Affirmative Action:Your Opinion

[Smarty Jones]

"Hard to take someone who sits on the Supreme Court and can help rewrite or deem unconstitutional every advancement in civil rights, civil liberties and personal privacy in the last forty years with a massive grain of salt.

You deem him irrelevant. In fact he has more power to make wholesale changes and act out his 'issues with race' than any other single African-American on the planet. And he's there for life, no repeal, no term limits; nothing short of death gets him and his 'minority' views from becoming reality.

His biography and marriage to a white woman mean nothing -- all that matters is he is firmly in the seat of power, and bitching about the status quo is going to seem refreshingly quaint if we allow the Supreme Court to keep turning back the clock to Brown v. Board of Education.

Talk about the majority living where ignorance is bliss. If your comments conveniently disregarding a Supreme Court justice who helps makes up a conservative majority on the court are any indication, we've got a ways to go."

It's pretty obvious you simply want to start an argument than rather have a conversation, so this and another post that I will address will be the last comments I'll say to you.

I never said Clarence Thomas was irrelevant. What I did say is that he is not representative of the views and interests of black Americans. That's an observation that has been made by white and especially other black Americans. Showing Thomas as an example of viewpoints against affirmative action doesn't make the argument credible; in fact, it loses credibility.

Second, I never said anything about his wife -- YOU DID. However, look at Thomas' life and you can tell he is a man who embodies contradictions, which makes him a poor tool. Here is a man who would not be where he is if it wasn't for affirmative action, and that's not something people ignore.

Don't throw up Thomas' name as an example of a credible black person against affirmative action and then change the conversation to his standing in the Supreme Court. Those are two different conversations now.

[Smarty Jones]

"Perhaps it was this way because you did grow up in an all-Black neighborhood. I am not saying, and I apologize if I gave the impression, that what I observe is happenning everywhere in epidemic proportions, just that I see it to an unsettling degree in my school. Really, even just once is bad enough.

BTW, Smarty Jones, I think your last paragraph has given me an inspiration for my future doctoral thesis."

There is this stereotype floating around that black students with good grades are being ostracized by other black students as "being white." Like I said, I never encountered that nor do I hear about it regularly (BTW, my wife is an 11th-grade English teacher).

I'm not saying it doesn't exist, just that I never saw it and do not see the correlation between "making good grades" and "trying to be white." It sounds like the children who are saying it are those who are not making good grades -- which could be simply jealousy projected through some controversial comment that belittles the target.

Like I said, there likely is something else going on besides good grades that is causing those comments.

[Winslow]

Dad was right. I should have become an engineer.

Maybe . . .

Although I think you're making the biggest dent in the problems you see by being a teacher.

I tutored in a poor inner city black school for a couple of years, and saw the same odd dynamic, that doing well in school was being "white."

Sometimes I wonder if it's compensating for racial self-loathing - and fearing failure.

[Smarty Jones]

"I tutored in a poor inner city black school for a couple of years, and saw the same odd dynamic, that doing well in school was being 'white.'

Sometimes I wonder if it's compensating for racial self-loathing - and fearing failure."

It has some to do with obvious jealousy, but some of it also has to do with the issue of seeing yourself through race.

One of the subconscious values black Americans have passed down from slavery is the association of "high or strong quality=white." Qualities such as intelligence, being on time, being professional, etc., actually have a racial component among some black Americans. That's why I feel black Americans should undergo some mass scale post-slavery traumatic syndrome counseling.

But then again, that's an issue that has nothing to do with affirmative action directly.

[Smarty Jones]

"How was affirmative action 'misapplied?' I'm just curious. How should it have been done differently....?

The road to hell is paved with good intentions, so I'm wondering how exactly interpretations of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by federal agencies and presidential orders, which led to affirmative action, could have been done differently, particularly when the Supreme Court has done nothing but constrain, limit and undo applications of affirmative action since Bakke v. Univ. of California back in 1978 (which eliminated 'quotas')."

There have been instances -- not the general rule, but certain examples -- where someone was hired or promoted for a position even though (s)he was not fully qualified. Be it black, white female, whatever.

Does this happen with white males? Of course, all the time. However, being that we are held to a higher standard, if one of us fall on the sword the question is whether (s)he was an "affirmative action move." And sometimes it was such a move, unfortunately -- which puts all of us (especially black Americans) under a different light.

Where I mentioned misapplied is how a certain employer misused the policy. When an employer throws it around as a badge or publicly states someone was hired for transparent reasons, it's going to create the resentment some people (mostly white males among the detractors) have toward the policy.

IMO, affirmative action should be a guide (used as a reference point and subconscious consideration), not a Bible (a literal interpretation that is inflexible). Some employers have used it as a Bible, which almost always blows up in people's faces.

[Spackling Compound]

There have been instances -- not the general rule, but certain examples -- where someone was hired or promoted for a position even though (s)he was not fully qualified. Be it black, white female, whatever.

Does this happen with white males? Of course, all the time.
http://www2.canoe.com/archives/infos/international/media/2005/09/20050912-161423-g.jpg

[Winslow]

http://www2.canoe.com/archives/infos/international/media/2005/09/20050912-161423-g.jpg

He's the poster child for white affirmative action.

[west3man]

There is this stereotype floating around that black students with good grades are being ostracized by other black students as "being white." Like I said, I never encountered that nor do I hear about it regularly (BTW, my wife is an 11th-grade English teacher).

I'm not saying it doesn't exist, just that I never saw it and do not see the correlation between "making good grades" and "trying to be white." It sounds like the children who are saying it are those who are not making good grades -- which could be simply jealousy projected through some controversial comment that belittles the target.

Like I said, there likely is something else going on besides good grades that is causing those comments.
I just want to toss in my own experience, which included children (and adults, I think) referring singling out "proper" Blacks and, in some cases, calling them "white."

It wasn't grades (they'd just call me a nerd for that) so much as the manner. Too bad enunciating qualified.

[Smarty Jones]

"I just want to toss in my own experience, which included children (and adults, I think) referring singling out 'proper' Blacks and, in some cases, calling them 'white.'

It wasn't grades (they'd just call me a nerd for that) so much as the manner. Too bad enunciating qualified."

I addressed this issue in a previous post, which speaks more of how black Americans have associated certain behaviors with race (in this case, white) because of a mindset passed down from slavery.

[west3man]

I addressed this issue in a previous post, which speaks more of how black Americans have associated certain behaviors with race (in this case, white) because of a mindset passed down from slavery.
I saw that.

[Valmore]

I addressed this issue in a previous post, which speaks more of how black Americans have associated certain behaviors with race (in this case, white) because of a mindset passed down from slavery.

In other words - "The Uncle Tom Syndrome."

If a black person talks with proper English (or close enough to it) and dresses nicely, amongst other things, he or she is an "Uncle Tom" and isn't really black.

For example: Colin Powell would be called an "Uncle Tom."

[west3man]

In other words - "The Uncle Tom Syndrome."

If a black person talks with proper English (or close enough to it) and dresses nicely, amongst other things, he or she is an "Uncle Tom" and isn't really black.

For example: Colin Powell would be called an "Uncle Tom."
I think it's part of the human tendency to do look for something different or obvious about someone who's disagreeing with you or who's doing something you have a problem with... and blame the disagreeable behavior on the different or obvious thing.

"This guy disagrees with me and is telling me how we should act and what we need or don't need... but look at his clothes and speech. Clearly he's so different, he can't know what he's talking about."

"Look at this idiot driver. What are you DOING? If you wanted to turn, why didn't you get in the TURNING LANE instead of holding ME up?! Geez.

OH MAN, he's on a cell phone. Man, people who "speak and drive" are the worst!"


The connection between the behavior and the trait may be purely imaginary, but I think many people latch onto that so-called connection out of convenience.

This won't make me look good, but, imo, the average person's logic calculator isn't "tuned" too well, imo.

[Smarty Jones]

"In other words - 'The Uncle Tom Syndrome.'

If a black person talks with proper English (or close enough to it) and dresses nicely, amongst other things, he or she is an 'Uncle Tom' and isn't really black.

For example: Colin Powell would be called an 'Uncle Tom.'"

I don't know if it's quite that, but it is a misguided attempt at associating certain qualities or traits with race. In this case, black Americans associating positive traits with white people, a suggestion of seeing themselves as inferior (a byproduct of slavery).

[Ray R.]

It's pretty obvious you simply want to start an argument than rather have a conversation, so this and another post that I will address will be the last comments I'll say to you.

Who's sensitive now? Put me on ignore, if you find me so disrespectful to you. I'm trying to add to the discussion, not start an argument. Every time I say something you disagree with, you decide I'm just trying to start an argument, so you deign I'm not worthy to respond to anymore. Pretty high-handed and petty, as far as I'm concerned, but of course, you're entitled to do whatever floats your boat.

I never said Clarence Thomas was irrelevant. What I did say is that he is not representative of the views and interests of black Americans. That's an observation that has been made by white and especially other black Americans. Showing Thomas as an example of viewpoints against affirmative action doesn't make the argument credible; in fact, it loses credibility.

Smarty, you said to take anything he says with a massive grain of salt. I posit that to do so is to marginalize him. I don't think you can marginalize his words or his actions because, hypocritical or not, he is ACTUALLY in the position to act on them. Credibility has nothing to to with it, power to effect change is all that matters. I find most of the Bush administration lacking credibility, but that does not mean I don't take their actions as a threat and real danger to this country to the point of criminality.

Second, I never said anything about his wife -- YOU DID. However, look at Thomas' life and you can tell he is a man who embodies contradictions, which makes him a poor tool. Here is a man who would not be where he is if it wasn't for affirmative action, and that's not something people ignore.

I agree with you, but how is that counter to my point? Because he succeeded due to affirmative action, and is now in the preeminent position to completely dismantle it, how should his words or actions be taken with a massive grain of salt? Power talks, bullshit walks.....

Don't throw up Thomas' name as an example of a credible black person against affirmative action and then change the conversation to his standing in the Supreme Court. Those are two different conversations now.

No, they're not. They're the exact same conversation. Affirmative action can be effectively destroyed (inasmuch as it hasn't already been neutered) by an African-American as part of a conservative majority on the Supreme Court. If that doesn't connote credibility, I don't know what does.

[Valmore]

I think it's part of the human tendency to do look for something different or obvious about someone who's disagreeing with you or who's doing something you have a problem with... and blame the disagreeable behavior on the different or obvious thing.

"This guy disagrees with me and is telling me how we should act and what we need or don't need... but look at his clothes and speech. Clearly he's so different, he can't know what he's talking about."

"Look at this idiot driver. What are you DOING? If you wanted to turn, why didn't you get in the TURNING LANE instead of holding ME up?! Geez.

OH MAN, he's on a cell phone. Man, people who "speak and drive" are the worst!"

The connection between the behavior and the trait may be purely imaginary, but I think many people latch onto that so-called connection out of convenience.

This won't make me look good, but, imo, the average person's logic calculator isn't "tuned" too well, imo.

I'm not certain comparing driving faults with people of one's own race telling others that they're not really of their race because of certain traits works for me. Bad driving is within a whole lot of people - you live in Tallahassee, you should know! :p

[Valmore]

I don't know if it's quite that, but it is a misguided attempt at associating certain qualities or traits with race. In this case, black Americans associating positive traits with white people, a suggestion of seeing themselves as inferior (a byproduct of slavery).

Tough to say - because it seems that while associating positive traits with whites, instead of bolstering blacks with those positive traits, the trend seems to be to tear them down for having those traits, that the person isn't "black enough" because they have those associated "white" traits.

Which would explain why, back in the 1990's, a poll/study showed that, on a percentage basis, more whites would have voted for Colin Powell for President than blacks would have. Colin Powell speaks well, dresses proper, etc. - basically, traits you would say blacks associate with being white. It seems he would be penalized by the people of his own race for being that way, instead of being bolstered for what he is - a man who got educated and worked his ass off to get where he is.

[Ray R.]

There have been instances -- not the general rule, but certain examples -- where someone was hired or promoted for a position even though (s)he was not fully qualified. Be it black, white female, whatever.

Does this happen with white males? Of course, all the time. However, being that we are held to a higher standard, if one of us fall on the sword the question is whether (s)he was an "affirmative action move." And sometimes it was such a move, unfortunately -- which puts all of us (especially black Americans) under a different light.

Where I mentioned misapplied is how a certain employer misused the policy. When an employer throws it around as a badge or publicly states someone was hired for transparent reasons, it's going to create the resentment some people (mostly white males among the detractors) have toward the policy.

IMO, affirmative action should be a guide (used as a reference point and subconscious consideration), not a Bible (a literal interpretation that is inflexible). Some employers have used it as a Bible, which almost always blows up in people's faces.

Good answer. I agree with you 100%. I have seen this played out numerous times.

Follow-up - how do you make it at a carrot rather than a stick? Do you train managers, CEOs, educators, etc., to make it subconscious rather than public? And how does that training manifest itself? I'd argue it's a lifetime of training to ingrain it subconsciously, but again, I'm asking pragmatically for effective usage? And how do you deal with ingrained racism, with probably manifests itself subconsciously as well. If it's not transparent and out there for every one to see, then there might be a trust component that will depend solely on the subconscious makeup of the employer, who could let his or her bias drive the train.....

I think you've got something there, and I'm wondering how we put it into action. Thanks.

[west3man]

I'm not certain comparing driving faults with people of one's own race telling others that they're not really of their race because of certain traits works for me. Bad driving is within a whole lot of people - you live in Tallahassee, you should know! :p
When people have a problem with certain behavior, they look for an obvious reason for it. That reason doesn't always make sense.

There are plenty of other examples. They needn't be as socially or politically charged to have similar roots.

[west3man]

Tough to say - because it seems that while associating positive traits with whites, instead of bolstering blacks with those positive traits, the trend seems to be to tear them down for having those traits, that the person isn't "black enough" because they have those associated "white" traits.

Which would explain why, back in the 1990's, a poll/study showed that, on a percentage basis, more whites would have voted for Colin Powell for President than blacks would have. Colin Powell speaks well, dresses proper, etc. - basically, traits you would say blacks associate with being white. It seems he would be penalized by the people of his own race for being that way, instead of being bolstered for what he is - a man who got educated and worked his ass off to get where he is.
...unless those people had other reasons for not wanting to vote for Powell - like his views.

I wouldn't vote for him, either, and that has nothing to do with his dress or his diction.

[Smarty Jones]

"Tough to say - because it seems that while associating positive traits with whites, instead of bolstering blacks with those positive traits, the trend seems to be to tear them down for having those traits, that the person isn't 'black enough' because they have those associated 'white' traits.

Which would explain why, back in the 1990's, a poll/study showed that, on a percentage basis, more whites would have voted for Colin Powell for President than blacks would have. Colin Powell speaks well, dresses proper, etc. - basically, traits you would say blacks associate with being white. It seems he would be penalized by the people of his own race for being that way, instead of being bolstered for what he is - a man who got educated and worked his ass of to get where he is."

The qualifier is that SOME black people associate certain traits and behaviors with race to that degree. I've seen it work in other ways, where black people try to remove themselves from other black people simply because they may have these traits.

Again, it's a value mindset passed down since slavery that also is projected in a case of jealousy from a few people. Most black people I know -- and they come fom all walks of life -- don't associate getting an education or wearing a suit to work as "being white."

As for Colin Powell, keep in mind that Powell always has been seen by white society as automatically having the black community in his back pocket simply because he's black. Prior to his emergence in the first Gulf War, most people were not aware who Powell was, and he's never really tried to engrain himself into the black community except in the most tangential fashion. I don't know if black people dislike Powell as much as they know little enough about him to warm up to him.

You see that phenomenon in a lot of instances in society -- if white people like or admire a particular black person, there is this assumption that all the black people like him or her as well. That may not be the case.

[west3man]

Good answer. I agree with you 100%. I have seen this played out numerous times.

Follow-up - how do you make it at a carrot rather than a stick? Do you train managers, CEOs, educators, etc., to make it subconscious rather than public? And how does that training manifest itself? I'd argue it's a lifetime of training to ingrain it subconsciously, but again, I'm asking pragmatically for effective usage? And how do you deal with ingrained racism, with probably manifests itself subconsciously as well. If it's not transparent and out there for every one to see, then there might be a trust component that will depend solely on the subconscious makeup of the employer, who could let his or her bias drive the train.....

I think you've got something there, and I'm wondering how we put it into action. Thanks.
I think "diversity" and "diversity training" are more powerful and more meaningful than some will admit (I don't mean anyone in particular).

Opening people's minds up to "new truths" can and should happen openly, imo. The value of diversity is real, imo. It's not just something I support because it *could* benefit me. It could also work against me. (I'm not arguing with you, btw - just responding to your question AND some of the implications associated with these terms.)

The top people have got to buy into these concepts and ideas and then get their subordinates to do the same... and so on... and so on. Demonstrating the differences between real and false logic, as recognized by that association and/or its management, will foster a particular culture. That culture can be bought into by people and it CAN go more than just skin-deep.

Even if it's just on the surface, the behavior that results from it can have tremendously positive effects. Also, while what you feel can affect what you do, what you do can sometimes affect how you feel. That's one of the reasons I value these ideas so much.

[Valmore]

...unless those people had other reasons for not wanting to vote for Powell - like his views.

I'd like to believe that. Honestly, I would. However, after studying politics and seeing the results of the last so many elections, something really stands out - the vast majority of people don't vote on views.

The vast majority of people vote on superficial things - if a guy is likable. If he's good-looking, what party he's in. Things like that. The easiest way to show it is the first televised debate between Nixon and Kennedy back in 1960. Kennedy was handsome, tanned, relaxed and looked good. Nixon was sweaty, sick with a cold and generally looked bad.

Polls showed that those who watched the debate on t.v. thought Kennedy had won. However, those who only listened to it on the radio thought Nixon had won, based only on what they heard - not what they saw.

At any rate, considering black unemployment went down by great percentages under Ronald Reagan and blacks, percentagewise, by and far vote Democrat, also makes a good point of how people don't vote on the issues.

No, not everyone is like that - just the majority of everyone.

[Smarty Jones]

"I'd like to believe that. Honestly, I would. However, after studying politics and seeing the results of the last so many elections, something really stands out - the vast majority of people don't vote on views.

The vast majority of people vote on superficial things - if a guy is likable. If he's good-looking, what party he's in. Things like that. The easiest way to show it is the first televised debate between Nixon and Kennedy back in 1960. Kennedy was handsome, tanned, relaxed and looked good. Nixon was sweaty, sick with a cold and generally looked bad.

Polls showed that those who watched the debate on t.v. thought Kennedy had won. However, those who only listened to it on the radio thought Nixon had won, based only on what they heard - not what they saw.

At any rate, considering black unemployment went down by great percentages under Ronald Reagan and blacks, percentagewise, by and far vote Democrat, also makes a good point of how people don't vote on the issues.

No, not everyone is like that - just the majority of everyone."

That's because people make decisions with their emotions, not with their logic. The best way to appeal to people is through such triggers that stimulate the creative side of our brains. I see nothing wrong with that.

[west3man]

I'd like to believe that. Honestly, I would. However, after studying politics and seeing the results of the last so many elections, something really stands out - the vast majority of people don't vote on views.

The vast majority of people vote on superficial things - if a guy is likable. If he's good-looking, what party he's in. Things like that. The easiest way to show it is the first televised debate between Nixon and Kennedy back in 1960. Kennedy was handsome, tanned, relaxed and looked good. Nixon was sweaty, sick with a cold and generally looked bad.

Polls showed that those who watched the debate on t.v. thought Kennedy had won. However, those who only listened to it on the radio thought Nixon had won, based only on what they heard - not what they saw.

At any rate, considering black unemployment went down by great percentages under Ronald Reagan and blacks, percentagewise, by and far vote Democrat, also makes a good point of how people don't vote on the issues.

No, not everyone is like that - just the majority of everyone. Or they have other problems with Reagan... or Republican ideals.

Are Democrats so much prettier than Republicans? Is that why Blacks are voting Democrat?

I think some of your points are strong, but I disagree with your conclusions.

[Smarty Jones]

"Good answer. I agree with you 100%. I have seen this played out numerous times.

Follow-up - how do you make it at a carrot rather than a stick? Do you train managers, CEOs, educators, etc., to make it subconscious rather than public? And how does that training manifest itself? I'd argue it's a lifetime of training to ingrain it subconsciously, but again, I'm asking pragmatically for effective usage? And how do you deal with ingrained racism, with probably manifests itself subconsciously as well. If it's not transparent and out there for every one to see, then there might be a trust component that will depend solely on the subconscious makeup of the employer, who could let his or her bias drive the train.....

I think you've got something there, and I'm wondering how we put it into action. Thanks."

I feel it's going to be a continued manner of exposure to other cultures and groups of people and realize that we all have the same basic goals and needs. We all are different, of course, by manner of culture, lifestyle and history, but deep down we all want the same thing.

I don't feel it's going to happen in our lifetime. After all, most of us are one generation removed from the ideologies that have been in place for hundreds of years. I feel that as the old ways (and older people) die out and more interaction and exposure continue, such manners will work themselves out.

That said, sensitivity programs and efforts to have diversity training are needed. Most of us still associate with monoracial structures when given a choice out of default or tradition (like the church or social groups), so affirmative action is still needed.

Most of us live and deal with people who look like us, so diversity needs to be a top-of-mind issue. Until it becomes so commonplace in society not to be so conscious about or consumed with race, gender or lifestyle, you have to have such laws to make it happen.

[Ray R.]

I think "diversity" and "diversity training" are more powerful and more meaningful than some will admit (I don't mean anyone in particular).

Opening people's minds up to "new truths" can and should happen openly, imo. The value of diversity is real, imo. It's not just something I support because it *could* benefit me. It could also work against me. (I'm not arguing with you, btw - just responding to your question AND some of the implications associated with these terms.)

The top people have got to buy into these concepts and ideas and then get their subordinates to do the same... and so on... and so on. Demonstrating the differences between real and false logic, as recognized by that association and/or its management, will foster a particular culture. That culture can be bought into by people and it CAN go more than just skin-deep.

Even if it's just on the surface, the behavior that results from it can have tremendously positive effects. Also, while what you feel can affect what you do, what you do can sometimes affect how you feel. That's one of the reasons I value these ideas so much.

Well, you know how I feel about diversity. I've been arguing about it's tangible academic and economic benefits for pages upon pages.

I respect what you're saying, I think my main sticking point is it's a fine-line between force-feeding and encouraging change, and without transparency in practices, you leave people to act on their best or worst impulses, even if they understand and believe in (or give lip service) to the program.

Sexual harassment training in law firms generally consists of a fifteen minute video you watch in orientation, performed by actors that couldn't get a role as a corpse on CSI. The whole process is kind of laughable, even though the underlying matter is deadly serious. As to diversity training, I've yet to see it as anything but a guest speaker and a PowerPoint presentation, and most firms don't even go that far.

Again, I believe and respect everything you're saying, it's just the pragmatist in me that wonders how we give the subtle and not-so-subtle changes in thinking (and I really believe it's needed) some teeth and viability.

Anyway, thanks for responding, West.

[Valmore]

Or they have other problems with Reagan... or Republican ideals.

Are Democrats so much prettier than Republicans? Is that why Blacks are voting Democrat?

I think some of your points are strong, but I disagree with your conclusions.

Actually, until Kennedy, blacks rewarded the Republicans with their votes consistently after the Civil War. It wasn't until Kennedy that the swerve towards blacks voting Democrat came about. There's quite a few factors that can be considered, one of which being that Kennedy, and not Nixon, was the one who put pressure on the state that had jailed Martin Luther King, Jr. to set him free. It made a bold statement that Kennedy was "on their side" - and only a year or so later, his brother Robert would give J. Edgar Hoover of the CIA permission to wiretap King's phones.

I'm not sure why blacks by and far vote Democrat. It would be too easy to say because Democrats hand out money, and it's too easy to pin it on Kennedy and that stuuf.

(Also, the vast majority thing goes for everyone - not just blacks. I'm pretty certain you got the gist of that, but I want to make sure it's perfectly clear.)

[Smarty Jones]

"Actually, until Kennedy, blacks rewarded the Republicans with their votes consistently after the Civil War. It wasn't until Kennedy that the swerve towards blacks voting Democrat came about. There's quite a few factors that can be considered, one of which being that Kennedy, and not Nixon, was the one who put pressure on the state that had jailed Martin Luther King, Jr. to set him free. It made a bold statement that Kennedy was 'on their side' - and only a year or so later, his brother Robert would give J. Edgar Hoover of the CIA permission to wiretap King's phones.

I'm not sure why blacks by and far vote Democrat. It would be too easy to say because Democrats hand out money, and it's too easy to pin it on Kennedy and that stuuf.

(Also, the vast majority thing goes for everyone - not just blacks. I'm pretty certain you got the gist of that, but I want to make sure it's perfectly clear.)"

The civil rights movement and the laws that enabled black Americans some semblance of equality happened under the Democratic presidencies of John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson.

[Ray R.]

I feel it's going to be a continued manner of exposure to other cultures and groups of people and realize that we all have the same basic goals and needs. We all are different, of course, by manner of culture, lifestyle and history, but deep down we all want the same thing.

I don't feel it's going to happen in our lifetime. After all, most of us are one generation removed from the ideologies that have been in place for hundreds of years. I feel that as the old ways (and older people) die out and more interaction and exposure continue, such manners will work themselves out.

That said, sensitivity programs and efforts to have diversity training are needed. Most of us still associate with monoracial structures when given a choice out of default or tradition (like the church or social groups), so affirmative action is still needed.

Most of us live and deal with people who look like us, so diversity needs to be a top-of-mind issue. Until it becomes so commonplace in society not to be so conscious about or consumed with race, gender or lifestyle, you have to have such laws to make it happen.

We're in complete agreement. I have two young children and I wonder how we break the cycle of racism, particularly the ingrained institutional kind. I know how I want them to think, and I encourage that, but I am afraid that environmental conditioning and media manipulation through subtle cues will undo what I hope to foster through constant repetition. I believe in diversity and support diversity, but it seems that people would rather deem it as "PC" or disrespect towards classical Western thought, instead of acknowledging the benefits. How many generations until Martin Luther King's dream comes true for everyone....?

Very good response. I appreciate the honesty and forthrightness.

[Smarty Jones]

"We're in complete agreement. I have two young children and I wonder how we break the cycle of racism, particularly the ingrained institutional kind. I know how I want them to think, and I encourage that, but I am afraid that environmental conditioning and media manipulation through subtle cues will undo what I hope to foster through constant repetition. I believe in diversity and support diversity, but it seems that people would rather deem it as 'PC' or disrespect towards classical Western thought, instead of acknowledging the benefits. How many generations until Martin Luther King's dream comes true for everyone....?"

Like I said, you're talking about people with differing values. It's always a sensitive subject on finding out WHY people hold their views -- and some people would rather not answer for their views, and instead choose the easy way out.

Also, a lot of discomfort in dealing with race issues is because how we think others may view our actions -- in other words, placing assumptions on others based on assumptions. That's where I feel is the biggest disconnect with race issues in the United States.

[west3man]

Sexual harassment training in law firms generally consists of a fifteen minute video you watch in orientation, performed by actors that couldn't get a role as a corpse on CSI. The whole process is kind of laughable, even though the underlying matter is deadly serious. As to diversity training, I've yet to see it as anything but a guest speaker and a PowerPoint presentation, and most firms don't even go that far. *nods*

Again, I believe and respect everything you're saying, it's just the pragmatist in me that wonders how we give the subtle and not-so-subtle changes in thinking (and I really believe it's needed) some teeth and viability.
Understandable.


I think it's another example of poor execution.
I also think this needs to be done whether AA exists or not.

I had a situation occur, recently, in which someone said something that made me uncomfortable... twice. I kept my mouth shut about it and had no intentions of saying anything, but eventually it came out. ("It" was a racially insensitive comment someone made to me on two separation occasions.) The only reason I mentioned it was to make a larger point about the person's manner.

Ultimately, the person was written up (despite the fact that I didn't want that and was never suggesting it was necessary) but the overall point I tried to make... was never addressed. In fact, the meeting that was supposed to take place between me, the 'offender', and management never occurred.

Why? In my opinion what they did and didn't do says it all. They didn't care about any of my concerns UNLESS they'd put the company in a position to be sued. Instead of doing the *work* it took to clear up any misconceptions or whatever, they took the paper-trail approach and covered their own asses.


It's this kind of thing that needs to be addressed, imo.

[Smarty Jones]

Back to Ray's comments about Clarence Thomas:

Yes, he is a member of the Supreme Court and potentially he could affect adversely how minorities can advance in this country. But I keep in mind several things:

1.) He's been a justice for 14 years and so far he's not done anything to enact on his views.

2.) The contradictory nature of his existence would make him a lightning rod of controversy if such a thing happened.

3.) His contradictory background doesn't make him a credible resource for why affirmative action should be dismantled.

4.) The minority groups are growing more in population and economic power, so as years go on such a move will affect larger percentages of the population.

Thomas and Ward Connerly are seen as transparent, contradictory and self-serving in their actions by white and black communities. If Thomas had the clout and reputation of a Thurgood Marshall, I would be concerned. But Thomas seems like he wants to blend in more and is happy as his unofficial role as a token.

[Samurai]

I don't know if it's quite that, but it is a misguided attempt at associating certain qualities or traits with race. In this case, black Americans associating positive traits with white people, a suggestion of seeing themselves as inferior (a byproduct of slavery).
Is it really from slavery, which no one alive actually experienced? Or might a large part of it be from Affirmative Action? You yourself said "Clarence Thomas never would have made it to the Supreme Court without AA". I think many people, white and black, say the same thing about any successful blacks... "Aww, they only got there because of AA, not their own merit." And when blacks ingrain that idea, it does a great deal of harm to their self-confidence and self-esteem.

[west3man]

Is it really from slavery, which no one alive actually experienced?
I really don't think you have a reasonable concept of just what slavery was or how powerful its effects were and are.

Obviously this is colored by your "Slavery was worth it" suggestion, but it's also because of statements like the above.

[Smarty Jones]

"Is it really from slavery, which no one alive actually experienced? Or might a large part of it be from Affirmative Action?"

When black people were freed as slaves in the 1800s, one of the many things that wasn't considered was the value system that black Americans picked up from that environment. A lot of those social values have been passed down from generation to generation, which is the thought that some qualities and traits are associated with white people (white people are better business people, women are the standard of beauty, etc.).

I'm sorry, I don't see how you can connect "I think that person is acting white" to affirmative action. That's a reach.

"You yourself said 'Clarence Thomas never would have made it to the Supreme Court without AA.' I think many people, white and black, say the same thing about any successful blacks..."

The fact is Clarence Thomas' generation had more doors opened to them compared to previous generations because of the civil rights movement. That doesn't mean he didn't earn his keep, just that his opportunities would have been severely limited had other black people not demanded the opportunity to be treated fairly.

"And when blacks ingrain that idea, it does a great deal of harm to their self-confidence and self-esteem."

I would say hundreds of years of living in a country that brought you over as slaves and stripped you of your heritage, treating your like second-class citizens upon freedom and subjected to various types of discrimination, prejudice and castigation has everything to do with it.

Making a law that says that white people now have to treat black people fairly has nothing to do with it. Again, that's reaching.

[Smarty Jones]

"I really don't think you have a reasonable concept of just what slavery was or how powerful its effects were and are.

Obviously this is colored by your 'Slavery was worth it' suggestion, but it's also because of statements like the above."

It's another example of the disconnect some people have about this issue. Not just with slavery, but the 100 years of racial discrimination, castigation and humiliation of black people beyond that, which created a social system of racial superiority and inferiority.

Apparently, people like Samurai think slavery was some weekend pass and the sociological and psychological ramifications after it are just minor inconveniences.

[Paul McEnery]

Is it really from slavery, which no one alive actually experienced? Or might a large part of it be from Affirmative Action? You yourself said "Clarence Thomas never would have made it to the Supreme Court without AA". I think many people, white and black, say the same thing about any successful blacks... "Aww, they only got there because of AA, not their own merit." And when blacks ingrain that idea, it does a great deal of harm to their self-confidence and self-esteem.
Er, no.

The reality is, black people wouldn't be making it as much without AA, because white people are racist and would have prevented them.

Though you're right about one thing: one consequence of racism -- one hidden injury of class in general (nods to Pho) -- is damaged self-respect.

[Tages]

Er, no.

The reality is, black people wouldn't be making it as much without AA, because white people are racist and would have prevented them.
Somehow when you say this I don't think you're talking about yourself.

[west3man]

It's another example of the disconnect some people have about this issue. Not just with slavery, but the 100 years of racial discrimination, castigation and humiliation of black people beyond that, which created a social system of racial superiority and inferiority.

Apparently, people like Samurai think slavery was some weekend pass and the sociological and psychological ramifications after it are just minor inconveniences.
I was just about to respond to the second half, then I realized I was saying the same thing you did in the first part of your post.

Obviously, I think you've hit the nail on the head.

[cactusmaac]

I'm just curious what a good alterntative to Affirmative Action would be. I haven't seen one presented browsing through the thread.

The obvious answer to that would be improving education levels at earlier ages for minority\poor children so that they don't need a leg up at college and in the workforce.

Beyond that if you believe centuries of oppression and racial oppression severely handicap your chances, AA is likely to remain a very small plaster on a pretty big wound.

[BlairH]

because white people are racist and would have prevented them.

Stop being so racist.