I'm "African American"

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I guess it's easier to make broad generalizations about Affirmative Action than to actually look at how it came about and what it means...

Many factories and businesses prior to 1964, especially in the South, had in place facially discriminatory policies and rules. For example, a company's policy might have openly relegated African-Americans to the maintenance department and channeled whites into operations, sales, and management departments, where the pay and opportunities for advancement were far better. If, after passage of the Civil Rights Act, the company willingly abandoned its facially segregative policy, it could still carry forward the effects of its past segregation through other already-existing facially neutral rules. A company policy, say, that required workers to give up their seniority in one department if they transferred to another would have locked in place older African-American maintenance workers as effectively as the company's prior segregative rule that made them ineligible to transfer at all. Consequently, courts began striking down facially neutral rules that carried through the effects of an employer's past discrimination, regardless of the original intent or provenance of the rules. "Intent" was effectively decoupled from "discrimination." In 1971, the Supreme Court ratified this process, giving in the Griggs decision the following construction of Title VII:

The objective of Congress in the enactment of Title VII…was to achieve equality of employment opportunities and remove barriers that have operated in the past to favor an identifiable group of white employees over other employees. Under the Act, practices, procedures, or tests neutral on their face, and even neutral in terms of intent, cannot be maintained if they operate to "freeze" the status quo of prior discriminatory employment practices. What is required by Congress is the removal of artificial, arbitrary, and unnecessary barriers to employment when the barriers operate invidiously to exclude on the basis of racial or other impermissible classification.

^[10]

In a few short paragraphs the Court advanced from proscribing practices that froze in place the effects of a firm's own past discrimination to proscribing practices that carried through the effects of past discrimination generally. The Court characterized statutory discrimination as any exclusionary practice not necessary to an institution's activities. Since many practices in most institutions were likely to be exclusionary, rejecting minorities and women in greater proportion than white men, all institutions needed to reassess the full range of their practices to look for, and correct, discriminatory effect. Against this backdrop, the generic idea of affirmative action took form:

Each institution should effectively monitor its practices for exclusionary effect and revise those that cannot be defended as "necessary" to doing business. In order to make its monitoring and revising effective, an institution ought to predict, as best it can, how many minorities and women it would select over time, were it successfully nondiscriminating. These predictions constitute the institution's affirmative action "goals," and failure to meet the goals signals to the institution (and to the government) that it needs to revisit its efforts at eliminating exclusionary practices.There may still remain practices that ought to be modified or eliminated.

^[11]

The point of such affirmative action: to induce change in institutions so that they could comply with the nondiscrimination mandate of the Civil Rights Act.

However, suppose this self-monitoring and revising fell short? In early litigation under the Civil Rights Act, courts concluded that some institutions, because of their past exclusionary histories and continuing failure to find qualified women or minorities, needed stronger medicine. Courts ordered these institutions to adopt "quotas," to take in specific numbers of formerly excluded groups on the assumption that once these new workers were securely lodged in place, the institutions would adapt to this new reality.^[12]

Throughout the 1970s, courts and government enforcement agencies extended this idea across the board, requiring a wide range of firms and organizations—from AT&T to the Alabama Highway Patrol—temporarily to select by the numbers. In all these cases, the use of preferences was tied to a single purpose: to prevent ongoing and future discrimination. Courts carved out this justification for preferences not through caprice but through necessity. They found themselves confronted with a practical dilemma that Congress had never envisaged and thus never addressed when it wrote the Civil Rights Act. The dilemma was this: courts could impose racial preferences to change foot-dragging or inept defendants (and by doing so apparently transgress the plain prohibition in Title VII) or they could order less onerous steps they knew would be ineffective, thus letting discrimination continue (and by doing so violate their duty under Title VII). Reasonably enough, the federal courts resolved this dilemma by appeal to the broad purposes of the Civil Rights Act and justified racial preferences where needed to prevent ongoing and future discrimination.^[13]

Thus, preferential affirmative action in the workplace served the same rationale as the non-preferential sort. Its purpose was not to compensate for past wrongs, offset unfair advantage, appropriately reward the deserving, or yield a variety of social goods; its purpose was to change institutions so they could comply with the nondiscrimination mandate of the Civil Rights Act.

link

[Fandango 1,440]

What it means in 2010 is 'you're not capable of succeeding on your own so here's some help to make you equal to the white man'

Whether or not it was relevant or necc in the past is not what's being debated here.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

What it means in 2010 is 'you're not capable of succeeding on your own so here's some help to make you equal to the white man'

Whether or not it was relevant or necc in the past is not what's being debated here.

...its purpose was to change institutions so they could comply with the nondiscrimination mandate of the Civil Rights Act.

When, in your opinion did it become non-relevant?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

If by tangible measures, society is still unequal then surely the debate has not changed overmuch.

[Fandango 1,440]

...its purpose was to change institutions so they could comply with the nondiscrimination mandate of the Civil Rights Act.

When, in your opinion did it become non-relevant?

When there are successful black people in all walks of life, When there's a black POTUS, when there's black politicians, SCJ's and other judges, lawyers, lawmakers, policemen, business men/women, MDs, PHds, etc. 'Being black' is not something in THIS day and age that needs to be 'compensated' for...and really, if you didn't know this yourself, I'd really be very surprised.

If by tangible measures, society is still unequal then surely the debate has not changed overmuch.

We are not a socialist republic where everyone's life outcome should be 'equal'. It is what you put into it.

Since you said this:

You can live in the ghetto (being any race at all), drop out of school, get your GED, go to community college while working a full time job, then complete your degree at a 4 year university. Anyone can do that.

Yes, anyone can (in theory).

I'm going to assume, since you said 'anyone'....that you believe the debate HAS changed quite a bit from the days-gone-by....

Edited February 9, 2010 by Happy Bunny

[FortLaudy 10]

I think its a stretch to suggest commonality between the situation of Blacks in America with the situation Blacks in Africa.

That trivializes the issues IMO.

What you're saying is true, but imo the comparison adds to the discussion, is there fundamentally a difference between how Africans use the resources (natural or man made) around them compared to how Europeans/Asians do, in history and today. The issue here is that a vast number of african americans do not seem to want to make use of much of the resources around them to better their lives, whether it's natural or freely handed to them. Is there a fundamental difference in mindset and does this mindset Ever change for some, no matter how many generations later?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I think that's a dubious comparison at best. Again, the contention that the problems faced by black Americans are because they are black is racist. Undeniably.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

When there are successful black people in all walks of life, When there's a black POTUS, when there's black politicians, SCJ's and other judges, lawyers, lawmakers, policemen, business men/women, MDs, PHds, etc. 'Being black' is not something in THIS day and age that needs to be 'compensated' for...and really, if you didn't know this yourself, I'd really be very surprised.

We are not a socialist republic where everyone's life outcome should be 'equal'. It is what you put into it.

Since you said this:

Yes, anyone can (in theory).

I'm going to assume, since you said 'anyone'....that you believe the debate HAS changed quite a bit from the days-gone-by....

The circumstances of black people have improved since the 1960s, but while major disparities still exist, the debate has not changed much, no.

As I said I don't believe its appropriate to take complex, tangible social problems and use them to make some simplistic broadbrush judgement that an entire section of society is just lazy.

And no, Lisa I don't think you are doing this

[one...two...tree 2,762]

When there are successful black people in all walks of life, When there's a black POTUS, when there's black politicians, SCJ's and other judges, lawyers, lawmakers, policemen, business men/women, MDs, PHds, etc. 'Being black' is not something in THIS day and age that needs to be 'compensated' for...and really, if you didn't know this yourself, I'd really be very surprised.

Its purpose was not to compensate for past wrongs, offset unfair advantage, appropriately reward the deserving, or yield a variety of social goods; its purpose was to change institutions so they could comply with the nondiscrimination mandate of the Civil Rights Act.

...at least in the Court's views on the implementation of the Civil Rights Act.

......

Here's more interesting insight into the further rulings: (worth reading)

Real-World Affirmative Action: The University

In the 1970s, while campuses were embroiled in debate about how to increase African-Americans and women on the faculty, universities were also putting into effect schemes to increase minority presence within the student body. Very selective universities, in particular, needed new initiatives because only a handful of African-American and Hispanic high school students possessed test scores and grades good enough to make them eligible for admission. These institutions faced a choice: retain their admissions criteria unchanged and live with the upshot—hardly any African-Americans and Hispanics on campus—or fiddle with their criteria to get a more substantial representation. Most elected the second path.

The Medical School of the University of California at Davis was typical. It reserved sixteen of the one hundred slots in its entering classes for minorities. In 1973 and again in 1974, Allan Bakke, a white applicant, was denied admission although his test scores and grades were better than most or all of those admitted through the special program. He sued. In 1977, his case, Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, reached the Supreme Court. The Court rendered its decision a year later.^[14]

An attentive reader of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act might have thought this case was an easy call. So, too, thought four justices on the Supreme Court, who voted to order Bakke admitted to the Medical School. Led by Justice Stevens, they saw the racially segregated, two-track scheme at the Medical School (a recipient of federal funds) as a clear violation of the plain language of the Title.

Four other members of the Court, led by Justice Brennan, wanted very keenly to save the Medical School program. To find a more attractive terrain for doing battle, they made an end-run around Title VI, arguing that, whatever its language, it had no independent meaning itself. It meant in regard to race only what the Constitution meant.^[15] Thus, instead of having to parse the stingy and unyielding language of Title VI (“no person shall be subjected to…on the ground of race”), the Brennan group could turn their creative energies to interpreting the broad and vague language of the Fourteenth Amendment (“no person shall be denied the equal protection of the laws”), which provided much more wiggle-room for justifying racial preferences. The Brennan group persuaded one other member, Justice Powell, to join them in their view of Title VI. But Powell didn't agree with their view of the Constitution. He argued that the Medical School's policy was unconstitutional and voted that Bakke must be admitted. His vote, added to the four votes of the Stevens group, meant that Allan Bakke won his case and that Powell got to write the opinion of the Court. The Brennan strategy didn't reap the fruit it intended.

Against the leanings of the Brennan group, who would distinguish between “benign” and “malign” uses of race and deal more leniently with the former, Powell insisted that the Fourteenth Amendment's promise of “equal protection of the law” must mean the same thing for all, black and white alike. To paraphrase Powell:

The Constitution can tolerate no “two-class” theory of equal protection. There is no principled basis for deciding between classes that deserve special judicial attention and those that don't. To think otherwise would involve the Court in making all kinds of “political” decisions it is not competent to make. In expounding the Constitution, the Court's role is to discern “principles sufficiently absolute to give them roots throughout the community and continuity over significant periods of time, and to lift them above the pragmatic political judgments of a particular time and place.”

^[

¹⁶

^]

What, then, was the practical meaning of a “sufficiently absolute” rendering of the principle of equal protection? It was this: when the decisions of state agents “touch upon an individual's race or ethnic background, he is entitled to a judicial determination that the burden he is asked to bear on that basis is precisely tailored to serve a compelling governmental interest.”^[17]

Powell, with this standard in hand, then turned to look at the four reasons the Medical School offered for its special program: (i) to reduce “the historic deficit of traditionally disfavored minorities in medical schools and the medical profession;” (ii) to counter “the effects of societal discrimination;” (iii) to increase “the number of physicians who will practice in communities currently underserved;” and (iv) to obtain “the educational benefits that flow from an ethnically diverse student body.”^[18] Did any or all of them specify a compelling governmental interest? Did they necessitate use of racial preferences?

As to the first reason, Powell dismissed it out of hand.

If [the School's] purpose is to assure within its student body some specified percentage of a particular group merely because of its race or ethnic origin, such a preferential purpose must be rejected not as insubstantial but as facially invalid. Preferring members of any one group for no reason other than race or ethnic origin is discrimination for its own sake.

As to the second reason, Powell allowed it more force. A state has a legitimate interest in ameliorating the effects of past discrimination. Even so, contended Powell, the Court,

has never approved a classification that aids persons perceived as members of relatively victimized groups at the expense of other innocent individuals in the absence of judicial, legislative, or administrative findings of constitutional or statutory violations.

^[

¹⁹

^]

And the Medical School does not purport to have made, and is in no position to make, such findings. Its broad mission is education, not the formulation of any legislative policy or the adjudication of particular claims of illegality.…

solated segments of our vast governmental structures are not competent to make those decisions, at least in the absence of legislative mandates and legislatively determined criteria.

^[

²⁰

^]

As to the third reason, Powell found it, too, insufficient. The Medical School provided no evidence that the best way it could contribute to increased medical services to underserved communities was to employ a racially preferential admissions scheme. Indeed, the Medical School provided no evidence that its scheme would result in any benefits at all to such communities.^[21]

This left the fourth reason. Here Powell found merit. A university's interest in a diverse student body is legitimated by the First Amendment's implied protection of academic freedom. This constitutional halo makes the interest “compelling.” However, the Medical School's use of a racial and ethnic classification scheme was not “precisely tailored” to effect the School's interest in diversity, argued Powell.

The diversity that furthers a compelling state interest encompasses a far broader array of qualifications and characteristics of which racial or ethnic origin is but a single though important element. [The Medical School's] special admissions program, focused solely on ethnic diversity, would hinder rather than further attainment of genuine diversity.

^[

²²

^]

The diversity which provides an educational atmosphere “conducive to speculation, experiment and creation” includes a nearly endless range of experiences, talents, and attributes that students might bring to campus. In reducing diversity to racial and ethnic quotas, the Medical School wholly misconceived this important educational interest.

In sum, although the last of the Medical School's four reasons encompassed a “compelling governmental interest,” the School's special admissions program was not necessary to effect the interest. The special admissions program was unconstitutional. So concluded Justice Powell.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/affirmative-action/

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

I think we're all losing sight of something: not all black people live in the fking ghetto. Speaking from personal experience, I grew up in an upper middle class area, went to private school, etc. I had black classmates and friends. Many of whom I still speak to this day, actually...and they all have made very nice lives for themselves. Along with all my white/asian/other friends too. We were, and still are ALL on a level playing field.

I'm not saying there's not a problem with the economically disadvantaged. But I think economics goes across race...yes, I believe in merit based scholarships for the needy. I don't think there should be a race qualification to them though. But all these assertations that black=ghetto is wrong. There are 'gang bangers' of every race.

Does racism exist? OF COURSE IT DOES. Is AA gonna change that? No. It only perpetuates the 'black=lazy' stereotype.

You can live in the ghetto (being any race at all), drop out of school, get your GED, go to community college while working a full time job, then complete your degree at a 4 year university. Anyone can do that.

In 2010, with a black POTUS, with successful black people in EVERY profession, walk of life, etc.... there is no need to keep harping on the 'historically this that and the other'.

I think maybe the monster is being fed here. Alot of ppl love to perpetuate violations based on color only to make themselves feel righteous. Six has no problem calling me a drunk in every other word! Steve aint got no probs puttin me or others down that dont agree! So you alls selective righteous BS has been outed!

So the selective love for humanity has thus been chosen and lined up based on color, shape and what ever else you see fit to condemn.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

And you have no problem playing the victim when it suits you, do you Marc.

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

And you have no problem playing the victim when it suits you, do you Marc.

Youve been slayed son! As always. A white boy preachin the black experience Sorry son your sympathy aint payin the bills of these fine folks! Maybe throwin some crumbs makes you all giddy and shite your a sad fvckin sack.

Dont be tossin a question along with no answer!

Edited February 9, 2010 by Col. Lingus

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Youve been slayed son! As always. A white boy preachin the black experience Sorry son your sympathy aint payin the bills of these fine folks! Maybe throwin some crumbs makes you all giddy and shite your a sad fvckin sack.

Sorry Marc, the working class hero ####### doesn't wash with me.

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

Sorry Marc, the working class hero ####### doesn't wash with me.

But the truth does! Thats why your fvckin VACANT! The VACANCY light is lit!

Edited February 9, 2010 by Col. Lingus

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

But the truth does! Thats why your fvckin VACANT! The VACANCY light is lit!

So I guess its the usual round of vacuous grand proclamations with you tonight then, eh?

Your PREDICTABLE son stop putting yo muthafukkin hand in mah pocket yo shitmunchin FUKKAH!

Blah blah blah Marc. STFU.