided by race, I'm tired of being divided by income, by gender, by religion. If this country is ever going to work, we have to acknowledge... that we are responsible for each other and to each other.” ~May 18, 2003.

“Let’s start calling racial profiling what it is—discrimination based upon race."

"This is a civil rights issue, and that makes it a federal issue."

"Racial discrimination is illegal in hiring, housing, and voting. It should be illegal as a law enforcement technique too."

"Racial profiling is wrong.”

Refs below:

http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/PageServer?pagename=policy_statement_health_racialdisparities

http://www.jfklibrary.net/pica_essay_winner_2001_dziczek.html

http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/PageServer?pagename=policy_statement_civilrights_affirmativeaction

http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/PageServer?pagename=policy_statement_civilrights_capitalpunishment

http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/PageServer?pagename=community_africanamericans

http://www.africanamericansfordean.com/AA/

http://www.fundforahealthyamerica.com/VermontRecord.asp

http://www.africanamericansfordean.com/AA/race.htm

http://www.africanamericansfordean.com/AA/issues/affirm_actn1.htm

Off to life.... :hi:

[AP]

44. When Clinton was 16 he believed in civil rights legislation

In 1995 Dean felt that we should stop taking race into consideration when addressing racial discrimination.

[The Backlash Cometh]

38. Thanks for the quotes.

Enjoyed them.

[mzmolly]

40. This quote you site isn't about class based AA hypocricy.

Lets actually read what he said AP.

It's about Republican hypocricy. Not once does Clinton talk about excluding class. In fact, if you actually read the quotes I posted, you'll see he felt that the system needed mending and should infact be expanded to include 'every' child.

"I believe every child needs the chance to go to college. Every child..."

That is not an argument against affirmative action, it's an argument for more opportunity for more Americans until everyone is reached." *Now what do you suppose he meant by this? :freak:

"Third, beyond discrimination we need to do more to help disadvantaged people and distressed communities, no matter what their race or gender. There are places in our country where the free enterprise system simply doesn't reach. It simply isn't working to provide jobs and opportunity. Disproportionately, these areas in urban and rural America are highly populated by racial minorities, but not entirely. To make this initiative work, *(what initiative AP?)* I believe the government must become a better partner for people in places in urban and rural America that are caught in a cycle of poverty. And I believe we have to find ways to get the private sector to assume their rightful role as a driver of economic growth."

"Based on the evidence, the job is not done. So here is what I think we should do. We should reaffirm the principle of affirmative action and fix the practices. We should have a simple slogan: Mend it, but don't end it."

You have won the 'spin' award AP. Bravo !!!

:crazy:

Essentially Howard Dean said the same thing Bill Clinton did. Although, unfortunatley, he did so with far less eloquence ...

I'll check in with you all again tomorrow.

[AP]

45. Yes it is.

"They talk about opportunity and being for equal opportunity for everyone, and then they reduce investment in equal opportunity on an evenhanded basis. "

He's criticizing people who say that we should stop taking race into consideration and focus on class, but then don't want to fund progams that address class discrepencies.

The two notions aren't mutually exculsive. However, Clinton is accruately noting that the people who say this happen to be the same peopl who are cutting programs for the poor and middle class and trasferring social wealth to the wealthy. Those people were Republicans.

Everything else in that speech is about the importance of considering class and gender specifically.

Dean and Clinton were on the opposite side of this debate in 1995.

[sangh0]

49. In 1995

The RNC wanted to eliminate the use of race in AA. Clinton fought that. Dean agreed with the RNC.

[mzmolly]

59. Bull. Republicans wanted to eliminate AA period. Dean and Clinton

wanted a win/win.

Why do you think Bill Clintons slogan was "MEND IT, DON'T END IT." Because many people wanted to 'end' it, and without compromise, they had a case for reverse discrimination-which they took to the courts.

Politics is the art of compromise, and Bill Clinton was a great artist.

[AP]

69. You know that's bullshit. Didn't you post the gingrich quote yesterday?

The one in which he said that Republicans needed to have a message that was different, that was about getting rid of AA, but being for programs based on class, which could be sold as programs that covered race? (Notice, there was no mention of gender.)

This is why, when Dean said what he did, someone on the clip is heard to say "you sound like Newt Gingrich" (which makes this another issue on which he sounds like Newt -- I wonder how many more there are?).

[mzmolly]

73. No, I didn't post a Gingrich quote, but I do know that he

broke from Republicans in his rhetoric, which may be why he was compared to Newt. Gingrich was taking a more liberal stand then other Republicans but refused to take a real stand and say we needed AA to remain in place.


What, no answer to the question(s) again?

[AP]

79. Post 71 repeats the answer I gave elsewhere. Why don't you answer any

of my questions, by the way?

Should I start hounding you for answers?

[mzmolly]

85. What questions?

????

[Name removed]

103. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mzmolly]

56. No it isn't. It's about Republican hypocricy.

Republicans are the people who take away head start and the other programs Clinton mentioned as a means to help the poor.

You failed to address the quotes I put forward. You know as well as I do, that Clinton was a great uniter, and that is what his speech was about. Let's not do away with AA, lets mend it.

[AP]

57. Mend it how?

After he says that the administration will adjust its policies to meet the guidleines set out by the Adarand decision, he says:

This is the work of our administration – to give the people the tools they need to make the most of their own lives, to give families and communities the tools they need to solve their own problems. But let us not forget affirmative action didn't cause these problems. It won't solve them. And getting rid of affirmative action certainly won't solve them.

This entire speech is about how Clinton is not abandoing the consideration of race and gender in addressing race and gender bias.

[mzmolly]

58. By not stopping until every child is reached. Again, I'll post his words

for review...

"I believe every child needs the chance to go to college. Every child..."

That is not an argument against affirmative action, it's an argument for more opportunity for more Americans until everyone is reached."

"Third, beyond discrimination we need to do more to help disadvantaged people and distressed communities, no matter what their race or gender. There are places in our country where the free enterprise system simply doesn't reach. It simply isn't working to provide jobs and opportunity. Disproportionately, these areas in urban and rural America are highly populated by racial minorities, but not entirely. To make this initiative work, *(In other words to make AA work)* I believe the government must become a better partner for people in places in urban and rural America that are caught in a cycle of poverty. And I believe we have to find ways to get the private sector to assume their rightful role as a driver of economic growth."

"Based on the evidence, the job is not done. So here is what I think we should do. We should reaffirm the principle of affirmative action and fix the practices. We should have a simple slogan: Mend it, but don't end it." ~ The words of Bill Clinton

All of the above are the words of Bill Clinton, as taken from the speech.

Off to dinner, check back later :)

[AP]

61. Again, this speach was a response to Adaradan which seemed to severely

limit the ability of the government to directly address racial discrimination by addressing race. The entire speech is an affirmation that his government will continue to try to do that within the confines of Adarand.

Clinton in the transition to his affirmation (which is the part you've quoted above) says that, yes, the administration is committed to the larger principle that all disadvantaged groups need to be empowered. He's acknowledging that Republicans argument that this is the a worthy goal. However the affirmation, which immediately follows, clearly states that he intends to continue the policies of affirmative action.

Nothing in this speach is a redefinition of AA (and the party you try to define as the "intitiative" is not AA, it's just the thing he states at the beginning of that paragraph).

If you think Clinton is REDEFINING AA, show me a quote from that speech where he does that.

[AP]

62. Clinton defines AA:

The purpose of affirmative action is to give our nation a way to finally address the systemic exclusion of individuals of talent on the basis of their gender or race from opportunities to develop, perform, achieve and contribute. Affirmative action is an effort to develop a systematic approach to open the doors of education, employment and business development opportunities to qualified individuals who happen to be members of groups that have experienced longstanding and persistent discrimination.

Clinton is NOT redifining AA as a class-based program. He's saying it's about gender and race.

[AP]

63. Clinton giving examples of AA:

I have had experience with affirmative action, nearly 20 years of it now, and I know it works.

When I was Attorney General of my home state, I hired a record number of women and African American lawyers ... As Governor, I appointed morewomen to my Cabinet and state boards than any other governor in the state's history, and more African Americans than all the governors in the state's history combined... As President, I am proud to have the most diverse administration in history in my Cabinet, my agencies and my staff... In the last two and a half years, the most outstanding example of affirmative action in the United States, the Pentagon, has opened 260,000 positions for women who serve in our Armed Forces. I have appointed more women and minorities to the federal bench than any other president, more than the last two combined... In our administration many government agencies are doing more business with qualified firms run by minorities and women. The Small Business Administration has reduced its budget by 40 percent, doubled its loan outputs, dramatically increased the number of loans to women and minority small business people, without reducing the number of loans to white businessowners who happen to be male... (Applause.)

There's nothing about class in there. It's all about gender and race. This is a speech about how you have to consider gender and race if you're trying to deal with gender and race discrimination.

This is the opposite of what Dean was saying in 1995.

[mzmolly]

65. The speech was a response to a reverse discrimination case

true...

Clinton said that while AA is necessary, there are some things that need repair.

"Disproportionately, these areas in urban and rural America are highly populated by racial minorities, but not entirely. To make this initiative work, I believe the government must become a better partner for people in places in urban and rural America that are caught in a cycle of poverty.

http://www.infoplease.com/spot/affirmativetimeline1.html

President Clinton asserted in a speech that while Adarand set "stricter standards to mandate reform of affirmative action, it actually reaffirmed the need for affirmative action and reaffirmed the continuing existence of systematic discrimination in the United States." In a White House memorandum on the same day, he called for the elimination of any program that "(a) creates a quota; (b) creates preferences for unqualified individuals; (c) creates reverse discrimination; or (d) continues even after its equal opportunity purposes have been achieved."

I agree wity you that Clinton stated the need to continue with AA, I have never said otherwise. Adding to AA is not ending AA, it's reforming AA. Clinton also stated we should not stop until 'every' one was reached regardless of ethnicity. He appears to agree with the fact that AA needed 'mending'...

I am a huge supporter of AA myself, and would never vote for anyone who is against it...

[AP]

67. Why do all the examples of AA programs that work, which Clinton gives

have nothing to do with class, as Dean would have it?

They're all programs that have to do with race and gender.

Why does Clinton DEFINE AA at the beginning of this speech as programs which consider race and gender?

[mzmolly]

72. Because the law didnt include class before the case were discussing.

That case was a turning point, and class is part of the equation today.

[AP]

74. You are making no sense. Class is not a consideration in AA (+)

programs the government conducts today. Granted, Bush does not take race and gender discrimination seriously. However, AFAIK, the government still gives some cosideration to race and gender when promoting people in the armed services, giving out gov't contracts, and giving SBA loans, and class plays NO part in those considerations. In fact, when giving out gov't contracts, it's quite the opposite. They're not giving out gov't contracts to homeless people, and with the SBA you have to have something like 20% collateral for the loan -- there's a bias towards people with assets.

[mzmolly]

81. "Affirmative action" means many different things-depending.

"Affirmative action" means many different things. Among them: outreach to broaden the pool of eligible individuals to include more members of specific groups; targeted or compensatory training to upgrade the qualifications of individuals in these groups; goals and timetables to measure progress; preferences; set-asides; and actual quotas. Affirmative action programs have arisen as a result of executive orders, legislation, consent decrees stemming from government investigations, court-ordered remedies, and voluntary action by corporations and other non-public institutions."

[AP]

82. Clinton DEFINES AA in this speech. He says "I'm going to talk about what

it is and what it isn't." I've quoted the part above where he says it's about race and gender. I've quoted the part where he calls Republicans (and Libertarians) hypocrites when they say they want it to be about class and then turn around and cut social programs for the poor. I've quoted the parts in the speech where Clinton gives examples of good AA programs NONE OF WHICH HAVE ANY CRITERIA INCORPORATING ANY MEASURE OTHER THAN RACE AND GENDER, because they aren't about where you are on the economic ladder, they're about WHERE YOU WANT TO GO, regardless of where you started. REGARDLESS of where you started.

So I don't know how you can introduce this speech as a defense of Dean and then refuse to accept it on its own terms. Who are you to redifine AA when you're own evidence totally contradicts you?

[sangha]

127. None of those are "class"

AA does not use "class" as a criteria. How would it be measured? AA does use income, but income is not class.

[mzmolly]

135. Again, a recent quote by Jesse Jackson Jr...

"More importantly, during this campaign Governor Dean has clearly stated for the record that he supports affirmative action based on race, gender and class - which is what the law requires." ~Jesse Jackson Jr.

[sangh0]

138. Sowhat? Stop dodging and distracting

Jackson's statement has nothing to do with what Clinton did or did not do in 1995.

[mzmolly]

145. ME dodge and distract...

You said:

"AA does not use "class" as a criteria. How would it be measured? AA does use income, but income is not class.

I replied:

Here is a quote from Jesse Jackson Jr. indicating 'class' is a criteria. Tell me is he wrong too?

"More importantly, during this campaign Governor Dean has clearly stated for the record that he supports affirmative action based on race, gender and class - which is what the law requires." ~Jesse Jackson Jr.

I addressed your misinformation directly.

[sangh0]

149. Yes, you are dodging and distracting

1) Jackson's statement doesn't show that Clinton supported using class.

2) Class is not a criteria, income is.

3) The law does not require the use of class. The law does not require anything. AA is a voluntary program.

[sangh0]

153. Still can't find that Clinton quote

can you?

[mzmolly]

155. I've provided many quotes that Clinton wanted to expand AA

to include 'class' as defined by most Americans.

[sangh0]

156. You're lying

Not one of those quotes has Clinton saying he wanted to include class.

[mzmolly]

158. Your lying, Clinton did say he wanted to include class...

[mzmolly]

154. You are funnier by the minute.

:freak:

1. I supported my argument that Clinton wanted to include class on several occasions in this thread.

2. AA is both law and voluntary.

3. You are evading the issues.

[sangh0]

159. Still can't find the Clinton quote, huh?

1) Still no Clinton quote showing Clinton wanted to include class
2) You said class was required. Now you're saying it's not without admitting your mistake
3) You still haven't provided a Clinton quote showing Clinton wanted to include class

[mzmolly]

163. Still can't find post 84 huh?

"In an act that reflected panic as much as cool reflection, Bill Clinton said recently that he is reviewing all federal affirmative action programs to see "whether there is some other way we can reach objective without giving a preference by race or gender." *END QUOTE*

As the country's mood swings violently against affirmative action, and as Republicans gear up to use the issue to bludgeon the Democratic coalition yet again in 1996, the whole project of legislating racial equality seems suddenly in doubt. The Democrats, terrified of the issue, are now hoping it will just go away. It won't. But at every political impasse, there is a political opportunity. Bill Clinton now has a chance, as no other Democrat has had since 1968, to turn a glaring liability for his party into an advantage--without betraying basic Democratic principles."

There is, as Clinton said, a way "we can work this out." But it isn't the "Bakke straddle," which says yes to affirmative action (race as a factor) but no to quotas. It isn't William Julius Wilson's call to "emphasize" race-neutral social programs, while downplaying affirmative action. The days of downplaying are gone; we can count on the Republicans for that. The way out--an idea Clinton hinted at--is to introduce the principle of race neutrality and the goal of aiding the disadvantaged into affirmative action preference programs themselves: to base preferences, in education, entry-level employment and public contracting, on class, not race.

The article closes here...

"But the opportunity to save affirmative action of any kind may soon pass. If the Supreme Court continues to narrow the instances in which racial preferences are justified, if California voters put an end to affirmative action in their state and if Congress begins to roll back racial preferences in legislation which President Clinton finds hard to veto--or President Phil Gramm signs with gusto--conservatives will have less and less reason to bargain. Now is the time to call their bluff."

WE have to take the actions of Dean in the climate in which the statements were made. We have to take the actions of Clinton in the same context.

Dean called their bluff in a time where AA was in danger of being eliminated. Clinton did the same however, with much more grace.

Read on here:

http://ask.elibrary.com/getdoc.asp?pubname=&puburl=&querydocid=28546660@urn:bigchalk:US;

[AP]

78. By the way, yes, that case did not address class...it was setting limits

on what the gov't could do to address race.

If class is part of the equation now (which I totally dispute) then how did it get in there?

Look at the programs Clinton uses as examples of AA working and tell me how anything about those programs has changed to incorporate race.

[AP]

80. Where's my answer?

??

[mzmolly]

60. It's about not abandoning AA period. What needed mending AP?

AA was about race/gender issues all along. If your correct, then why did Clinton say we need to 'mend it, not END it."

Again, I ask, what needed mending?

[AP]

66. Adarand forced the government to change the way the gov't addressed

race and gender discrimination.

Had Dean or any other Republican been president in 1995, they would have used Adarand to justify completely removing race as a consideration and would have converted all these programs to class-based formulas, and then they would have gradually defunded them, which would have given rise to no constitutional questions since poverty isn't a protected category under the constitution.

Clinton was saying that we should NOT toss race and gender as criteria (as Republicans would have had it). He said, let's continue that battle, but within the guidelines of Adarand.

[mzmolly]

68. Dean or any 'other' Republican...

Dean would have done NO such thing.

You refused to answer my questions again???

[AP]

70. That was a joke.

Actually, I think Dean is a closet libertarian (or at least he was until 2002 when he decided that he had a better chance of getting the Dem nomination rather than the Libertarian nomination).

[mzmolly]

75. OMG that's right, your the 'Deans a libertarian' poster...

LOL... That explains a few things ;)

[AP]

76. Yeah, another example of Dean taking the libertarian position...

...it's really funny.

Laugh it up.

By the way, Dean's the person who said the CATO inst should like him. Again, the Deanies are ridiculing people who are just taking Dean for his word.

[mzmolly]

86. Still laughing...

ROTFLMAO. Dean a libertarian BWAH HA HA HA HA... Funny stuff. :)

What will you do if Edwards becomes Dean's VP?

[AP]

93. The following Dean quote is nothing to laugh about:

"You folks at Cato," he told us, "should really like my views because I'm economically conservative and socially laissez-faire." Then he continued: "Believe me, I'm no big-government liberal. I believe in balanced budgets, markets, and deregulation. Look at my record in Vermont." He was scathing in his indictment of the "hyper-enthusiasm for taxes" among Democrats in Washington.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/073ylkiz.asp

That's frightening.

Also, Dean should pick Edwards if Dean's nominated, but he probably wont because Edwards would make him look bad. You need to select a VP who affirms your core beliefs, rather than contradict them. Picking Edwards would be an admission that biography is important, that progressive taxation is crucial, among other things.

[mzmolly]

95. OMG, not this again. Off topic sorry...

I've seen your work before, but it's bait in an effort to save face. So, I won't reply.

Your a very intelligent person, I hope you cast your vote for Dean in November because it looks like he's gonna get the nomination.

[AP]

99. Bait? It's part of the puzzle of who Dean is.

Being against affirmative action (as Dean seemed to be in the '95 quote) is, well, a libertarian notion.

[AP]

71. You refuse to confront reality.

Adarand forced the need for mending. Also, Clinton gives examples of mistakes AA has made -- I'm not going to cut an paste them again -- there's one above that ends with the statement "but that isn't legal/that isn't AA".

If I remember, the examples were, eg, where employers think they have to fill a quota so they (cynically) hired unqualified minporities/women. That's the kind of stuff needing mending.

He definitely isn't saying that you have to "expand" AA to include considerations of class. In fact, he's quite explicit in (1) affriming that AA is about race and gender, and (2) deriding republicans who want to pretend they're helping people based on class, but routinely are cutting those programs (like Pell Grants, and Medicaire/Medicaid, etc.) left and right.

[AP]

83. mzmolly, the courtesy of a reply is requested, especially since you

taunted me over this while ignoring my previous answers.

[mzmolly]

88. Reply below. I was busy with life momentarilly. Sorry for the delay

;)

[mzmolly]

84. Tis you that refuses to confront reality....Proof below...

04-03-1995

In an act that reflected panic as much as cool reflection, Bill Clinton said recently that he is reviewing all federal affirmative action programs to see "whether there is some other way we can reach objective without giving a preference by race or gender." As the country's mood swings violently against affirmative action, and as Republicans gear up to use the issue to bludgeon the Democratic coalition yet again in 1996, the whole project of legislating racial equality seems suddenly in doubt. The Democrats, terrified of the issue, are now hoping it will just go away. It won't. But at every political impasse, there is a political opportunity. Bill Clinton now has a chance, as no other Democrat has had since 1968, to turn a glaring liability for his party into an advantage--without betraying basic Democratic principles.

There is, as Clinton said, a way "we can work this out." But it isn't the "Bakke straddle," which says yes to affirmative action (race as a factor) but no to quotas. It isn't William Julius Wilson's call to "emphasize" race-neutral social programs, while downplaying affirmative action. The days of downplaying are gone; we can count on the Republicans for that. The way out--an idea Clinton hinted at--is to introduce the principle of race neutrality and the goal of aiding the disadvantaged into affirmative action preference programs themselves: to base preferences, in education, entry-level employment and public contracting, on class, not race.

The article closes here...

"But the opportunity to save affirmative action of any kind may soon pass. If the Supreme Court continues to narrow the instances in which racial preferences are justified, if California voters put an end to affirmative action in their state and if Congress begins to roll back racial preferences in legislation which President Clinton finds hard to veto--or President Phil Gramm signs with gusto--conservatives will have less and less reason to bargain. Now is the time to call their bluff."

WE have to take the actions of Dean in the climate in which the statements were made. We have to take the actions of Clinton in the same context.

Dean called their bluff in a time where AA was in danger of being eliminated. Clinton did the same however, with much more grace.

I do not agree with limiting AA to class or race or gender. I think we ought to address all of the limitations that permeate our society. EVERY child deserves an equal start.

Read on here:

http://ask.elibrary.com/getdoc.asp?pubname=&puburl=&querydocid=28546660@urn:bigchalk:US;

[AP]

87. No shit. They were worried about Adarand. That was March.

They were trying to figure out what the hell they were going to do.

And the other speech is what they decided to do after they read Adarand. They decided they could still do race/gender AA.

Why are you so obtuse about this?

Oh, I know. Because having to defend Dean's dumb comments forces that.

[mzmolly]

89. OMG, your too funny. Do you think Dean was 'worried about Adarand'

right along with Clinton?

Your proven wrong AP.

But, I know you and I have the same agenda/goals in the end.

Were both liberals/democrats and care about the poor and disadvantaged.

So, with that I say ...

~PEACE

[AP]

97. Show me the evidence.

Before Adarand, Clinton was panicking over how to do what he wanted to do (address racism/sexism). Remember, this is about the time FL, TX and CA were told they had to stop using race as a criteria, and everyone was looking for another measure.

Dean didn't sound panicked when he said he thought it was right to shift to class. He seemed pretty calm about it in the quote I read.

[mzmolly]

98. You wouldn't know evidence if it bit you in the @!#$

This thread is proof.

Buh Bye! :hi:

[AP]

100. Uh, yeah. That's why I had such a hard time reading this Clinton speech

you offered as evidence of Dean and Clinton being on the same side and then walking you through how it wasn't.

I have a hard time with the primary sources.

[mzmolly]

102. You read it, but did not absorb it's content.

And, if I were you I'd quit kickin this thread, it's sure to embarrass. ;)

[AP]

105. I'm sure you can sense that I'm SUPERCONFIDENT that I'm right about this

issue, which is why you don't want me to kick it, right?

I'm just stunned that you're willing to make such contortions to spin for Dean.

I think the casual reader isn't going to have any problem working through this thread and will be able to figure out who has the better argument. I'm not worried about kicking it.

But I'm curious to see how far you're willing to take it. Aren't you worried about your credibility? Are you going to have to change your log-in name after this and start fro scratch?

[mzmolly]

107. Edited snide remark...Dang!

BTW, I changed my log in name once already from Gully. Remember me?

How far "I" will take it? LOL

[AP]

110. Did Gully lose credibility too?

[mzmolly]

112. Not at all...neither did mzmolly

Gully is a name I use on other occasions and I was called 'he' often, thus the new 'gender specific' user name.

[sangha]

128. I dont blame AP for his confidence

mm has tried to claim that wanted to use class, but she still hasn't come up with any support for that. Her "refutation" of Dean's quote in support of the Cato Institute, a well-known right-wing organization, was the ubiquitous sneer. It's no wonder she cant defend her comparison of Dean to the US's only black president's position, which never used class.

And Adarand didn't force any reform of AA. Adarand didn't change any of the legal principles that support AA. In fact, Adarand reaffirmed them, which is what Clinton was speaking about in one of the excerpts that was posted.

[mzmolly]

136. Apparently you have not read the thread...

In addition, you may be interested in this recent quote from Jesse Jackson Jr.

"More importantly, during this campaign Governor Dean has clearly stated for the record that he supports affirmative action based on race, gender and class - which is what the law requires." ~Jesse Jackson Jr."

Are you saying Jesse Jackson Jr. is wrong? If he is, then I'm in good company...

Here are some definitions for future reference:

class·ism noun
discrimination because of class: discrimination or prejudice based on social or economic class

ec·o·nom·ic ( P ) Pronunciation Key (k-nmk, k-)
adj.

Of or relating to the production, development, and management of material wealth, as of a country, household, or business enterprise.

A late note regarding AP's spewing of the Cato crap. I've thanked him/her before for showing that Dean has mass appeal. I've also started a thread under my former user name "Gully" on why Dean is NOT a libertarian. Look it up if you want my 'refutation'.

I realize AP wanted to change the subject, which is a common tactic when your losing a battle.

[sangh0]

139. Apparently, you are unable to remain relevant

Jesse Jackson is indeed wrong. His claim that the law REQUIRES a consideration of class is false. The law does not require that. It does ALLOW it, but it does not REQUIRE it. AA is completely voluntary. No one is REQUIRED to have an AA pgm.

WRT class - Your definition makes it clear that "class" is not "income". Class is about "wealth" which is NOT "income". AA does allow the use of income as a factor.

And the one changing the subject is you. You've tried to hide you failure to quote Clinton approving the use of class instead of race by repeating quotes made by Jackson eight years later.

[mzmolly]

146. I NEVER said use "Class" instead of race...

In addition, you better write Jesse Jackson, I'm sure he'd be interested in knowing he's wrong.

Does the law only 'allow' race as a factor, or does it require it?

Why don't you do us a favor and post the law you say doesn't exist because it's voluntary.

[sangh0]

150. Yawn

DEAN (not you) said "not race, but class". DEAN (not you) wanted to eliminate the use of race as a criteria

Jackson is wrong, and I doubt he has any interest in knowing that. You seem to think what Jackson says must be true because Jackson said it.

The law does not require the use of race as a factor. The law does not require that anything be used. AA is a voluntary program.

Why don't you do us a favor and post the law you say doesn't exist because it's voluntary.

Ummm, you want me to post a law that doesn't exist?

Why don't you post the law that you say does exist?

[mzmolly]

148. Wrong again sang0 - AA is both law and voluntary depending...

"What is affirmative action?

Affirmative action means taking positive steps to recruit, hire, train, and promote individuals from groups that have traditionally been discriminated against on the basis of race, sex, disability, or other characteristics. In this sense, affirmative action goes beyond equal employment opportunity, which requires employers to eliminate discriminatory conditions, whether inadvertent or intentional, and to treat all employees equally in the workplace.

Affirmative action requirements can be imposed on an employer in a number of ways: by federal law, for federal government contractors and subcontractors; as part of a conciliation agreement with a state or federal agency; or by court order. In addition, some employers voluntarily adopt affirmative action plans in an effort to create a more balanced workforce."

Clinton was dealing with the AA 'laws' that oversee issuing Government contracts.

http://www2.hrnext.com/Article.cfm/Nav/1.41.105.0.6829.6829

[sangh0]

151. Irrelevant. You're twisting and distracting again

Nothing in your post refutes my claim that

1) Clinton did not support the use of class as a factor
2) AA is a voluntary program. No one is required to have an AA plan, and no AA plan requires the use of any particular factor
3) In 1995, Dean wanted to eliminate the use of race as a factor in AA

[AP]

161. Significantly, once you have a gov't plan, it's application is subject...

...to the constitution.

The constitution protects people based on race and gender, but not based on class.

One reason the Republicans and libertarians want to get away from race and gender is because they know that class-based plans can be defunded and fucked up at will without having to worry about pesky constitutional lawyers getting involved in telling them how to enforce the law.

[AP]

141. Dean, mid-90s: "I'm socially laissez-faire" Dean, 95: will drop race...

...focus on class.

It's not changing the subject. It's trying to put the pieces of Dean's political philosophy together to try to figure out who the hell he is.

As for the Jackson quote, just because he says it, doesn't make it the law.

[mzmolly]

147. Oh no, I have much more faith in your and sango's interpretation of the

laws of this nation. :eyes:

I've explained the context in which Dean considered class as an option to expand AA.

[sangh0]

152. Dean wanted to restrict AA by eliminating race as a factor

as his 1995 quote shows clearly

[mzmolly]

157. Dean wanted to expand AA which the 1995 quote shows clearly

when taken in context.

[sangh0]

160. You still can't find that quote

You still haven't posted a quote from Clinton saying he supports the use of class. You can only falsely claim that there's missing context, but for some unexplained reason, you seem unwilling to post the context.

[mzmolly]

164. You seem unwilling to read the thread. Again, see post #84.

:hi:

[AP]

165. You're citing a TNR reporter's interpretation without giving us enough

information to prove that his opinion isn't spin.

What are Clinton's actual quotes? Lay them out. If you think "we can work this out" is enough, say so. But I don't think it's enough.

And even if Clinton did say it, how does that make Dean or Clinton right?

I don't think you can take race and gender out of the equation for addressing race and gender discrimination. I think there are lots of VPs who are being shut out from the CEO office because of race and gender.

I'm pretty sure Clinton agrees with that idea too?

[mzmolly]

166. I don't think you should take race/gender out of the equation either.

In addition, the TNR report had quotes from Clinton.

Clinton never wanted to eliminate race, but he wanted to include class. Dean wanted the same thing. Again, the constitutionality of the issue was in question or the matter would not have 'come up.'

[AP]

178. TNR quotes don't say what you're claiming they say.

You're confusing TNR editorializing with Clinton quotes. In bold are the only remotely responsive quotes from Clinton. By the way, who wrote this article? That might tell us a lot about why the article seems to editorialize in favor of libertarians and Republicans and predict an outcome which Clinton's July, post-Adarand speech directly contradicts.

In an act that reflected panic as much as cool reflection, Bill Clinton said recently that he is reviewing all federal affirmative action programs to see "whether there is some other way we can reach objective without giving a preference by race or gender." As the country's mood swings violently against affirmative action, and as Republicans gear up to use the issue to bludgeon the Democratic coalition yet again in 1996, the whole project of legislating racial equality seems suddenly in doubt. The Democrats, terrified of the issue, are now hoping it will just go away. It won't. But at every political impasse, there is a political opportunity. Bill Clinton now has a chance, as no other Democrat has had since 1968, to turn a glaring liability for his party into an advantage--without betraying basic Democratic principles.

What does that say? Not what you think it says. It says Clinton was trying to come up with proxies for race in case Adarand shut the door to race and gender being used as critieria in AA. It doesn't say he wants to. It doesn't say he was looking forward to doing this. It doesn't say he thought the law should do this.

There is, as Clinton said, a way "we can work this out." But it isn't the "Bakke straddle," which says yes to affirmative action (race as a factor) but no to quotas. It isn't William Julius Wilson's call to "emphasize" race-neutral social programs, while downplaying affirmative action. The days of downplaying are gone; we can count on the Republicans for that. The way out--an idea Clinton hinted at--is to introduce the principle of race neutrality and the goal of aiding the disadvantaged into affirmative action preference programs themselves: to base preferences, in education, entry-level employment and public contracting, on class, not race.

The Clinton quote is so free from context, it's hard to draw any conclusion about Clinton's intentions. And don't confuse the WJW (a black man who wrote a few books conservatives loved) quote with something Clinton thought or said. And if Clinton "hinted" at something, why can't they give us a direct quote of how Clinton delivered that hint, so we can decide of Clinton was endorsing or fearing, or if the author was just engagin in wishful thinking because it hepled the editorial slant of this article.

"But the opportunity to save affirmative action of any kind may soon pass. If the Supreme Court continues to narrow the instances in which racial preferences are justified, if California voters put an end to affirmative action in their state and if Congress begins to roll back racial preferences in legislation which President Clinton finds hard to veto--or President Phil Gramm signs with gusto--conservatives will have less and less reason to bargain. Now is the time to call their bluff."

This paragraph betrays the editorial bias of the article and says nothing about Clinton's feelings.

And this is all a big dodge to avoid discussing Dean's really atrocious comments about race. Even if the Clinton administration did feel some way (which you allege, but can't prove), it would make the Clinton administration wrong. It wouldn't make Dean right.

And you already gave us the article -- the Clinton speech from July 1995 -- which very eloquently showed why Dean was so wrong when he said in 1995 that AA should stop considering race.

And you know what, you never ever address my argument that AA matters for the men and women at VP level who want to be CEO, and you never ever comment on the fact that class/income of government contractors (who are about the only people who get any AA from fed gov't) is barely relevant. And you don't try to explain how class considerations make sense in the contect of gender and race discrimination in the army.

[mzmolly]

179. Well, WTF do these quotes mean to you?

"whether there is some other way we can reach objective without giving a preference by race or gender." Bill Clinton

"You know, I think we ought to look at affirmative action programs based not on race, but on class and opportunities to participate."

These comments sound remarkably similar to me. Both are taken out of context, and with both one should have more information before drawing a conclusion.

The July speech said in essence the same thing. You refuse to admit that. I realize Clinton was a smooth operator and would not use inflamatory/divisive language to make his case. You apparently don't realize that.

Now...

You say race/gender are all that should be considered did you not? How do you reconcile that with what Clinton said above? What other options did Clinton have, what might he have been referring to?

And this...

"There is, as Clinton said, a way "we can work this out." But it isn't the "Bakke straddle," which says yes to affirmative action (race as a factor) but no to quotas. It isn't William Julius Wilson's call to "emphasize" race-neutral social programs, while downplaying affirmative action. The days of downplaying are gone; we can count on the Republicans for that. The way out--an idea Clinton hinted at--is to introduce the principle of race neutrality and the goal of aiding the disadvantaged into affirmative action preference programs themselves: to base preferences, in education, entry-level employment and public contracting, on class, not race."

You say this author is wrong, the author of a major book on the subject is wrong, and other authors of various articles are wrong?! If so find me proof. Wouldn't Clinton have said "I never considered such a thing?" There are many articles criticizing Clinton for his position which I didn't post, because they were scathing. You can do a bit of research, and I'm sure you'll find them.

In addition, you refuse to draw a conclusion from a Clinton quote (you say is taken out of context) but take a 2 second sound bite from Dean to smear him?! Wheres the plea for 'context' in the Dean case? At the very least, you should afford Dean the same consideration as Clinton.

You, gave me nothing but long winded conjecture equivalent to plugging your ears and yelling "nah nah nah nah nah."

Now prove to me Clinton NEVER considered class based AA in addition to race/gender based AA.

[AP]

184. Nothing in this post counters my criticism. & who wrote TNR article?

Why do you keep dodging that quesiton?

Also, I'll repeat: Dean endorses notion. Clinton explains one of dozens of things government is researching, without endorsing it. Clinton's july speach shows that he DIDN'T endorse that notion. Even if Clinton did, it doesn't make Dean right. It would make them both wrong. The other quote in bold from that artile is highly speculative interpretation, unsupported by any quote, but doing what you have done throughtout this entire thread: it's trying to give the imprimatur of a Clinton endorsement of an extremely right-wing/libertarian theory, but without any proof that Clinton endorsed the theory.

And those are the facts.

[mzmolly]

185. I provided several articles of proof, and you've provided NONE.

You keep missing the point that the TNR article is only one piece of the evidence I put together for you.

You cant find me one shred of information that Clinton did not support adding class to the equation. The evidence I showed you (which consisted of more then the TNR piece) you don't want to believe. *so be it* :shrug:

I'm not going to point out to you again, what has been pointed out before.

You did not answer my question about what Clinton meant by the statement(s) he made. I don't expect you will do that any time soon.

At least you said, Clinton is wrong if he wanted to add class to the AA equation. I can't believe a liberal wouldn't want to help all disadvantaged people but, that appears to be the case.

I would never suggest that class take the place of race/gender but I do support the fact that it is now a consideration.

In addition, you may be interested in knowing that Clinton's advisor on this very subject formally endorsed Howard Dean for President. This is the advisor that came up with "Mend it don't end it" philosophy and has written books on the subject of Affirmative Action.

"Christopher Edley, Jr. Senior Advisor to Dean Campaign, Law Professor, Co-Director of Harvard Civil Rights Project and Howard Dean supporter.

http://www.blacksfordean.com/endorsements.htm

Id say Jesse Jackson Jr. and Christopher Edley, in addition to many other people have made a great choice in Howard Dean.

[AP]

186. Who wrote the TNR piece? Why won't you tell us?

I am READING the stuff you post. If it doesn't say what you claim it to say, I don't need to go much farther, do I?

If I were looking for original sources, I would list the same things you're listing. I'd just do an honest reading of them, which you aren't.

I've also discussed Deans stump speech (Bryant Park is the best example), and his conference call. I've talked about his statement about AA. I'm relying on a reading of original material.

Mzmolly, you are so incredibly disingenous in your argument.

You say:

"At least you said, Clinton is wrong if he wanted to add class to the AA equation. I can't believe a liberal wouldn't want to help all disadvantaged people but, that appears to be the case."

Yet you know that debate here has never been that we couldn't do both. We already help people based on class. To talk about switching race and gender-based programs to class based programs would mean that we no longer help people based on race and gender.

[mzmolly]

187. I would never endorse 'switching' race gender programs to class based

programs. If you 'read' my posts you'd see that.

As to who wrote the TNR article who gives a rip? You have found no information to discredit it.

However, regarding your statement ... "We already help people based on class" ... HUH !?!?!?

We dont do nearly enough to help people in poverty in regardless of race/gender. Especially under Republican leadership. This issue is the main reason I am a Democrat. Democrats want to see all children have an equal start. Republicans dont give a rip.

Your position leads me to believe that you've never experienced poverty? I have, and I know what so called help is available. Also, AA is not nearly enough to address the issues of inequity in our country. I hope to see much much more.

Out for today.

:hi:

[AP]

188. Who wrote it? It matters becaue it editorialiizes...

...it claims Clinton felt a certain way, but doesn't support the argument with quotes.

Obviously there's a political advantage to misrepresenting Clinton administration positioni on this at that point in time. (However, July speech should have put that spin to rest.) You're proving the value of the spin today. But you have to ignore history after article was written to make the spin...

[AP]

190. Did FRED BARNES write that article? TNR published this one by him in...

...July after Aderand...

http://islandia.law.yale.edu/amar/oped/1995School.pdf

[mzmolly]

192. Nope, I think it was Richard K??? He wrote a book called "The Remedy"

:shrug:

I'll get the exact name later. Ok I believe it was Richard Kahlenberg? He later criticized Clinton for not replacing race with class.

Hey I stumbled across this, Had to share it with you AP. I'll consider the source as I do when I hear the same rhetoric about Dean ;)

http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a584610.htm

[mzmolly]

193. AP can we toss it up to perspective? I and others share the same view

of what Clinton was saying. You disagree. Fine.

[AP]

195. No. We can make an argument and support it be referring to the text.

[mzmolly]

197. Which is what I did.

And I provided 4 other sources of this information. People who had the same conclusions as myself.

You have provided 0 = Zero

[AP]

198. You're regurgitating TNR's conservative opinion which isn't even

supported by facts. I'm giving you my opinion informed by about 5 direct quotes from Dean, and pretty solid speculation that Dean's the kind of libertarian (based on Dean's own quote from CATO inst. speach). Psst. The anti-AA people at TNR whom you're citing are libertarians.

[mzmolly]

200. I supported my opinion based on quotes..

and facts. In addition as I've pointed out, TNR is ONE source of 4 that I have provided. Also, TNR has written many pro affirmative action articles so your spin against them is unfounded.

I refuse to make my case for the 50th time here. Your mind is slammed shut.

[AP]

201. If you want to debate TNR's editorial stance on AA, I

invite you to do so here.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=637374

Care to cite some of those pro-AA articles in the TNR?

I think it's very revealing that you went straight to the neocon-libertarian TNR to help you out.

The Clinton speech doesn't support your argument that good liberals wanted to remove race from AA. Neither does the TNR article. What were your other two primary sources?

[mzmolly]

194. The July speech is where my theory originated that Clinton supported

a class component to AA.

I went on to find several others that said Clinton did as well. You don't believe it. :shrug: whateva!

[AP]

199. If you think that's supporting your argument, I understand why you like...

...Dean so much.

[mzmolly]

203. If you think 'nothing' is supporting your argument, I understand

why you like Edwards so much.

[AP]

204. Deanies hate it when you listen to what Dean actually says.

It's weird.

[AP]

205. Why won't you tell me who wrote the TNR article?

Your link only gives the first half-paragraph of the aritle and I'm not giving TNR my details/credit card number just to find out who wrote it.

Why won't you just tell me?

[AP]

202. The Clinton article says the opposite of what you claim it says.

The TNR is neocon/libertarian spin, and doesn't even cite Clinton quotes in support of its spin.

What were the other two primary sources?

[mzmolly]

206. Did you even read the article? Obviously not....

:eyes:

There are quotes. Though, Clinton doesn't use the words 'class based' he used language that makes it obvious (to most) that is what he is referring to.

For example colleges use 'class' ie income as a pre-determination for entrance. That is one form of Affirmative Action.

As I said I believe the author was "RICHARD KAHLENBERG" - who later criticized Clinton for supporting AA in the classic sense.

BTW, I signed up for a temp membership with TNR and cancelled so I wouldn't be charged.

However, that is one source of information.

[AP]

207. Kahlenberg is an ideologue with an agenda.

Is that the kind of guy Dean's siding with in this debate? Yuck.

We have programs that consider race. We have programs that conisder gender. We have programs that consider wealth. If the ones that consider race and gender consider class, instead of race, you don't have any more race and gender AA.

Why don't you ever address the fact that VPs who can't get to the CEO level aren't helped at all by class-based AA. Minority/women-owned businesses aren't helped by class-based AA. The army is populated largely by people from working and lower class. If you throw out race and gender, what's left?

[mzmolly]

209. No Dean isn't siding with him...

You keep saying 'class instead of race. How many times do I have to say that is NOT what I want to see. One doesnt have to replace race with class to expand opportunity. One can say we'd like to encourage all of these things class/race/gender etc... (as schools do currently). Why dont you suggest we eliminate gender if having more then one issue is contrary to progress?

You asked ~ "Why don't you ever address the fact that VPs who can't get to the CEO level aren't helped at all by class-based AA. Minority/women-owned businesses aren't helped by class-based AA. The army is populated largely by people from working and lower class. If you throw out race and gender, what's left?"

Because I did not suggest we eliminate race/gender. I wont defend what I dont agree with.

In addition, I dont believe Dean did either.

Peace out

[AP]

90. This is why we have Pell grants, and all those programs based on poverty:

I do not agree with limiting AA to class or race or gender. I think we ought to address all of the limitations that permeate our society. EVERY child deserves an equal start.

Why do you and Dean want to limit AA's ability to address race/gender discrimination? Clinton didn't want to. He only considered it out of a sense of 'panic' in anticipation of a bad outcome with Adarand. After Adarand he realized he could still do it.

This was the debate. Dean was on the wrong side. Sharpton is right to be angry about this. I'm right to be angry about this.

[mzmolly]

92. Perhaps Dean was panicked as well?

Or is panic limited to Clinton.

Dean did a very smart thing, he gave 'them' an offer they couldn't refuse. He 'called' their bluff.

One more reason I support Howard Dean for President.

Sharpton needs a refresher, you need ... well ... to admit you were wrong.

Your trying to change the subject and save face. S'alright, I've been wrong before.

But, I'd say were beating a dead horse, how's about a truce?

[AP]

94. Clinton was afraid of Adarand. Dean seemed to side with the people

who looked forward to it shifting the focus off of race and onto criteria that don't give rise to constitutional questions (i.e., poverty).

[mzmolly]

96. YOU WERE WRONG...WRONG...WRONG...WRONG...WRONG.

You said Clinton never considered 'class'. Anyone reading over this thread will know that.

Dean made the quote at the same time Clinton was considering class as a way to preserve what was in danger of being eliminated. Dean supported Clinton in this measure.

Cheerio, off to other more interesting things. :hi:

[AP]

101. CLINTON's post Adarand speech shows that he didn't care to replace

race/gender with class considerations.

Spinning for Dean must make you dizzy.

[mzmolly]

104. I showed you proof Clinton considered 'class' in regard to AA

You know it, and so does everyone who looks at this thread.

Now, safe face and leave before you advertise your folly's further. :P

Allow me to remind you of one of your many incorrect quotes:

"He definitely isn't saying that you have to "expand" AA to include considerations of class..."

[AP]

106. Pre-Adarand! If he didn't, they wouldn't have done ANYTHING AT ALL

It would have been like UC and U-Tex saying, aw, fuck it! Let's just use SAT scores.

They responsibly prepared for a post-Adarand America. It wasn't like they were looking forward to post-Adarand America.

And I highly doubt Reno filed an amicus brief in support of it. Should we look up her amicus brief and see what she wanted? She would see if Dean's VT AG filed one? Maybe they did. Maybe you can burn me here. I'm guessing he didn't.

[mzmolly]

108. AP, let it die. Dean and Clinton were both considering the climate at the

time. I suspect we both learned a thing or two.

WE will have to agree to disagree, MMMMMMMK? How bout it?

[AP]

109. Clinton, UCal, UTex, were looking for proxies for race to achieve same end

when the were forced by (or feared being forced by) Adarand to do so. Dean was saying on CNN in the middle of this debate that he AGREED that race and gender considerations should end and that class should replace them. This was at a time when Democrats were going around arguing that race still mattered. Clinton thought it mattered. Dean thought it didn't.

I'll agree to that.

When Dean was told that he sounded like Newt when he said this, did he dispute that?

[mzmolly]

113. You are unreal...

You lost the arguement so now your pointing to a 2 second sound bite aired on CNN 'taken out of context' to bolster your sorry case?

Clinton considered changing AA to a "class" based program (remember you said he never considered class?) Dean did the same. He supported Clinton. They both considered class in a climate of potentially losing AA period.

Again, what will you do if Edwards is Dean's VP you seem blind to any of his many excellent qualities.

[AP]

114. Clinton didn't go on CNN and chearlead for taking race/gender out of the

mix. Clinton only thought about it when they had to start planning for a bad outcome with Adarand. And he didn't pursue it at all when they saw the Adarand opinion, now did they?

You tell me what the policy change was after Adarand? What did Clinton do?

You know that's the truth. You can spin. But you can't avoid the truth.

You know, Dean could have said a dozen things which would have made me like him. But he said that he would take race and gender out of the mix.

Way uncool.

If Clinton was such a big fan of switching to class, then what happened in that July speech, eh?

[mzmolly]

115. Dean brought it up when Clinton brought it up AP.

You know the truth, but you spin AP.

But, I imagine you'll come around come election time when Dean gets the nomination and all...

Bye now! Watching a great video of Howard Dean here...and as I dont suspect we will ever agree, I'll leave you to your delusions.

Check it out it's the bio dated 10/27/2003

http://www.howarddean.tv/

Bye...

[AP]

118. I would prefer the challenge of a coherent argument to this lame attempt

of yours to spin.

If you think Clinton's talk on race is anything like Dean's rather lame approach to race, you're totally delusional.

The 2d article you cited it makes it clear that Clinton didn't WANT to abandon race as a consideration. The speech you cited makes it clear that he DIDN"T.

You've done a nice job of allowing me to present the historical context, and any casual reader here can probably see that Dean was working at cross-purposes with dems when he went on CNN to say that he would drop race and focus on class.

[mzmolly]

119. Buh bye now....

:hi:

[AP]

120. By the way, this is the New Republic editorializing. It's probable that...

...Clinton would have vetoed legislation he didn't like, rather than "call their bluff" as TNR suggested.

I think you're confusing Clinton's position on AA with TNR's hopes.

[mzmolly]

121. Riiiiight

LOL. I'll be back with more later, though I don't suspect you'll open that closed mind any.

[AP]

130. If Clinton agrees with Dean, it makes Clinton an idiot.

By the way.

Dean is wrong about this. No two ways about it. If you're argument is that Clinton also shared the opinon that Dean expressed on CNN would mean that Clinton was wrong too.

But, given the July speech, I'm just gonna have to say that the stark contrast probably suggests that Clinton DOESN"T agree with Dean.

[mzmolly]

123. TNR isn't the only source for this information.

Richard Kahlenberg wrote in The Remedy (New York: Basic Books, 1995), pp. 118-119. Among the others whom Kahlenberg cites as supporting a class-based affirmative action are Jack Kemp, George Pataki, Christine Todd Whitman, and Bill Clinton.

In addition, the talk of 'class based' affirmative action was brought about by an effort to save it.

[sangha]

129. You should read "It's not all black and white"

written by the man who came up with "Mend it, don't end it". ISTR his name is Christopher Edley, but if you're interested, PM me, and I'll verify the name.

According to the author, class-based AA was never considered. "Other methods" besides race, gender, etc were considered, but not class because they realized that doing that would rob the non-poor who have been discriminated of protection.

[mzmolly]

144. You should read this...

I've included some Christopher Edley quotes below. However, I wanted to clarify something.

I feel we have a basic misunderstanding here. When I speak about class based AA, it is NOT to the exclusion of race/gender based AA. It is in addition to.

At the time Clinton and Dean considered the matter of class, the Adarand case was pending. The issue of constitutionality was raised.

"...The Supreme Court's decision in Adarand Constructors, Inc.
v. Peña changed the standard of legal analysis required to determine
the constitutionality of affirmative action programs that apply to
race and ethnicity."

"The Supreme Court's 1995 decision involving Adarand drastically narrowed affirmative action by saying such aid must be narrowly tailored to meet a compelling government goal. At the time, it was assumed that very few affirmative action programs could meet that test."

"The Legal Status of Affirmative Action Recent Supreme Court decisions (especially Adarand v. Pena) will have the effect of significantly reducing the scope of acceptable federal government affirmative action programs. In that case, the Court applied to federal actions the standard already binding on states and localities: programs must serve a "compelling" interest and must be "narrowly tailored." An analysis by discrimination law expert Paul Gewirtz reaches the following conclusions:

1. Objectives such as enhancing "diversity" and "inclusion" or addressing general "societal discrimination" do not qualify as compelling.

*Get this!* So, now what?

2. A specific showing of particular discrimination, going beyond simple statistical disparities among racial and ethnic groups, must be made.

3. Even when a compelling interest is found, race-based methods may be used only after race-neutral methods are considered and found wanting, only to the extent needed to remedy the identified discrimination, only when the plaintiffs seeking a racial preference have themselves suffered from past discrimination, and only if undue burdens on non- beneficiaries (such as layoffs) are avoided."

If we had a Republican President at the time of the Adarand ruling, Affirmative Action would likely have been eliminated. We had a President and a Party that worked to preserve it.

So you see, the talk of class based AA was a response to possibly losing AA altogether. It was feared that AA may be eliminated due to the Adarand case. Howard Dean and Bill Clinton were thinking on their feet. How can we work around this ruling?

Again, no one wanted to eliminate race from consideration, Dean and Clinton sought to expand AA in order to preserve it.

Christopher Edley is also supportive of having a class element taken into consideration. *Again, not to the exclusion of race* However, Read what he said below. Note he and I are both speaking about 'class' in the 'classic' sense of the word.

"I think that moving to class based affirmative action and excluding, eliminating race based affirmative action would be a disaster. I'm in favor of class based affirmative action. Every selective university that I know of, for example, does it. They view that kind of diversity as important to their mission and helpful to the educational enterprise. So do I."

"The point is that race is an additional and separable factor in diversity..."~ Christopher Edley

EDLEY went on to say:

"Look, if I go to rent the apartment or apply for a loan class matters, race matters too. So measures that simply address the class issue are simply going to be incomplete. They are not going to deal effectively with the problem of discrimination. Now with regard to diversity, again class matters but race matters too ..."

"Now again, it's not all black and white. Context matters a lot and the nuances matter a lot. I think it is wrong to say that in all circumstances diversity is a compelling justification, just as it is wrong to say that diversity is never a compelling justification." ~ Christopher Edley

*In other words, we should consider several factors with regard to AA*


Refs:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/race/interviews/edley.html

http://www.puaf.umd.edu/IPPP/1QQ.HTM


CHILD IS AWAKE NOW SO I'M OUTTA HERE. I'LL CHECK BACK WITH YOU ALL TOMORROW

~Peace

[Solomon]

77. Solomon says:

Read my signature. :smoke:

[mzmolly]

91. Solomon is most wise....

;)

[Solomon]

116. Good Golly MzMolly! Thankyou.

You know affirmative action is just a teeny tiny wheeny drop in the bucket and people are HOWLING! It doesn't hurt white people at all. In fact, white people are some of the biggest beneficiaries of affirmative action. It elevated the white population economically overnight. White women made the biggest gain of any "minority" (they still have a ways to go, so flame me on something else) and now, whites are enjoying two professional income families with huge houses in gated communities, suv's, more than enough money to send their kids to private schools, thereby depleting the public schools, so on ad infinitum.

If a school ADDED three spaces for minorities, whites would argue that it hurts them.

[mzmolly]

117. Your right, Affirmative Action helps us all!

As a (part Native American) female albeit white looking ;) I'm a huge fan of Affirmative Action.

Did you know about Deans record in Vermont regarding Public Schools?

"Education. Like other leading states, Vermont adopted high standards testing which has resulted in significant improvement in school accountability. Unlike other leading states, however, Vermont has adopted a system of sharing educational dollars across the state, so schools in poor communities have the same financial backing as those in wealthy communities."

He also has a strong record on equality.

"Equality. Building on a commitment to equal rights for all Americans, Governor Dean has signed into law tougher penalties for hate crimes, as well as tighter restrictions against discrimination in the workplace, housing, public accommodations, and more. Vermont is the first state to legally recognize long-term committed unions between gay and lesbian couples."

http://www.fundforahealthyamerica.com/VermontRecord.asp

Some of the many reasons I support Howard Dean for President.

[diamond14]

142. Affirmative Action Victory...statement from U of Michigan President

From the outset, this has been a debate about the principles to which we are dedicated at this great University, not merely about our policies. These decisions are a wonderful victory for the University of Michigan, for all of higher education, and for the hundreds of groups and thousands of individuals who supported us.

We will make a dual promise to future generations of students and to our alumni, who are so proud of their Michigan heritage: First, our commitment to a diverse campus will continue. And second, every student admitted to our University will continue to be eminently well qualified.


http://www.umich.edu/pres/speeches/030623ruling.html


The University of Michigan, with its size, complexity, and academic strength, the breadth of its scholarly resources and the quality of its faculty and students, is one of America's great public universities and one of the world's premiere research institutions. The University is a community of outstanding faculty, talented students, and committed staff who learn and work in a stimulating intellectual environment enriched by diverse cultural and social opportunities.

http://www.umich.edu/news/umfacts.html

[janekat]

208. YAY! Another proud Univ of MIchigan Alumni here....

It's so cool that they are the standard bearer for this...

[diamond14]

143. Basic facts about the U of Michigan lawsuits (links to all documents)

The University's position was that the Constitution and civil rights statutes, as interpreted by the Supreme Court in the 1978 Bakke decision, permit it to take race and ethnicity into account in its admissions program in order to achieve the educational benefits of a diverse student body. A racially diverse student body produces significant educational benefits because of the current state of segregation and separation along racial lines in America. These benefits constitute a "compelling governmental interest" which justifies the consideration of race and ethnicity in the University's admissions system.

The intervenors defended the University's policy on the basis that it is needed to remedy past and/or present discrimination against minorities.

On June 23, 2003, the U.S. Supreme Court held in Grutter v. Bollinger et al. that diversity is a compelling interest in higher education, and that race is one of a number of factors that can be taken into account to achieve the educational benefits of a diverse student body.

http://www.umich.edu/~urel/admissions/faqs/facts.html


link to supporting research for the winning U of Michigan postition...approved by the U.S. Supreme Court...
http://www.umich.edu/~urel/admissions/research/

[jody]

196. Affirmative action is not needed for athletes nor other jobs. eom

[Isome]

210. Athletes?

When has there been Affirmative Action for athletes?

When did discrimination disappear from the workplace so that it isn't needed for "other jobs"?