Dean vs. Sharpton- Affrimative Action

I'm interested in this controversy that's come up with Dean's remarks in 1995 about basing affirmative action on income instead of race. Personally, I've always really liked this idea. The whole point of affirmative action is to give low-income blacks opportunities...why not just use income to determine it, then? And it would help out the poor white folks, too. What's the problem? It's win/win.
Anyway, I'm wondering what you folks think Dean should do. Should he defend his previous remark, or give into Al's pressure and shore up his left flank (of course it sounds like he's already done this- however, this just happened so I think he's got time)?
I think Dean should go with the low-income idea. He already has the base of the left, and the key to keeping it, at this point, is being consistent. He's given the left the most important things that they want, and now he needs to maintain their trust, keep showing them that he won't get pushed around. Further, it seems to me that as Dean is getting so much press now, it may be a good time for him to start appealing to the more centrist voters, and this is a very reasonable issue to appeal to them on.
By the way, I'm really not looking for another Dean bashing thread here. I'm looking for honest political analysis, not judgments and hate.

because, when directed at those on the economic short end, it addresses all minoritites and disenfranchised.

However, there's a point that one might make, and that is that afirmative action may need to be applied to other socio-economic levels as well. For example, if it were discovered that Wall Street firms had a pattern of discrimination in their hiring, is that something that should be addressed by afirmative action, even if it meant it was an effort directed at educated professionals. I wonder.

RNC talking point. The fact remains that AA takes into account not just race, but socio-economic (poor) background, ethnicity, and gender. The purpose is to foster a more diverse, representative populous, both in the academic space and commercial space.

From UM's undergraduate policy the following are considered:

- Cultural Awareness/Experiences
- Race and Ethnicity
- Socioeconomic and Educational Background
- Geographic Considerations
- Gender
...

http://www.admissions.umich.edu/process/review/categories/#attributes

is not the issue. Why do we need to take race into account if socioeconomic background is already considered?

You can't dump people of similar economic backgrounds into one hat, draw names, and state that it is representative. Race is very much a quotient when trying to achieve a critical mass of diversity. The social difference between poor rural, urban, white, and black people is tremenduos, and extremely valuable when trying to achieve diversity of thought.

Theres no reason to punish poor white people and not give them some help as well, simply because their white. Your ignore THEIR need to easy if you think AA should be only race based.

...criteria.

I thinnk problems that address poverty should use poverty as a criteria.

Not all race/gender policies are meant to work only for poor people.

That's pretty simple.

It's a legitimate argument. While I think the kind of racial discrimination that exists in college admissions is pretty benign, it's still discrimination. And I think it's fair to ask whether preferences should be awarded to all applicants who are racial minorities, regardless of their socioeconomic stauts. The fact that an admissions committee will consider other facts apart from race doesn't end the discussion, because there will inevitably be cases in which race proves to be a decisive factor.

AA itself does not take into account socioeconomic background.

Far as I can tell AA is a labor department animal that was applied to schools because of the civil rights act.

I cant find any referance to socioeconomic issues in the labor department standards enacted by Executive Order 11246

http://www.dol.gov/esa/regs/statutes/ofccp/eo11246.htm

Nor is there any referance to it in the civil rights act.

The thing you list is part of the AA plan that UM is required to submit.
UA included the socioeconmic into thier plan not because AA requires them to but because they feel it is important to add that as a qualifier in order to create true diversity and equal access for its student population.

They just hapen to agree with the original poster that socioeconomic conditions are important that is not a requirement of AA.

If you can show me different please do as I looked at this stuff for hours today and could find no link between the two.

I've always been assumed that it was a guidance law where race and gender could be used when weighting two applicants for a job or admission. I don't think socio-economics is part of the labor laws; it's covered under equal oppurtunity.

Sec 202:

(1) The contractor will not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. The contractor will take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, color, religion, sex or national origin...

I can't find any other AA material in the link you provided, mostly equal oppurtunity. The snippet above doesn't really tell me much. I can't find anything on racial preferences either.

If anyone is willing to sift through findlaw: http://lawcrawler.findlaw.com/scripts/lc.pl?entry=affirmative+action&sites=findlaw

From everything I've read and heard, I think he "gets it". Every politician ( and non-politician ;-) ) says things that upon more thought, they wish they hadn't....or they change their mind.

Sharpton has hurt feelings because he expected to have JJjr endorse him.

The problem is that AA was designed to address a specific issue. And that issue is the systematic oppression of people based on RACE.

We can have programs that are designed to help all poor people, and we should. But we can't confuse it with Affirmative Action. I refuse to subscribe to the notion that we can solve our race issues by masking them as class issues and addressing them that way. We NEED TO address our class issues, and we need to solve the problems that affects people of al lraces and religions. But we have one important historical fact to face. And that is for decades, people were refused job opportunities, educational opportunities, financial opportunities, and basically MOST human rights because of their race. And we can't just sweep it under the rug. That's why we have Affirmative Action.

ALL poor people should be given opportunities. Why should race play into this when it's really a human rights issue? It's not "sweeping" anything "under the rug" as long as the issue gets addressed.

then the race issue doesn't get addressed. That's why it is sweeping it under the rug.

AA isn't about giving poor people a break. It isn't about getting poor people out of poverty. AA is about trying to remedy centuries of oppression.

addressed if the problem is that too many black folks are poor. That's the problem, right? How is it not addressing the problem? Is there some other kind of problem that I'm missing?

Yes, african americans are disproportionately poor. But there is more to their being poor than their being poor, if that makes any sense. AA isn't designed to address their being poor as much as it is about breaking the cycle of poverty, which in the black community has a whole lot to do with decades of systematic denial of opportunity. THAT'S what AA seeks to address.

The UM admissions policy recognizes that there are lots of things keeping certain students from getting the same level of opportunity. And their admissions policy does a great job of factoring that in. But AA is only a part of their policy.

the time. (I'm white btw) A lot of people still do not like to hire blacks or to promote them at work. Used to see it all of the time when I was an HR Consultant.

I see white people have attitudes or give dirty looks - especially the older folks around here in Naples.

wow you arent an ex EQ player by any chance are you?

That used to ve a constant taunt on a server I used to play on there.

I never expected to see it here

...much as you possibly can. If you grew up in the ghetto, but would make a great trial attorney, it's about letting you achieve that. If you're a VP, but you'd make a great CEO, it's about letting you achieve that.

AA is about not holding anybody back due to irrational subsidies to whiteness or manhood.

It's not just about class. It's about spreading wealth to those willing to work to earn it regardless of class.

I feel every bit as strongly about fighting classism and about giving poor people opportunities as I fee about giving women and minorities chances, but I don't ask for a one size fits all solution to all these issues.

You don't use gender as a proxy to address religious discrimatioin. You don't use nationality as a proxy to address disability discrimination. You don't use sexuatlity as a proxy to address disability discrimation. I don't know why anyone would think that it makes sense to use class as a proxy to address race discrimination.

Are we talking about racism, or are we talking about fixing our socioeconomic inequalities?
You're confusing issues. We have laws against discrimination. That has nothing to do with this. This is about giving poor folks educational and financial opportunities to reduce our society's inequalities.
What about the poor white folks???

typos

We do other things to address class.

Colleges accept women and minorities from ALL classes to address AA, and they accept poor people and give them financial aid to address class issues.

The programs overlap in some places, and don't in others.

Like I said elsewhere, there are plenty of wealthy women and black people over the age of 35 who are VPs at large corporations who are being shut out from the executive offices. Their problems don't have to do with class.

(Incidentally, UPS is NOT one of those companies, and it's one of the best run company in America.)

which is what Howard Dean said.

When I stareted at DU there was a lot of racism and sexism and ignorance about tax policy. After about a year, the tide started to turn. The sexism dropped way off. The unenlightened comments about race went from about 80% in some threads to, like 20%. And people started to learn about tax.

Since the campaign started and since the majority Dean supporters hear have started to have to defend some of the crazier things Dean says, we've seen DU'er argue against progressive taxation, and now we're seeing people start to argue that AA shouldn't be about race and gender and that it should be about class.

This is very sad.

"...now we're seeing people start to argue that AA shouldn't be about race and gender and that it should be about class."
What is so sad about that? Is this just stubbornness and sentimentality?
Times are changing. Our left flank needs some retooling. Don't get me wrong- I AM a progressive (hell I'll proudly call myself a liberal), and I think we need to do everything possible to make sure there isn't racial discrimination going on in our institutions. However, I think we can appeal to more people, namely, the poor white folks that are currently voting for a guy that would spit on them as soon as look at them. If the issue is addressed correctly this isn't going to hurt minorities, it will help them, because poverty is something all races can relate to. And it will help reduce the divisiveness that the issue contributes to.

That has nothing to do with class. Dean said there are too many women in this office because you're hiring women because you're a woman. Hire a man. He didn't say hire a poor man. He said hire a man.

Are times changing so much that Dean shouldn't have done that? Should he have told her to hire a poor person?

What does that have to do with the government mandating it?

On edit: Yeah, maybe he should have hired a poor person. I'm available.

What doesn't that have to do iwth the government, by the way.

And how would hiring a poor person address the perceived gender bias in his office?

he was able to recognize the problem and resolve it without a government mandate. He did it of his own accord- it doesn't matter what position he was in. His reasoning had nothing to do with the law. That's my point.
However, I do think, given time, you could come up with a better example.

and I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.

I think you're a little confused about what's being argued here.

the government should mandate promotions of certains races and women, right?
Okay. Now what did Dean hiring a man to balance a group of women workers have to do with any of that? He did it without the mandate. If anything that would be a point (albeit a weak one) against racial/gender quotas, since someone attempted to balance things on their own- it seems to show that people just keep those kinds of things in mind.
And it doesn't matter that he was part of the government.

Taxation?

and jealousy. It saddens me to see a man with a record of supporting AA being bashed by those who say they support it. It saddens me to see a Governor who did so much for the collective cause being trashed again for political gain.

By the way I am a woman I'm Native American, and grew up quite poor so, save your drama for someone else.

If Dean can't stand the heat of having his words listened to and analyzed, he should get out of the kitchen.

AA.

- at Howard U., he said that carring about higher black incarceration rates is "liberal and weepy" and said that drug treatment programs is the way to deal with them (huh?)

- for a long time, he said that he was the only candidate to talk about race in front of white audiences. When proven a lie, he only changed to say that he and Clinton were the only politicians to talk bluntly about race.

- Dean's blunt talk about race in his conference call actually turns out to be not-so-blunt talk about gender discrimination

- Dean think class is an adequate proxy for race in AA programs

- Dean says that civil rights legislation has gone as far as it can and the solution to the problem of racism is to change subconscious feelings.

Basically, this is a list of EVERYTHING I've heard come out of Dean's mouth about racism. I have no doubt that the more he talks about it, the more things I'll be able to add to this list

Look, if you like Dean, that's great. But if you care about race, I don't know how you can say that he's the best candidate on these issues. I'd just focus on the stuff you think he's good on, and completely avoid discussions about race and taxes, which he's bad on.

and are actually your statements...gives me pause...

I've seen Dean's statements and I've examined his record in Vermont, and I am comfortable with what I see.

?

I'd post more if I thought you'd really give a rip.

Governor Dean signed into law tougher penalties for hate crimes, as well as tighter restrictions against discrimination in the workplace, housing, public accommodations, etc.

He also 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.

So Dean signed those two bills. Did he sponsor them? Did he argue for them? You have any good quotes about his attitudes towards the race components of those laws?

Your second example has nothing to do with race. It's about class. Are there ghettos in VT?

If I provide you with the information you request, would you change your additude toward Dean? NO, so I'm not gonna beat a dead horse.

Research the matter yourself if your 'really' interested. Somehow, I doubt you are.

Show me some and I'll read them.

Not gonna waste much more time, there is a wealth of information on the internet...feel free to do your own research.

Whatever.

:nopity:

Some of you Dean supporters think that anyone who doesn't tow the Dean line is bashing him. Very frightening. It's almost like you contort yourselves into agreeing with him in every matter. Tell me if Howard Dean advocated that all women start wearing burkas would you agree with him and run out and buy a burka? If he told you to march off a cliff would you do so?

At least I admit that Clark and Kerry (my 2 favs) have warts and I disagree with them every once in a while. THEY are not Gods and neither is Dean.

:freak:

BTW, I dont think Dean is a God, in fact I think he's quite human. And, NO on the burka question.

n/t

<<We do other things to address class.>>

Sorry, but offering financial assistance won't do anything to help a poor applicant whose SAT scores aren't high enough for them to be admitted in the first place. Why is it acceptable to lower the SAT bar for African American applicants and not for poor white applicants?

by the way.

All public schools are not equal in money or teaching. If you could magically equalize social backgrounds, parents, friends, and teachers, then you might have a point. Until then a school in Detriot and a school in Bloomfield Hills are not equal.

poor white folks.

with 'poor white folks'. That affirmative action takes race into account addresses the history of injustice that racial minorities have had to endure; that's where the color-blind theory falls apart.

that one can discriminate with. But the point that he was bringing up is that white people go to run down schools too. Poor white folks can live in bad neighborhoods and have a hard time finding opportunities. You can talk about racism all you want, as if that's the only valid reason to help someone out, or you can try and help everyone that needs it.
There's nothing wrong with this at all.

not affirmative action which was created to battle institutonalized racism and sexism.

Cage-match.

I'd pay to see that.

http://www.affirmativeaction.org/

"Founded in 1974, the American Association for Affirmative Action (AAAA) is dedicated to the advancement of affirmative action, equal opportunity and the elimination of discrimination on the basis of race, gender, ethnic background or any other criterion that deprives people of opportunities to live and work. The organization's dedication is realized in its many activities designed to help Equal Employment Opportunity/Affirmative Action (EEO/AA) professionals be more successful and productive in their careers."

I think Dean's statement was about 'uniting' people and expanding AA to meet the criteria described above. In other words, people who are poor have less opportunity regardless of skin color, women face discrimination regardless of race, disabled Americans face discrimination regardless of race, income, etc. In other words, basing AA on color alone is divisive. That is what Dean was trying to communicate when his words were twisted.

Dean fully supports Affirmative Action in every sense of the word.

For what it's worth.

But even if I haven't, I don't think the AAAA would disagree that you don't not consider gender if you're addressing gender discrimination, religion when you're adressing religious discrimination, sexualityu when you're addressing anti-gay discriminaiton, and that you wouldn't stop considering race when you're addressing racial discrimination.

"A policy or a program that seeks to redress past discrimination through active measures to ensure equal opportunity, as in education and employment."

It is about discrimiation - period.

...focussing on class?

How does building a ramp help a kid in the ghetto get into Harvard?

n is another. AA is meant to address racial discrimination, although to be fair, it is a much broader program than people realize. It attempts to give assistance to historically underpriviledged groups, not just based on race, but on other ethnic and economic considerations, for instance such as Appalachian-style systemic poverty.

Basing AA on economic need instead of historical discrimination (and what we are talking about by that is a system of discrimination put into place by laws and societal norms that still lingers even though most of the laws have been changed) would simply pretend the problem no longer existed. It would be a nice anti-poverty program, and there is a need for such a program, but it would not do what needs to be done in regards to racial issues.

Don't forget that the reason there is such a divide between black and white America economically and socially is because white government created that divide, enforced it with laws, and only very slowly began to change the laws. The laws were never countered, just removed. As an allegory, if you put an airplane into a turn, and then return the rudder and ailleron back to normal, the plane won't go straight, it will continue to turn. An opposite pressure has to be applied to correct it's path. That's the point of AA. The problem was created by government and societal action, and removing the laws doesn't change the situation, it only ceases to make it worse. To correct it, an opposite pressure needs to be applied. Still.

Don't fall for the right wing crap. They aren't trying to help anyone but themselves. Dean might get away with a comment like that in Vermont, where the problem is negligible to start with. But he needs to reconsider when he visits the rest of the nation.

If you're trying to solve the problem of gender discrimination, you don't stop taking into account whether a peson is a woman.

If a black kid can't get into harvard, building ramps doesn't solve the problem.

You can't address racism without addressing race.

Who said not to address race, the issue is to focus on 'all' discrimination.

Im out for now to make dinner.

Peace

...but it's meant to help people jump from VP to CEO as much as it's meant to help people jump from the ghetto to Harvard.

By cutting it off after Harvard, you're helping the white male hegemony keep their grip on power where it REALLY matters. The hegemony doesn't care if there's diversity of opinion and experience in the operating room as much as the care that there's none in the boardroom and on the executive level.

Howard Dean does not seek to eliminate race as a consideration.

Ok, I'm really out now ;)

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."

Jobs/Wages. Under Dean’s tenure, Vermont added an astounding 56,000 new jobs, a 20% increase in the workforce.

Better wages – Governor Dean worked to create higher paying jobs. In 2001 the average income in Vermont grew 8th fastest in the country.

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." (July 14, 2003)

"This is a civil rights issue, and that makes it a federal issue." (July 14, 2003)

"Racial discrimination is illegal in hiring, housing, and voting. It should be illegal as a law enforcement technique too." (July 14, 2003)

"Racial profiling is wrong.” (July 14, 2003)

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

But, I should point out that this debate isn't about whether the candidate will get rid of the AA. It's about whether the candidate has an enlightened attitude about race.

Sharpton is so right that this is an important issuel. When all this was a big issue in '95, when all other Dems were putting their necks out to be on the good side of this fight, Dean was talking like Newt Gingrich rather than like a Democrat. And he's supposed to be the guy who talks bluntly to white people about race? I guess it is pretty blunt talk, but I don't think it's really the kind of blunt talk the angyr liberal white male Deanies think it is.

as noted above.

and Sharpton is just pissed because Jessie Jackson Jr. is supporting Dean, and not him.

:hi:

discrimination in America. No other group has faced the full systemic exclusion as thoroughly nor for as long as black Americans, therefore no other group needs the full extent of the law to reverse centuries of oppression and finally end discrimination. I trust Dean to wind up on the right side of this issue (though there are others I would trust more), but if he still believes AA should be altered to not refer to race (and I hope your quotes mean he doesn't), then he needs to bow out and let a real Democrat run.

If on the other hand, as I suspect, Dean's comments were more the result of him being in a region of the country where he not only didn't have to worry about race, but also had to appease slightly racist white people who nevertheless would have no impact where it really mattered, then I don't mind his comments, as long as his actions are pure. Clinton and Gore both had to appease conservatives at times to stay in power, too.

My argument was that the suggestion that AA should give up its primary mission is just wrong, and misunderstands AA, and the race problem in America.

I totally agree with you. But, I don't think it hurts to add 'classism' to the list of things to be concerned about.

Look AA, works pretty slowly as it is. It takes a generations for the impacts to be felt. And you want to reduce the ability of AA to be used as a tool to deal with racial disparities?

Does including discrimination practices against women 'reduce' the ability of AA to be used as a tool to deal with racial disparities?

BTW, the supreme court ruled on this in the 1990's to include class, so the 'cry' of injustice is a bit late, dontcha think?

Race gets the highest constitutional protection. Gender the second highest.

I can tell you've never had a money problem ey?

affirmitave action should be based on both income and race.

...discrimination programs address race, disability discrimination programs address disability??

Why can't we address everything in the most efficient manner possible?

Man, some white people just don't get it.

I agree with Howard Dean that AA should be 'expanded' to include classism as well.

:hi:

K, bye!

considering race and gender and only consider class, which isn't going to help women and blacks jump from VP level to CEO.

It's also funny, because the only story I've heard Dean tell about race discrimination was about how the woman who hired his staff only hired women. He told her to hire a man. What does that have to do with class?

Even Dean doesn't agree that we should discount race and gender with AA. He didn't when he told his staff manager to hire a man.

Also no one is saying we should eliminate any part of AA so why the repeated mention?

He never said stop considering race... read the quote.


He's talking about modeling programs after AA to address classism.... not getting rid of AA programs.

sorry but it is NOT about more than race and gender. It is exactly about race and gender. It is to give the less powerful a chance to get a foothold in the system. This is about women and minorities not about poor people. It is about access not economics.

...where you want to go.

If you're middle class now, it's about having access to the upper middle class.

If your parents are doctors. It's about you being able to be the CEO of IBM if you work hard enough. If you're a VP, it's about you being able to become CEO. If your a professor, it's about you being able to become a dean.

.

I'm sorry you have such a narrow definition of discrimination.

Just like I have a narrow definitiion of gender discrimination. One's about race. The other's about gender. Discrimination agains the poor is a third kind.

I personally don't care if the government expands affirmitave action to make income a factor or if they create an entirely new affirmitive action-like system for those of low income.

But it is true that poor people need a good education, too, and many aren't getting it.

And like I said, Dean tells that story about how he told his staff manager to hire a man, and that had nothing to do with class.

We live in a wealthy society, and we can do both.

is that we should do both.

Dean didn't.

Nowhere did Dean say anything about gettign rid of AA or removing race as a factor in AA...


What he said was we should look at programs like AA... not AA programs, but programs like them, geared towards addressing disadvanatges in areas other than race.

He was talking about eveloping programs in addition to AA that address areas like class.

I'm right there with you on this.

there are distinct differences between affirmative action programs which target the historical affects of discrimination, viz., the economic disenfranchisement of african americans and women and programs designed to alleviate poverty for all poor.

racism seeps out of the pores of most americans. we are taught it, perhaps unwittingly, but it resides nonetheless.

the racially and sexually profiled AA programs are instituted to allow persons in those groups which have faced historical discrimination find opportunities where prior they have not been adequately represented in the society.

while such programs are self-evidently inclined to promote increased economic opportunities to these classes of people, there is a further reason to seek this goal. it is that racism and sexism fare less well when the objects of such discrimination are represented throughout the society in the same manner as the rest of us.

this in and of itself helps society by providing examples that undermine and negate the accusations of innate inferiority by racists and sexists against african americans and women.

The point is to shift wealth to people who are getting shut out from participating in the economy at the HIGHEST levels. These business owners aren't lower class. They're just blacks and women who own businesses which could be bigger.

Do you want to toss those programs too?

because all you did was restate what i said.

I read your post too fast. Sorry.

I support racially based AA. I would also support a larger program to help the economically disenfranchised regardless of race.

Being from the south I have a firm understanding of racial discrimination. It is real, the KKK is still alive and well and occasionally stages rallies down here. Counterprotesting them is dangerous because they will occasionally come well armed.

But I also have an experience of economic disenfranchisement where whole communities, majority if not nearly entirely white suffer similar hardships. The tax base is very low, the schools are abysmal, and social services, except for police, are nearly non-existant.

To the extent that racial discrimination robs people of opportunities to advance, this economic disenfranchisement does similar violence to hope.

We have the resources, if the political will is there, to address both problems, and I wish we would.

and as far as saying he will say anything to win I think that is mutual among all candidates. I truly hope Dean and Sharpton can come together and work this out because it would be a shame to lose his support because I think a lot of his supporters could get turned off by this.

but just about every nation grapples with in groups and out groups....

Dean wasn't saying he wanted to change AA or remove the race consideration from AA... what he was saying is that we should look at programs similar to AA, but that are directed at class, not race.

He wasn't saying get rid of AA as we know it, but rather that we should create more programs like AA, but that are directed at helping all disadvantaged folks, not just those of a given minority group.


Sharpton is dishonestly trying to act like Dean was saying we should get rid of AA in favor of this other kind of program... when what Dean was saying is that we should have both... not one or the other.

You can bet this will be 'twisted' for some time to come.

Dean didn't suggest replacing race-based affirmative action policies, just supplementing them.

addressing race and gender discrimination. That's a great way to address race/gender discrimination...if you're a white man.

Nor should it be.

he talking about? Because if he was talking about disablity discrimination, I'd agree.

If he was talking about race discrimination, I disagree.

He said we should look at programs LIKE, as in similar to, AA that address class, not race.

He said NOTHING about doing ANYTHING to AA. He said we should look at making new programs like AA that address class in the way that AA addresses race.

Why is this so hard to understand?

He said no such thing.

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

He didn't say, "not just race". He said "not race" and instead, "class and opportunities to participate."

He's simply saying that affirmative action programs have so far been based only on race. He believes that we should "look at" programs based "not on race" but on class (in addition to current race-based programs).

I think we ought to look at programs in schools based, not on the "3 R's", but on teaching children to think for themselves. Am I advocating abandoning Reading, Writing and Arithmetic? Of course not. I'm advocating looking at basing an education philosophy on additional factors.

This, if I remember correctly, was big debate, thanks to Newt. Dean's coming down on the wrong side of the issue, if you're a Dem who thinks that gender should be addressed to remedy gender discrimination and that race should be addressed to remedy race discrimination.

You say I'm imputing meaning to his statement, but your parathentical "in addition..." isn't anywhere in the quote, and it also doesn't match the context of the debate.

Someone who watched CNN today said that when the clip of Dean was played, you could hear someone in the clip say "you sound like Newt Gingrich" after he made the comment. You know how Newt felt about AA in '95, right?

"Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) is breaking ranks with many in his party who seek to dismantle affirmative action. The Speaker of the House, mindful of the divisive potential of the issue, instead is pursuing a more thoughtful course that focuses on how to change affirmative action while continuing to protect civil rights. He deserves credit for his reasoned approach and his new understanding."

And...

"Gingrich was expected to take a route in the House similar to Dole's in the Senate, but he now says he will not. He explained why on the Monday telecast of NBC's "Today" show. He spoke of what he had learned about this controversial subject in the last six months. Gingrich now acknowledges " ... the legitimate fear of African Americans who look back only 30 years ago to segregation, to state police who were beating people like John Lewis , and you can sense the legitimate, genuine fear we could slide back into that kind of environment."

http://aad.english.ucsb.edu/docs/gingrich.integ.html

I can't stand Newt Gingrich, but he's a bit better in the AA category then your average Repuke.

Gingrich remains opposed to racial quotas and set-asides. But he just as strongly insists that "Republicans have an obligation to reach out much more emphatically and more strongly to the black community and find ways: to communicate that we will in fact be protecting civil rights that we're not going to block-grant civil rights and, the federal government is going to stand firmly committed against discrimination. "

It seems that fewer and fewer politicians, both Republicans and Democrats, acknowledge those legitimate' concerns, or the need for continued federal vigilance against gender and racial discrimination; current statistics show that women and minorities continue to lag in hiring and especially in promotions.

The Speaker certainly is no fan of affirmative action. What's important is his recognition that the federal government has an obligation to en sure equal opportunity for all Americans. That cannot be done by stripping away affirmative action and replacing it with nothing but good intentions.

party line.

"What's important is his recognition that the federal government has an obligation to en sure equal opportunity for all Americans."

That's an interesting position for a Republican huh?

Night

Conservatism, started right there with that kind of thing.

I'm still the kind of Democrat that thinks that racism should be dealt with by addressing race. If you're saying that Dean and Gingrich are right and I'm wrong, then I guess this isn't my Democratic Party any more.

Additionally, I find it interesting that yet another 8-year-old quote has been unearthed and given a particular spin by the anti-Dean crowd. To answer your question, yes, I was alive in 1995. I'm curious if YOU realize that it's 2003....

thinking hard about this. And it was before he decided to run for president, so I think we can learn a lot about how he really thinks from his statements at that time;

1) This is STILL a big issue, and will be until we achieve true equality in this country.

2) I still don't believe that he meant to substitute class for race. I believe he wanted to base programs on a more comprehensive set of criteria.

3) I fail to see how ANYBODY'S views from 8 years ago can teach us more than their views today. Kucinich was anti-abortion before last year. Are we to believe that his position then more clearly reflects his true beliefs than his current position?

If I'm going to state a problem I have with a candidate, I'm going to make damn sure that I'm not going to cite quotes that can be interpreted either way. I'm simply stating my belief that this entire arguement is weak, as the real meaning of the quote cannot possibly be verified beyond a reasonable doubt. Tell me you don't agree with Dean on the death penalty. I don't agree with him either, based on quotes that are not open to interpretation.

I'm not a blind supporter, I just know a weak arguement when I see it.

The candidates are speaking a sort of code. This is the nature of politics. It's the voter's job to decipher that code. That's what I'm doing. The way a candidate actually governed when he or she was the CEO of state is hightly relevent to deciphering the code.

I get the sense that it's perfectly fine for people to use the tools I'm using when you say something people agree with, but when those same tools reveal something unflattering, the problem is with the tools, rather than witht the think they reveal.

I happen to think that I'm pretty good at deciphering political code. You can decide for yourself. I guess all I can say is that time will tell.

I remember a few months ago when a candidate was slammed for using the phrase "even-handed" a few months ago. Apparently, "even-handed" is political code for "biased". Is it possible that sometimes "even-handed" just means "even-handed"?

Sharpton is right to criticize this sentiment regardless of whether it ever manifested itslelf in policy.

I'm a firm believer in merit. To take an example, if a college entrant isn't up to snuff, for instance, go to community college and then transfer in later if you can hack it.

Should we help people who are qualified but don't have the means to go to school, for instance? Yes. But taking in factors that are solely based on being poor or an ethnic minority is preposterous. Nobody cares if there are too many asians in our universities, but liberals freak when too many big bad evil people with white skin are attending.

has the same life chances as a kid from Park Avenue?


LBJ was right.... How can you have a fair race when one of the runners is shackled with a ball and chain?

on edit- do a search... There is a direct correlation between income and standardized test scores.... As income of the parents go up the test scores of their children go up.... The school districts with the highest property taxes also happen to have the students with the highest test scores....

Also, do a search on standardized test scores between suburban and inner city schools.... The difference on standardized test scores are staggering....

A color blind society is a worthy goal but it's not a reality at this time and to suggest it is and affirmative action isn't needed is to ratify the glaring inequalities that exist today....

Support for affirmative action is as close to a Holy Grail as there can be for folks who call themselves Democrats....

some think a white kid from the ghetto has the same chance as a white kid from park avenue according to this thread.

Poor is poor.... Without getting into a lengthy discussion there is a difference in parenting skills and attitudes among different economic classes...

Income should be looked at as a supplemt to race and gender in affirmative action but not in lieu of race and gender.....


I'll say it again, affirmative action is the Holy Grail of Democratic politics.... IMHO, it is up there with choice and civil rights for all regardless of race and sexual orientation...

He is very much in support of affirmative action as we know it.

Affirmative action should be based on:

race

gender

disability (and)

income

Affirmative action is unfair racially. Secondly, it makes no sense economically for the poor.

Asians get a disproportionate percentage of college students in universities. With blacks and mexicans getting their "fair" share, citizens of European decent end up being underrepresented in universities. Hence, if ethnicity proportional to the American population is our standard of "justice," demented as that may be, it is unfair by its own standards.

Secondly, if a poor dumb kid who goes to college actually manages to do well, they will more likely than not move to the suburbs when they graduate. This is irrespective of the student's ethnicity. This is **not** an urban or rural development program, nor do such policies keep high paying jobs for those without a college education in the United States.

Hence, affirmative action, racist or robinhood, is feelgood liberalism that doesn't do much in the final analysis.

I oppose hard quotas....

If affirmative action is abandoned than the racist status quo with it's glaring inequalities will persist....

Two facts.....

Income is positively correlated with standardized test scores


and


African Americans and Hispanics are more likely to be economically disadvantaged than their Asian and Caucasain counterparts....

and were developed specifically to address racism and sexism. Dean's remarks to the effect that classism be included in the equation might be construed by some minorities as being opposed to affirmative action's main purpose - to address the built in inequalities our society displays toward minorities and women. Some might even go so far as to see it as a subtle "anti-affirmative action" message directed toward the majority white male population.

Howard Dean, coming from a state with no real minority population, shows here a real lack of political savvy concerning race relations.
Neither he nor the Democratic party in general can afford to alienate minority voters if we intend to take back the White House in 2004.

I dont think he's alienating anyone.

Rest assured I will take what you think into careful consideration.

Perhaps this statement by Jesse Jackson Jr. will put you at ease.

Statement by Rep. Jesse L. Jackson on Howard Dean's Record
Congressman Jesse L. Jackson issued a statement today responding to an attack on Howard Dean by Rev. Al Sharpton. The New York Times announced earlier today that Rep. Jackson will support Governor Dean's campaign in the coming weeks.

Congressman Jackson stated:

When it comes to addressing issues that directly affect African Americans, and indirectly affects all Americans, Gov. Dean clearly has good record. Up until this point -- until I indicated my intention to endorse Gov. Dean -- the Democratic campaign has been free of such racial rhetoric. I would recommend that it remain so. Such rhetoric will not contribute to defeating George W. Bush in 2004. Indeed, it will insure his re-election.
Click "continue reading" to read the entire statement.

Jackson Urges Democrats to Accentuate the Positive

Calls On All Democrats To Reject Racial Rhetoric

"Unfortunately, Rev. Sharpton has rejected his own advice. The spirit of Rev. Sharpton's release in that regard is over-the-top and mostly inaccurate. Rev. Sharpton is inaccurate when he says that Howard Dean is 'opposed to affirmative action.' Even the 1995 quote he attributes to Gov. Dean is not a statement 'opposed' to affirmative action, but an argument for a broader criteria. 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.

"I don't understand why I am being singled out. Rep. Major Owens, from New York, endorsed Gov. Dean some time ago, but none of these issues were raised. No member of the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) has endorsed Rev. Sharpton, and there were other members of the CBC in the New York Times article who indicated that they too may be on the verge of endorsing Gov. Dean.

"I also don't understand Rev. Sharpton's attempt to introduce 'race' into the campaign by using such rhetoric as 'anti-black' with respect to Gov. Dean. I challenge all of the other candidates to urge Rev. Sharpton to resist using such inflammatory rhetoric.

"Clearly, Gov. Dean is not anti-black and it is ridiculous for Rev. Sharpton to compare him to President George Bush in that regard. When it comes to addressing issues that directly affect African Americans, and indirectly affects all Americans, Gov. Dean clearly has good record. Up until this point -- until I indicated my intention to endorse Gov. Dean - the Democratic campaign has been free of such racial rhetoric. I would recommend that it remain so. Such rhetoric will not contribute to defeating George W. Bush in 2004. Indeed, it will insure his re-election."

Is whatever you want it to be!

Don't like AA the way it is? Base it on income! Or SAT scores! Or shoe size!

Jeez, it's pretty amazing that here on DU the basic premise for AA seems "to be make it up as you go along".

It is not, and has never been, a program to "help the poor and unfortunate" up the ladder of success. It is an anti-discrimination measure.

It was created, specifically, to address the racism and sexism within American society, past and present, that prevents such people from equal access to jobs, education and opportunity.

Dropping race or gender from the equation, adding other non-discriminatory factors such as economic class into the equation, makes it something else entirely.

Argue against it on it's merits if you wish. But trying to change it's very definition really is an RNC talking point.

is kind of jaw - dropping, isn't it?

Generations brought up under republican administrations. They have agrued against AA for so long, people now think that their talking points are part of AA itself. "It's open to individual interpretation".

AA has changed over the years to include any person who is “socially disadvantaged.”

http://www.infoplease.com/cgi-bin/id/CE000683.html

"The Civil Rights Act of 1991 reaffirmed a federal government's commitment to affirmative action, but a 1995 Supreme Court decision placed limits on the use of race in awarding government contracts; the affected government programs were revamped in the late 1990s to encompass any person who was “socially disadvantaged.”

"Affirmative action, in the United States, government programs to overcome the effects of past societal discrimination by allocating jobs and resources to members of specific groups, such as MINORITIES and WOMEN. "

Should I note that the 1995 Supreme Court decision represented a dilution of Affirmative Action by a conservative, Republican controlled Supreme Court? By agreeing with the 1995 decision, you are , in effect, saying that you agree with the Republican interpretation of affirmitive action. Is this your position?

Is this YOUR position?

I realize it's tough to be wrong and all, but calling me a Republican is mistake # 2 for you tonight.

a fiscal conservative with a bad chat on taxes, race, and middle class opportunity. Dean's an equal opportunity pied piper.

Or is your BS directed this way?

be confused about what Dean stands for. Should we surprised that a few black Democrats are fooled too?

neither are these people...

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

Your condescending additude is tiresome.

Consider yourself "ignored". :)

I didn't call you a Republican - I asked if you supported a Republican position. Answer the question.

Republicans condemn Affirmative Action, I support it.

:shrug:

I think we probably know why Sharpton's so angry that Dean was jacking up AA in '95.

Am I missing something? I provided a 'historical' account of AA, and Paulk copied a 'snip'...

That must have been quite taxing huh? :eyes:

D.U.h.

DUH.

He seems to have left out a 'chunk' of that history though. :freak:

...

I think I'm enjoying this 'ignore' feature already ;)

~Peace out

:)

and, in fact, people who own businesses and are bidding for gov't projects generally aren't economically disadvantaged.

In most cases...

http://www.soc.upenn.edu/~fff/risks.html

The Multiple Risks of Social Disadvantage:

"This project will use newly available data to describe the lives of at-risk children over time. The analysis will emphasize multiple and overlapping disadvantages. The project will focus on how children fair in four different difficult family situations: poverty, welfare, single-mother households and parental joblessness.

and the law wouldn't turn its back on you.

D.U.h.

good for you.

Affirmative Action has evolved over the years...

Here is a bit of history.

http://www.infoplease.com/cgi-bin/id/CE000683.html

"Affirmative action, in the United States, government programs to overcome the effects of past societal discrimination by allocating jobs and resources to members of specific groups, such as minorities and women. The policy was implemented by federal agencies enforcing the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and two executive orders, which provided that government contractors and educational institutions receiving federal funds develop such programs. The Equal Employment Opportunities Act (1972) set up a commission to enforce such plans. The establishment of racial quotas in the name of affirmative action brought charges of so-called reverse discrimination in the late 1970s. Although the U.S. Supreme Court accepted such an argument in Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978), it let existing programs stand and approved the use of quotas in 1979 in a case involving voluntary affirmative-action programs in unions and private businesses. In the 1980s, the federal government's role in affirmative action was considerably diluted. In three cases in 1989, the Supreme Court undercut court-approved affirmative action plans by giving greater standing to claims of reverse discrimination, voiding the use of minority set-asides where past discrimination against minority contractors was unproven, and restricting the use of statistics to prove discrimination, since statistics did not prove intent. The Civil Rights Act of 1991 reaffirmed a federal government's commitment to affirmative action, but a 1995 Supreme Court decision placed limits on the use of race in awarding government contracts; The affected government programs were revamped in the late 1990s to encompass any person who was “socially disadvantaged.” ..."

And AA incentives are being thrown out entirely left and right. And why? Because of "racial" preferences. Not "gender". Not "socially disadvantaged". Racial. That's what everyone gets riled about. Why do we want to encourage this by diluting the original intent of AA even further? Do we want to concede to those who deny that racism exists in this country one of the last defenses against that discrimination?

word.

Do we want to dilute Dean's vigorous position of defending AA and his record on the issue simply because it's politically convenient? Simply because he's not the guy were supporting in this race? He could very well be our next President, and making mountains out of molehills could end AA as we know it.

Let's help Bush get another 4 years and appoint another 6 Supreme Court Justices so we can end AA for everybody huh?

Dean is NOT the enemy here.

and not the Libertarian nomination.

Why can't we take him for his word in '95?

Also, I find the idea that we can't talk about Dean's policies because he MIGHT get the nomination baffling. We're talking about his policies so that we can make sure we get the best candidate to take America forward (rather than backwards).

One, I never even mentioned Dean. I criticised those who seemed to want to embrace this new definition of AA.

Two, This is an issue of great importance to black voters. You cannot simply dismiss it as an annoyance if he appears to be waffling on the issue. He isn't the only candidate running who can beat bush!

Three, I didn't make this point before because I was kind of rambling, heh. "Socially Disadvantaged" was added to include minorities of all races and women as well. Not to bring class into the issue.

who wanted to dillute the power of AA to remedy race and gender discrimination. And this happened in '95. And Dean's quote si from '95. And Sharpton said on CNN that Dean made this comment when other Dems were putting their necks on the line over this very issue. And on CNN, on the tape they played, apparently you could hear someone say "you sound like Newt Gingrich" after Dean made the comment, probably because Newt was advocating that same position in '95.

"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'm out - :hi:

These changes in affirmative action that you so proudly quote were wrought by CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICANS. You are advocating a CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICAN position.

Is this really your intent?

Which Conservative Republicans are you saying are in favor of it?

about trying to water it down by, for example, arguing that race shouldn't play a smaller part than poverty in addressing racial discrimination.

I support even race-based affirmative action, but it does give an unfair advantage to poor blacks over poor whites. Since the disparity is lack of educational opportunity due to lack of income, basing Affirmative action off of income would be great. And then maybe those conservative morons would shut the hell up.

Peace

SAT corresponds with income.... As the income of parents goes up so does the SAT scores of their children.... This holds true for a-l-l races but the correclation is not as robust for African Americans....

For instance the SAT scores for the children of working class whites are still higher than the SAT scores for the children of African Americans professioanals....

I wish we lived in a color blind society but we ain't there yet....

etc...

Most cultures are still patriachal.....


Most nations have racial tension even in enlightened Europe....


And class exists everywhere...

Do you have any proof to support this statement:

"I support even race-based affirmative action, but it does give an unfair advantage to poor blacks over poor whites"

I would love to see evidence of this because frankly it just does not ring true.

Maybe the Repukes are correct in that Clark was a plant by the Clintons because I believe Sharpton also supports Clark.

As much a I enjoyed Sharpton thus far, he is dividing the party with these statements. As a black man myself, my choice is Dean over Clark!

:toast:

but it's unfair to drag Clark and Hillary into this briar patch....

If there is a culprit and I'm not saying there is a culprit it's the man who made the claims...

First, there is a difference between affirmative action in college admissions and affirmative action in employment.
For college admission, both race and socioeconomic status are often used. Affirmative action stories often focus on how many points are added for being black or poor, but at many smaller colleges, it isn't done that way. Many factors are used. It isn't a formula. They may accept poor or minority students with lower test scores than some white richer students that they reject. They are often impressed with students that have overcome hardships because it demonstrates motivation. They may also want to increase their diversity. They may do this for ulterior reasons like seeming that they are interested in increasing diversity. There is a difference though between admitting more upper middle class black students and admitting poor intercity blacks. A college that is truly interested in increasing diversity will try to admit intercity blacks as well. Anyway, a good admissions department that has the luxury of being selective will admit a diverse class, racially and socioeconomically, all of which are qualified. Just because they turn away some students with higher scores than some students in the admitted class does not mean that the anyone in the admitted class is not qualified. For a college to have more poor students in attendance, it is necessary for the college to have a sufficient endowment and donations and funded scholarships to allow the poor students to attend. It does not do any good to admit a student from a family with multiple children making less than the cost of tuition if financial aid does not cover most college expenses. For most good colleges, if you offer close to full aid and make that known, the best poor students will apply.
For affirmative action in the workplace, it is still important for allowing women and minorities to better reach their potential. White males are still judged to be more competent than women or minorities, even if they have the same experience and education and give similiar interviews. Some companies also still have sexist or racist views or have recently. Actively hiring those previously excluded may be the only way to make those underrepresented groups feel welcome in the company. I don't know what can be done about socioeconmic hiring. Many jobs require experience or education that might limit that kind of affirmative action. I do think that they do stereotype people and there is often a problem getting hired for a much better job. One may be qualified it but may have difficulty if one has been working in a lower paying or prestigious job for a while. I don't know how to correct this. You cannot exactly claim discrimination if the interviewer didn't hire you because to them you seemed "unprofessional".