Are you for Affirmative Action or not?

And it is a reasonable request, but I'd just like to add that he/she is speaking the truth. There was a study that showed that ethnic sounding names on resumes got passed over more often that anglo-sounding names. (On edit, I see it's already been posted by another poster)

Affirmative Action is necessary because the "normal" process works against minorities. It's not difficult to find examples on a daily basis of the cronyistic decisions that exclude them in the selection process. Here's an anecdote to illustrate the reality of white cronyism: Where I live, it matters if you go to a private school or a public school. Soccer teams sometimes develop based on private school connections. (Most of these private schools are composed of a white student body.) But the small school base doesn't always guarantee the best players on a team, so sometimes they have to begrudingly go out and get guest players who are not white to fill in the holes. My daughter was asked to play for such a team and we were shocked by what happened. We were playing against a team from the city which was more "diverse" and one of our players stormed off the field because one of the latin-looking players from the other team said something derogatory to her in Spanish. When asked what was said, she stated she only understood one word, "Tres." That was the number on her shirt and she assumed they were talking about her. When I hesitated to share in the verbal trashing of our opponents based on our player's ridiculous over-reaction; and when they realized they couldn't denigrate the ethnicity of the other team in front of me, my daughter got benched in the last game.

That's why minorities will never make it in a privatized world. In order to be accepted, they would have to build a sacrificial altar and kill one of their own before whites would trust them. There is far too much coercion involved in the promotional process in anything, be it the business or the sport world. The key is not to upset the white people's comfort zone. And, I have a good hunch that's the reason why our woman's soccer team is so damn anglo.

The WSJ reported a study a few months ago. Resumes were sent out to different companies. The resumes were identical except for the name, one of which was a "white sounding" name like John Smith, and one was a "black sounding" name like Tyrone Jackson.

The white name got 10x the responses as the black name, even though otherwise the resumes were exactly the same.

Why do you think that is? Do the anti-AA people have any solutions, or should black people just get used to it?

White people have benefitted from Affirmative Action for years now.

I would be interested in reading it

It's pay only. However, similar studies have been done over and over and over again, it's hardly a secret. Google and I'm sure you'll find something.

If you want to know, you can find out. I'm supposed to do research for you? If you don't want to believe me, don't. Perhaps it's fun to pretend that racism isn't a big deal anymore, and black people get a fair deal.

I ask you to back it up and you say "Should I do your homework too?". I thought this is what we did at DU, someone posted something without a link and a fellow DUer would ask for a link.

I told you why I couldn't, and then you came back with a smarmy response. It's a free country. Fortunately someone posted another link below. Have fun!

ask those kinds of questions:

"The other, however, suggests a black-sounding name remains an impediment to getting a job. After responding to 1,300 classified ads with dummy resumes, the authors found black-sounding names were **50 percent less likely** to get a callback than white-sounding names with comparable resumes"

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/09/29/national/main575685.shtml

There were a couple of other studies, too, but none of them were near 10x.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/09/29/national/main575685.shtml

Google "resume" "black sounding name".

is to level the playing field for persons of colour, and for ethnic minorities. Whether that takes the form of current Affirmative Action programs, or whether some new or different method is used to achieve this aim is of less importance to me than that some efforts be taken.

What I cannot sanction is the turning of a blind eye to how little real progress has been made in this matter over the past 50 years. There is a cruel bigotry in the hearts of a great many people and of late it's even become fashionable to express it. To think that dropping all legislation and letting folks 'sort it out for themselves' will be any improvement is dangerous naivete.

and came to the same results earlier this summer.

"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."

"content of their character"

WCTV....Please post a link to that research.Thanks

If you were sincere in quoting MLK, you would include his proposals for AA type programs. He proposed a $50billion program to help racial minorities.

What do you want me to do? post every thing MLK ever wrote? The man had many views on many different subjects. In my opinion his view of AA was different than what it has evolved into today.
My opinion...get it? just because it doesn't agree with your logic doesn't mean it's wrong, just different.

to justify your opinion, you ought to represent it accurately.

In my opinion his view of AA was different than what it has evolved into today.

True. MLK wanted a $50billion program devoted to helping racial minorities.

My opinion...get it? just because it doesn't agree with your logic doesn't mean it's wrong, just different.

Then state YOUR opinion, instead of mistating MLK's

.

I know about that study and don't dispute the findings.

My counter-point: Affirmative Action was designed to give Afrucan-American a leg up and put them on more equal footing with regards to education, jobs, etc. But when is true equality achieved? True equality, sadly,is antithetical to human behavior (which isn't all that different from the behavior of all hominids, if they could read, talk, and build stereos).

So, like the war on terror, I ask you, when is true equality achieved? When, then would we put an end to affirmative action? When has it served it's purpsoe.

Like the phony "War on Terror" the answer, known to all, is never.

I wouldn't ask black people to "just get used to it" but neither would I ask society to keep on with preferences until True Equality is achieved.

Neither would I ask the soldiers of Imperial Amerika to keep fighting until every "terrorist" is waving an Amerikan Flag and pledging allegiance to Emperor Bunnypants* and the Orwellian Oligarchy for which he stands.

In the end I have no direct answer to your question, except to say that you are following the exact same logic of Emperor Bunnypants* and his phony "War on Terror" even if he WAS trying to eradicate terrorism instead of trying to defraud and rip off the Imperial Subjects of Amerika.

AA is NOT "designed to give Afrucan-American a leg up and put them on more equal footing with regards to education, jobs, etc"

AA is designed to remedy and reduce the social and/or economic disadvantage caused by certain specific forms of discrimination. That's why the majority of AA's beneficiaries have been WHITE, which would be an odd result for a program "designed" to help blacks.

And your logic is the exact same loguc Emperor Bunnypants* uses when explaining his opposition to AA. I've known many blatant racists who have used the same argument to oppose AA.

black and white America.

It'll be achieved when we see more wealth spread among black communities and when we see a bigger black middle class.

"I wouldn't ask black people to 'just get used to it' but neither would I ask society to keep on with preferences until True Equality is achieved."

Really... let's go back to the old prefernces, otherwise recognized as normal. People don't realize that WASP male preference is the accepted convention so we have to make a conscious effort to correct it. Otherwise it reverts back to the old preference.

Yes, i know it's just not right that we uphold such things.

Do you really think we are in danger of giving minorities TOO MUCH of a break?

For God's sake, white men have been favored in this country since it began. From the huge land giveaway programs in the pioneer years to the 'good ole boy network' that thrived in the 1900s, white men have had HUGE advantages in every single area of life. 40-50 years of affirmative action isn't beginning to level the playing field.

I've sat on a few hiring committees, and during the initial "resume cull" we only get photocopies with the names and addresses blocked out. The applicants names aren't revealed until after we have selected our finalists and head into the interview phase.

Any employer that lists themselves as EOE should be using methods like this.

Negative Inaction, or as Bush likes to call it, Affirmative Access.

nm

on it in the eighties, we probably wouldn't be discussing it today, as it might not be necessary anymore. AA was supposed to be temporary. Those idiots have only prolonged it.

and will be until racism is wiped off the face of the earth.

For it, as the term is ordinarily used.

The affirmative action I'm against is affirmative action in favor of the rich and powerful in the form of legacy admissions to colleges, the "old boy" network, etc.

I think it's really a stop-gap. The problem
is that poor inner-city or rural schools are
not funded equally to rich or middle class
schools, largely because of the reliance of
most primary school systems on local property
taxes. Because African Americans disproportionately
poor, their economic segregation (i.e an inability
to afford high property values in good school neigborhoods)
leads to educational segregation.

What is needed is a massive increase in federal funding
for poor schools and enforcement of Title 2, which mandates
equality in school funding by the states. If this was done,
there would be much less need for Affirmative Action because
African-American test scores and grades would over time improve to a
level where they could compete with white students. Furthermore,
it would also improve the quality of college education African
Americans get. Because of their poor primary education, African
American college students tend to get lower grades and have
a higher chance of dropping out or failing out. If this were
reversed, there would be a much larger base of graduate degreed
African Americans.

Keep in mind, the economic side of this is true for poor whites
as well. I see no reason why we can't avoid political counter-attack
by opening this increase in funding to poor whites.

One last point: we should be positive in our outlook. The percentage of African Americans with college educations has doubled since 1960,
and correspondingly the percentage of middle class African Americans has as well. Things are by no means equal, but progress is being made.

AND spread more wealth among every other group of Americans that get their asses kicked by the RW.

When there's more minorities in college than prison, maybe I'll reconsider.

What no one's pointed out is that affirmative action is good for everyone. We all need to be exposed to all sort of different members of our society. Diversity is good for you!

Bum Phillips used to have assigned seating at meals for his Houston Oilers. He knew that if people were left alone, the players would sort themselves by race. The black people would do that as much as the white people would. He knew that everyone had to be on the same page if they were going to function as a team. And he put together a team that almost beat the Pittsburgh machine. (With a little help from Earl Campbell, of course.)

Give help to those that need it. There are plenty of minorities who don't need or want the help. Also, we could get a majority of Americans to agree with an AA position based on need, not skin color.

AA is meant to remedy and reduce the social and economic disadvantages that are caused by certain specific forms of discrimination. You don't have to be poor to suffer from discrimination.

The only reason some Americans fight affirmative action is because the right wing has done a stupendous job of convincing poor white males that the problem is women and minorities taking their jobs unfairly. How quickly do you think they would criticize a class based Affirmative Action as class warfare? Then there would be nothing and we'd all go back to the way things were in 1910. The right is attacking everything that gives any help to average working people, from unions to labor laws to affirmative action. I just don't understand why people can't see it's all part of the same package.

who was against Affirmative Action.

It shows a lack of understanding of the REALITY minorities have to deal with in the US.

I firmly believe that in modern America, we're are no longer racist as a society.
We are a classist society if anything.
And most all of us buy into it.
I feel that if somneone is bigoted, it is in their makeup, and you cannot legislate that out of them.
I also feel that companies are becming more and more desperate for quality personnel. Seeing as staff positions are being cut, they are looking for people who can do the most.
It's unfortunate that some people still think like this, but I really do not believe that racism is instututionalized anymore.

know that empowering black America is the equivalent of empowering liberalism, democracy, etc. I'm not saying this is the only way racism manifests itself, but I definitely think it's a big part of it.

I read a story about how Nissan has these advertisements which are subtley trying to get young blacks to indentify themselves in opposition to their parents' and grandparents' generation who heavily indentify with civil rights (and, therefore, liberal politics).

This isn't unconscious. It's a very conscious attempt to make black consumers less liberal. Nissan wants blacks to be rich enough to buy their cars, but not rich and liberal enough to vote for politicians who are going to upset the hegemony of the petrol-fueled auto industry in America.

resume' statement.
There are plenty of places in the country where a resume with the name "Austin" on it is going to get more consideration than one with "Tyrone".
I don't think you can force, or legislate that mindset out of someone.
I agree completely with the idea of equal opportunity for all. But, being as I'm almost 40, and was actually spanked in school, I suppose I have a different outlook.
What concerns me about the new outlook on AA as far as education goes is the new way of thinking that you aren't really dealing with equal opportunity as much as having a "diverse" classroom setting. That, to me, is social engineering, not equal opportunity.

AA in education is about giving everyone access to better paying jobs.

It's about money.

It works.

I agree with what you say actually.
But i believe that the race issue is being sold to us by BOTH sides of the political spectrum.
I personally feel that it is an outdated idea.
People are all striving for the same goals anymore.
I feel that politicians are selling us this division.
And the last bastions of bigotry in the workplace are something you are not going to change.

For a lark, tell me, if you will, how you feel about AA in education?
Do you believe that institutions of learning would actively keep minorities ou of school? Or is it based on testing scores? And if that is the case, should the issue not be more about the problems of the system BEFORE college?

...ination is really about class?

Would you focus only on class to solve any those problems? No.

Harvey Milk High School in NY for kids who get bashed over their sexuality--how does having that high school for gay students solve the problem of gender discrimination? Having wheelchair ramps in public buildings -- how does that solve the problem Native Americans or Mexican immigrants have?

These are all very different issues that overlap in some places (some more than others), but to say that you're going to replace class as your proxy for dealing with race discrimination makes as much sense as saying gender is going to be your proxy for dealing with disability discrimination.

I'll believe we are no longer a racist society, and that racism is no longer institutionalized the day it becomes unacceptable, and illegal, to have an offensive and racist mascots (such as your logo, KC Chiefs) for sports teams.

the u.s. was and is STILL a very racist country. this country was built on it.

i say we keep AA. the work is not done.

I have to ask what world do you live in? Racial discrimination is as American as apple pie.

I'm for AA as stated in a post below but with a caveat that it really be initiated at the elementary school level and provide parity to all children regardless of race, creed, or class. From there they will have an equal opportunity to advance and go to college based on their skill, intelligence, merit having been taught on an equal footing with everyone else. From their they can enter the work force with the same merits as described above.

I think getting to the root of the problem for all persons should be more helpful then trying to remedy the situation by the time a kid enters college or the work force.

...my two cents...and btw, I agree with the poster above. I will not vote for a President that is against AA. That shows how out of touch with reality they really are.

I think it should be done based on class, not race. This would be a colorblind way of helping people who needed it.

Scholarships for needy kids of all races. And a little proactive effort to make sure that our college classes look like the society at large.

society, and there's enough money at the top that we can spread more wealth down among both those communities, and, in turn, create even more wealth and happiness which will be avaiable to anyone willing to work hard, contribute to society, and earn that money.

I would love to see opportunity provided on a colorblind economic level.
A simple look at the ability to pay would be enough for me.

None at all.

It's obvious that true equality has not been achieved in this society, and AA levels the playing field.

yuppers.

It was in a Washington Post editorial from 1995. Sorry, I can't find a link. This is a paraphrase from memory.

Imagine a high school basketball game. Team A, the home team, playing Team B. Throughout the first half, the referees shamelessly favor Team A. Fouls by Team A against Team B are not called, or they are called against Team B. Other imaginary fouls are called against Team B. Team A players sense an advantage and become more aggressive. At the half, Team A is ahead 85-17, and three of Team B's players have already fouled out.

But parents from the visiting team have called league officials, who arrive during the halftime break. They stop the game and try to figure out the situation. There is no official videotape - several people in the stands have videotapes, but they didn't videotape the same things at the same time. There is enough to prove that the officiating was seriously biased, so the referees are fired and new, supposedly unbiased referees are brought in.

But what to do about the fouls and the score? If we keep playing with unbiased officiating but with no further changes, Team B has no chance, and it might be difficult to get many of the players to be willing to play at all. There is no consensus on exactly which fouls and scores were fair and which weren't. The Team A coach concedes that there was some bad officiating, but believes that his team earned most of their lead. The Team B coach naturally disagrees. Some of the Team A players don't even accept that there was anything wrong with the calls made in the first half, and some Team B players are angry enough to become violent, especially the ones who "fouled out."

So what to do? You can't simply call off the game. It has to be played. And there's no point in pretending that the score doesn't matter and the fouls don't matter, especially to Team B. The players on Team B have a right to a fair chance to win, and they can't get one if we just accept the status quo. But you can't just wish away the first half and start over from scratch (the equivalent would be redistributing all wealth equally per capita and letting all convicts out of prison). And you can't fix it bad call by bad call - nobody agrees on exactly which calls were bad and nobody agrees on exactly what would have happened if the bad call hadn't been made. But you have to do something, don't you?

..is presented. Simply doing nothing to overcome the disparaty created by the legacy of slavery and racism is unacceptable.

The US isn't close to being the Federation. Got a ways to go.

I will continue to be for A.A. until we achieve true equality.

let me add this caveat.

It would be more desireable to level the playing field at the elementary school level and give all children the equal chance to make it by the time they go to college or by the time they enter the work force.

My two cents...

Why do people fail to realize that institutionalized racism and sexism exists? Given the same income level, why are blacks denied loans at a higher rate than whites? The same is true of job offers, promotions, and salary increases.

It's neccessary.