Is it admitting defeat; throwing up hands in disgust and giving up on fixing the dilema at it's root? Is is really helping minorities or is it just another form of classism keeping elite (whether finanicially or intellectually) minorities and their issues detached from the rest of their prospective groups?

Is it a useful tool? If so, is it more of a wedge to get a foot in the door...or a wedge to create a social schism?

I wonder. What do ya'll think?


----------------------
Avatar? Nea onnim sua a, ohu; nea odwen se onim dodo no, se ogyae sua a, ketewa no koraa a onim no firi ne nsa.
_______________________


"...I'm telling ya these walls are funny. First you hate 'em, then you get used to 'em. Enough, time passes, you get so you depend on 'em. That's "institutionalized."

Red, The Shawshank Redemption.

"We're gonna sit here, and we're gonna drink this thing out" ...My boy Tremaine during a hurricane sweeping past Georgia Southern Univ. in '99.

>Is it admitting defeat; throwing up hands in disgust and
>giving up on fixing the dilema at it's root?

No, AFFIRMATIVE ACTION POLICY
WAS FORGED OUT OF THE CAULDRON
of black insurgency. It was the
mobilization of black protest,
beginning with the civil rights
movement and the ensuing upsurge
of black militancy, that engendered
the political pressure for the policy
initiatives that came to be known as
"affirmative action."

Contrary to the lies, AA is not and has
never been a hand-out from the U.S. gov.
or liberal whites. Rather, it is a by-
product of the Black struggle for equality.

>Is is really
>helping minorities or is it just another form of classism
>keeping elite (whether finanicially or intellectually)
>minorities and their issues detached from the rest of their
>prospective groups?

Absolutely, positively not!

A plethora of social research
indicates that the occupational
spheres where blacks have made
the most progress -- in government
service, in major blue-collar
occupations, in corporate management,
and in the professions -- are all
areas where vigorous affirmative
action programs have been in place
over the past two decades(Steinberg,
1995).

>Is it a useful tool? If so, is it more of a wedge to get a
>foot in the door...or a wedge to create a social schism?

In his book "Turning Back, The
Retreat from Racial Justice in
American Thought and Policy",
Stephen Steinberg (1995) argues
that, "affirmative action is the
single policy of the post-civil
rights era that sought equality,
not just as a right and a theory,
but as a fact and a result" (p.165).

Nonwhites were unable to rely on
good-faith efforts by employers
until those efforts were actually
enforced by specific "goals and
timetables" that gave preference
to minority applicants "who met
basic qualifications but might
not have been hired or promoted
without affirmative action mandates"
(p.166).

Blacks have made the greatest
progress in firms and job sectors
where affirmative action has been
implemented: in government, in major
blue-collar industries, and in cor-
porate management and the professions
(eBadgett and Hartmann in Economic
Perspectives on Affirmative Action).

specifically...how does AA speak to the problem of separate and not equal schooling? How does it speak directly to the ROOT problem of children not getting equal footing in education, nutrition, child care, and positive mentorship from individuals with a shared background?

Does it? When I look at AA it seems to only crack the door for those who MAKE it to the door in the first place (the intellectual/financial elite).

What about Jamal, Hector, Liev or Aiden? What about the kids from the "other side of the tracks" who won't get access to the books, quality of mentors/teachers, technology, or basic nutrition that Jack, Jill, and Solomon have?

What about minority colleges and universities (women's colleges such as Converse, etc...and Minority schools such as Clark-Atlanta, Morris Brown, etc)

They were CREATED to help close a social gap, but now it seems there is a brain drain from these communities. And much like internatinal brain drain- the migrants are'nt coming back except to live like kings.

----------------------
Avatar? Nea onnim sua a, ohu; nea odwen se onim dodo no, se ogyae sua a, ketewa no koraa a onim no firi ne nsa.
_______________________


"...I'm telling ya these walls are funny. First you hate 'em, then you get used to 'em. Enough, time passes, you get so you depend on 'em. That's "institutionalized."

Red, The Shawshank Redemption.

"We're gonna sit here, and we're gonna drink this thing out" ...My boy Tremaine during a hurricane sweeping past Georgia Southern Univ. in '99.

... point about fudnamental access, and how it is lacking from jump street... BUT:

Schools and their funding largely are representative of local mores: fiscal, cultural, and religious (last two overlap, but aren't the same). States, then counties, then town/cities decide how their public schools run. If East Cupcake, Long Island decides to flood its schools with dough, to the detriment of enarby Central Cupcake, Long Island; what is FedGov to do to even the scales?

Affirmative action is a Federal action to make at least a pandering effort to even the chronic imbalances that START locally. I agree with Grimm's assessment of its origins. White people blast it because they feel somehow cheated – "He took my place when I was more/just as qualified because he's BLACK!" But the truth is, for a LOOOOOOONNNNNG time, it's been the other way around: "He took my place when I was more/just as qualified because he's WHITE!" So what's a little payback amongst friends?

Also, even if its helping marginal students get access to universities; these marginal students will have a better chance at social mobility, and hopefully, their descendents will be LESS dependant on AA. So even evaluated at its worst – as reverse discrimination – it is an attempt to diminish long-term race distinctions, by adding EXTRA access at the end of the tunnel.

.
>White people blast it because they feel somehow cheated –
>"He took my place when I was more/just as qualified because
>he's BLACK!" But the truth is, for a LOOOOOOONNNNNG time,
>it's been the other way around: "He took my place when I was
>more/just as qualified because he's WHITE!" So what's a
>little payback amongst friends?

no. it has never been the other way around. pre and pos affirmative action, the same group/race of people have been on top, thus still making it in effect a sham.

i disagree with the assessment that AA is just a flip flop of the way things used to be.

I'm not saying it is.

I'm saying, if the perception of AA is 'reverse racism,' then there must be an acceptance that there is racism in the first place: that the scales are imbalances almost chronically against certain people (not exclusively black) and that if once and a while the pendulum swings the other way; to shut the fuck up.

is my point in that statement.

although i will still maintain that the pendulum still has never swung in an opposite direction. i do understand the point you are trying to make, and maybe you see this as semantics, but i do not want to confuse AA, a government mandated handout with the shifting of momentum in race relations, or in the progress meter.

... wouldn't use AA as some sort of gauge for racial equity, either. We're in agreement on that. And I'm not trying to make AA into some end-all fixit. On the contrary, I realize it is flawed, just as any system is. But I support it, because the alternative is "Fuck you, darkie - we have no compelling reason aside from PR to 'diversify' our campus. Have a good one!"

Which is essentially what my Dean of Minority affairs intimated to me and the rest of the campus diversity club when we asked him to speak on the subject.

to those who are still disenfranchised in spite of AA.

... Shaw High School, East Cleveland. A friend of mine arranged it.

Look, I think everyone can agree that AA isn't going to save everyone. the truth is, if there was a true committment to expanding minority roles in society - jobs, education, opportunity for advancement - the money and energy would be put towards schools and communities at an EARLY age, not when people are of college seniority. AA is a passive response, in that the colleges in question have to exert the minimum energy to 'pass the mark' - just accept a broader range of qualified students.

An ACTIVE response would be to partner with local schools to groom ALL the students - of every race and class - into potential university candidates.

>Schools and their funding largely are representative of
>local mores: fiscal, cultural, and religious (last two
>overlap, but aren't the same). States, then counties, then
>town/cities decide how their public schools run. If East
>Cupcake, Long Island decides to flood its schools with
>dough, to the detriment of enarby Central Cupcake, Long
>Island; what is FedGov to do to even the scales?

You actually hit upon a perfect example which highlights the inherent inequalities in the system and the root causes that create them. Take Long Island, where a legacy of housing discrimination has contributed greatly to this problem. Nassau County as being in violation of federal civil rights laws. Here's an explanation of the discriminatory effect this system has created, from the Nassau Chapter of the New York Civil Liberties Union - http://archive.aclu.org/community/newyork/nassautax.html:

"The effect of this system is that homes in minority districts are necessarily overassessed and homes in white districts are consistently underassessed in relation to market value... If one examines the sales price in different sections of the county and compares sales prices in areas with a high white population (such as Garden City or Manhasset) with areas of high black and Latino population (such as Roosevelt or Freeport), the minority areas have a much higher percentage of overassessed property, while the white areas have a much higher percentage of underassessed property. ... for illustration, the Garden City home is underassessed by approximately 20%..., the Roosevelt home is overassessed by approximately 102%...

This racially discriminatory overassessment in poor minority communities leads to relatively higher taxes with increasing economic burdens on the homeowner, severe social dislocation and community decline, including a higher rate of foreclosure, a higher incidence of illegal occupancies and rooming houses, and a higher rate of absentee landlords."

- There has also been an erosion of the commercial tax base in these towns, putting an even higher proportional tax burden on the already-overtaxed minority homeowners: www.jrn.columbia.edu/studentwork/race/2002/school-zubin.shtml

"... Roosevelt's commercial base has eroded over the past two decades and (residents) blame it partly on what they see as a form of governmental racism. "The United States Department of Housing and Development came into Roosevelt and took 65 percent of our commercially zoned land and converted them into homes," Summerville said. "How can you do such a thing to a town?" He described other instances in which local and state government turned down opportunities for Roosevelt to increase its commercial tax base and hence lessen the tax burden of residents.

To critics, an example of how money leaves Roosevelt and never returns is the Roosevelt Field Mall in well-to-do Garden City, north of Roosevelt. It teems with crowds and many Roosevelt residents shop there. "We go there and spend our money on items and pay taxes, and nothing comes back to us," said William Horton, a resident of Roosevelt. "We are helping support an already wealthy neighborhood while ours gets poorer every year. ...The average Roosevelt household has an annual income of $25,000 but pays $6,400 in property taxes or about 25 percent of its income, officials say. In neighboring towns the percentage drops to about 8 percent."

- Due to the fact that public school funding is supported by a community's tax base, this creates an "Roosevelt, with a population of 15,000, is only 30 minutes from Manhattan. It also is predominantly black - and racially isolated from nearby affluent white communities. The school system has been historically under-funded. It lacks a commercial tax base to help pay for schools. So while the community has a high school-tax rate it is unable to generate sufficient revenue for education."

- These factors have created what Kozol describes as the "Savage Inequalities" of the American educational system. Roosevelt and Garden City are perfect examples of this: they're like 4 miles down the road from each other, and yet are light-years apart (just to give you a mental picture of how vastly different these two places are: Chuck D is from Roosevelt, and John Tesh is from Garden City - that about sums up the degree of contrast between these two places as well as any statistics I can cite).

Garden City is the picturesque Long Island town - affluent, predominantly white (92% white/ 3% hispanic/ 1% black), with a superb public school system, one of the best in the state, and probably the nation for that matter. Meanwhile Roosevelt, which is predominantly black (81% black / 16% hispanic / 3% white), is run-down, crime and drugs are prevalent, and it consistenly ranks as one of the worst school systems in the state, ranking right at the bottom with poor inner-city schools in Harlem, Brooklyn & the Bronx. It got so bad that the state was forced to take direct control of the Roosevelt school district last year, the first time that's ever happened in NY.

Similar problems exist in Hempstead, Wyandanch, and other heavily minority-populated areas of LI. So to make a long story short... the whole educational system is seriously fucked up, even on Long Island. As for the question "what is FedGov to do to even the scales?"... that's a good question. I don't know - I don't really think that there's an easy answer to that. But for starters people need to realize the serious degree of inequality that prevades the American educational system, and the drastic effect that this has on educational opportunities.

This is why I'm so fucking sick of people whining about AA being "unfair" - these people need to take a good, long look at how deeply unfair the educational system as a whole truly is in this country, and realize that even with AA, overall the scales are still tipped decidedly in their favor. Again, you sum this up pretty well - "if the perception of AA is 'reverse racism,' then there must be an acceptance that there is racism in the first place: that the scales are imbalances almost chronically against certain people (not exclusively black) and that if once and a while the pendulum swings the other way; to shut the fuck up." ... couldn't have said it better myself.


- P.S. Oh yeah, the next time you make one of your little cupcake comments about LI, you're gonna catch a Strong Island-style cyber-beatdown... I'ma take shit back to '87 EPMD style - "I stepped back, and started sprayin' niggaz / What a way to go out, out like a sucker / But I'm on track, like a Long Island train conductor.."

>Contrary to the lies, AA is not and has
never been a hand-out from the U.S. gov.
or liberal whites.

No... THIS IS A LIE. LBJ introduced AA in 1965... let's get this straight.

>...it is a by-product of the Black struggle for equality.

This is not a lie. It is a reaction to the Black struggle, but its means was to suppress the ongoing Civil Rights Movement, which it did. The Movement was going on with such vigor and relentlessness that shit was actually beginning to change (and a lot of white folks were getting scared). So, rather than let the Movement continue at its remarkable (frightening) pace, LBJ and co decided they needed a reason to show minorities that they had something to fight for... in Vietnam, and to show that the Fed recognized their struggle, which it did not.

>"...not just as a right and a theory,
but as a fact and a result" (p.165).

I hate to break it to you, but Steinberg wasn't the dude that said this. It was LBJ, before AA was even put into action...

>Blacks have made the greatest progress in firms and job sectors
where affirmative action has been implemented: in government, in major blue-collar industries, and in corporate management and the professions (eBadgett and Hartmann in Economic
Perspectives on Affirmative Action).

This is true, and this was exactly what the LBJ administration, and those after, needed. They needed "proof" to show that they were compassionate about women and minorities; that they had come up with a "solution" to the discrimination problem in the workplace.

However, what was the real result?

No more CRM. No more Malcolm X's or MLK's. No more massive, world changing protests. More wars. More money. The result was exactly what they wanted: an American identity crisis. They didn't fix the problem. They went around it. So a few (and a VERY select few) skilled minorities and women have high ranking jobs now. So what? What good has that done at all for the whole of America besides convince the vast majority of America (whites) that racism isn't a modern day problem?

The average black family makes half as much as the average white family. This statistic has been the same since slavery was abolished. The overall stat, since AA was put into action, has not changed. What the hell has really been accomplished besides being able to put every American race on the cover of a fucking collegiate brochure while secretly taking millions off of welfare?

>No... THIS IS A LIE. LBJ introduced AA in 1965... let's get
>this straight.

Actually, President John F. Kennedy's
Executive Order (E.O.) 10925 used
affirmative action for the first time by
instructing federal contractors to take
"affirmative action to ensure that app-
licants are treated equally without re-
gard to race, color, religion, sex, or
national origin." Created the Committee
on Equal Employment Opportunity.

It was in 1965 that President Lyndon B.
Johnson issued E.O. 11246, requiring all
government contractors and subcontractors
to take affirmative action to expand job opp-
ortunities for minorities. Established Office
of Federal Contract Compliance (OFCC) in
the Department of Labor to administer the
order.

>It is a reaction to the Black struggle,
>but its means was to suppress the ongoing Civil Rights
>Movement, which it did.

I don't think there is doubt in anyone's mind
that LBJ, Nixon or any other U.S. president
wanted to suppress the Civil Rights Movement.
one thing is clear: without the pressure from
below AA would have never gotten off the ground.

>No more CRM. No more Malcolm X's or MLK's. No more massive,
>world changing protests. More wars. More money.

And AA is to blame for all of this. LOL!

>So a few
>(and a VERY select few) skilled minorities and women have
>high ranking jobs now.

And you really believe this?
Only a few, eh?

Nonwhites were unable to rely
on good-faith efforts by empl-
oyers until those efforts were
actually enforced by specific
"goals and timetables" that gave
preference to minority applicants
"who met basic qualifications but
might not have been hired or prom-
oted without affirmative action
mandates" (p.166).

AT&T provides an example of a com-
pany that refused to hire nonwhites
and women until forced to do so.
Steinberg explains: "In 1973 --
nine years since the passage of the
1964 Civil Rights Act -- AT&T was an
archetypal example of caste segregation
in the workplace. The company employed
351,000 persons in low-paying operator
or clerical positions, 95 percent of
whom were women. Of 234,000 higher-paid
craft workers, 95 percent were male and
only 6 percent were black."

Management was virtually devoid of Black
and female emplyees and even supervisory
personel in "female" departments were white.
In 1970, the FCC launched hearings into AT&T's
hiring practices. As a result, the company
agreed to change it's hiring practices and
"meet employment targets for women and minorities."

According to a Wharton School study, the
program got off to a slow start but by 1975,
97 percent of it's short-term targets had
been reached.

Studies have found that companies subject to
EEOC requirements have raised the level of
black employment far more than companies not
under EEOC scrutiny (Steinberg, 1995).

Listen, son, until the revolution
happens, people gotta eat and put
a roof over their heads, understand?

I have no doubt that LBJ and Nixon
supported AA programs because they
wanted to placate minorities. WE
ALL KNOW THE MOTIVES OF LEADERS IN
HIGH PLACES.

"It is a reaction to the Black struggle,
but its means was to suppress the ongoing Civil Rights
Movement, which it did."

>I don't think there is doubt in anyone's mind
that LBJ, Nixon or any other U.S. president
wanted to suppress the Civil Rights Movement.
one thing is clear: without the pressure from
below AA would have never gotten off the ground.

"No more CRM. No more Malcolm X's or MLK's. No more massive,
world changing protests. More wars. More money."

>And AA is to blame for all of this. LOL!

But you admit it was to blame for SOME of this? What else was there? What else caused the American identity crisis? How could rich white politicians attempting to stop the Movement possibly be a good thing? I'm not dissing you.. you have interesting points (and stats)... I'm honestly interested to hear what else you think caused it, because I can't think of anything, besides assasinations (which should've prompted a stronger Movement), that could've been the means for people to end the CRM.

>Listen, son, until the revolution
happens, people gotta eat and put
a roof over their heads, understand?

Yeah, those who are lucky enough to be chosen by the gov't, so why the fuck would you stop the revolution? It already happened...

>I have no doubt that LBJ and Nixon
supported AA programs because they
wanted to placate minorities. WE
ALL KNOW THE MOTIVES OF LEADERS IN
HIGH PLACES.

We most definitely agree on this one. But this being said, isn't this means for going AGAINST AA? Doesn't this statement argue MY point? Why be complacent?

Just so you know my stance on the issue, I'm not against AA because it creates jobs for people, but because I simply don't believe it works in the long run. The vast majority of white America believes the race problem is over because the gov't is intervening (while welfare goes straight to hell, and average salaries are exactly the same ratios), but all hell is going to break loose when it stops. If the CRM had continued moving at the rate it was moving, I honestly believe we'd have made a lot more progress. Instead, in the next 10 years, there's going to be a regression--a Republican regression, and a shitload of violence.

>But you admit it was to blame for SOME of this?

As I stated in a preceeding post,
I think LBJ and Nixon were willing
to support AA programs in order to
supress Black insurgency.

I also believe that the leadership
within the Movement may have become
complacent once certain gains were
made.

I'm very reluctent to blame AA policies
for the demise of the Civil Rights Move-
ment because I think there were other
factors involved. I believe those factors
should be discussed in another post, so
as to not stray from the current subject
matter.

>The vast majority of
>white America believes the race problem is over because the
>gov't is intervening (while welfare goes straight to hell,
>and average salaries are exactly the same ratios), but all
>hell is going to break loose when it stops. If the CRM had
>continued moving at the rate it was moving, I honestly
>believe we'd have made a lot more progress. Instead, in the
>next 10 years, there's going to be a regression--a
>Republican regression, and a shitload of violence.

Agreed.

Sure, Kennedy was the one who "coined" the phrase affirmative action, but both JFK and LBJ in both of their executive orders plainly said it was to be implemented without regard to race, sex, etc. We know that isn't true in this case.

It was actually the Nixon Administration who first implemented the programs we see today, requiring a system of "goals and timetables" to be implemented in federal contracting bids. In 1974 I think.

i think that just makes all three of us right.. thanks though

LOL! Yeah, I was about to say
the same thing. Where were any
of us wrong? *shrugs*

>>Is it admitting defeat; throwing up hands in disgust and
>>giving up on fixing the dilema at it's root?
>
>No, AFFIRMATIVE ACTION POLICY
>WAS FORGED OUT OF THE CAULDRON
>of black insurgency. It was the
>mobilization of black protest,
>beginning with the civil rights
>movement and the ensuing upsurge
>of black militancy, that engendered
>the political pressure for the policy
>initiatives that came to be known as
>"affirmative action."
>
>Contrary to the lies, AA is not and has
>never been a hand-out from the U.S. gov.
>or liberal whites. Rather, it is a by-
>product of the Black struggle for equality.
>
>>Is is really
>>helping minorities or is it just another form of classism
>>keeping elite (whether finanicially or intellectually)
>>minorities and their issues detached from the rest of their
>>prospective groups?
>
>Absolutely, positively not!
>
>A plethora of social research
>indicates that the occupational
>spheres where blacks have made
>the most progress -- in government
>service, in major blue-collar
>occupations, in corporate management,
>and in the professions -- are all
>areas where vigorous affirmative
>action programs have been in place
>over the past two decades(Steinberg,
>1995).
>
>>Is it a useful tool? If so, is it more of a wedge to get a
>>foot in the door...or a wedge to create a social schism?
>
>In his book "Turning Back, The
>Retreat from Racial Justice in
>American Thought and Policy",
>Stephen Steinberg (1995) argues
>that, "affirmative action is the
>single policy of the post-civil
>rights era that sought equality,
>not just as a right and a theory,
>but as a fact and a result" (p.165).
>
>Nonwhites were unable to rely on
>good-faith efforts by employers
>until those efforts were actually
>enforced by specific "goals and
>timetables" that gave preference
>to minority applicants "who met
>basic qualifications but might
>not have been hired or promoted
>without affirmative action mandates"
>(p.166).
>
>Blacks have made the greatest
>progress in firms and job sectors
>where affirmative action has been
>implemented: in government, in major
>blue-collar industries, and in cor-
>porate management and the professions
>(eBadgett and Hartmann in Economic
>Perspectives on Affirmative Action).

What sort of person, I wonder, totes around an podium style debate club rebuttal arguing the merits of Affirmative Action, replete with citations?

You're an odd bird, Ho.

Next caller.

but good to see you back firebrand :)

was a phrase I first heard in reference to reforms in post-apartheid South Africa, but it's one that applies to affirmative action. O'Connor's majority opinion said something to the effect of needing a diverse group of people at the top to maintain stability in this country. Affirmative action is not about remedying years of discrimination. It's not even, as poor, mad Clarence Thomas would have it, a matter of white people taking pity on black. It's a matter of skimming the top off the Hispanics and the African-Americans so that, when the shit hits the fan, we don't look up, see all-white faces running shit, and go loco in this bitch -- and if we do, our top guys are on the other side. At least that's one way of looking at it, and not necessarily the one I ascribe to.

I hate to say it but to many Africans in Amerikkka died to sit with white people. Malcolm ain't die to sit with white people Martin eventually woke and and realized that the objective of the movement was not intergration but equality.

As much as Africans in Amerikkka have tried to assimilate it has not worked because Amerikkkan culture is self destructive we cannot live by their rules and morals set up to destroy us.

I am all for separate and equal I believe intergation is probably the worse thing to happen to Africans in Amerikkka in the 20th century other than the red summers.

>I wonder. What do ya'll think?

I think, if a private institution should wish to practice "Affirmative Action", they should be barred doing so by no laws whatsoever. If I personally ran a University - and I know that the majority of posters here pray every night that someday I might - I wouldn't advocate that policy. What offends me is that this is another step over the line for the FEDERAL government, and like the Patriot Act and the government indoctrination centers we call "public schools" - which lull our childrens intellects to sleep so they do not really QUESTION these fucking things - our bloated, corrupt and evil Federal Government is overstepping the bounds set for them by the Constitution. It is illegal, frankly. The idea of anyone who claims to mistrust the federal government (as so many on this board do) turning around and blindly allowing the gov't legal sway over SCHOOLING is as absurd as it is obscene.

how would you solve the problem of the unskilled labor workforce when it comes to diversity

how about urban planning contracts?

surely you dont think AA is only tied to the educational system

speaking of which, how would you solve the problem of seperate and un(equal) schooling if you ran your university?

>how would you solve the problem of the unskilled labor
>workforce when it comes to diversity

Diversity is a sham. I do not consider it any sort of advantage. If I owned a company I would be concerned with the QUALITY of the applicant only.

>
>how about urban planning contracts?
>
>surely you dont think AA is only tied to the educational
>system
>
>speaking of which, how would you solve the problem of
>seperate and un(equal) schooling if you ran your university?

Everyone at my university would recieve an education of equal quality. I would BAN applicants from including their names, sexes or races. Admissions would then be based solely on the academic merit of the applicant.

there's really no excuse. Most of the programs are implemented by the schools themselves, not the state or a higher authority, so logical reasoning would dictate that the school system can't be THAT racist to begin with.

But if they are finding that the registrar offices are discriminating, why don't they simply find out who or what is messing up, instead of simply half-stepping the problem? Therefore claiming this will end the evils is farfetched.

Simply, I think folks are so hell-bent on keeping this program alive is just to get a one-up on whitey. It's more symbolic than substance.

>there's really no excuse. Most of the programs are
>implemented by the schools themselves, not the state or a
>higher authority, so logical reasoning would dictate that
>the school system can't be THAT racist to begin with.

Well, you have to look at all of the programs implimented. Originally, they were created to entice white kids to go to college. They were also created to lure parents who wanted the "best education" for their kids. Also taking into account that blacks were at one time unable to attend college, PERIOD. Programs that reward applicants for living in a certain part of a city, for having an alumni in your family, and so on, could ONLY benefit white students from the beginning. Those same programs are in place today and they STILL benefit ONLY white students 98% of the time. We still have defacto segregation and our parents and their parents had an even more remote chance at higher education.



>But if they are finding that the registrar offices are
>discriminating, why don't they simply find out who or what
>is messing up, instead of simply half-stepping the problem?
>Therefore claiming this will end the evils is farfetched.

It won't end the evils because the educational system is rotten from the core - outward. You can't have kids who can barely read and have been attending lower class school systems trying to attend colleges and be successful. Not to mention the fact that most college campus' and their student body are unkind, judgemental and present an adverse culture to most African Americans. Privilege, like everything, gives with one hand & takes away with another....and another...and another.


>Simply, I think folks are so hell-bent on keeping this
>program alive is just to get a one-up on whitey. It's more
>symbolic than substance.

You could be right. The laws and regulations are governed by those who don't need it. It doesn't impact their lives so their is naturally a level of complacency.


"Akipenda chongo huona kengeza." Kiha (Tanzania)
"The one who sees the beauty doesn't see the difference."

in a few posts about a cat made a statement that i feel should be restated in that AA is a passive response to the problem. Catching cats when they hit college when we need to start in early childhood.

And this recent supreme court ruiling to uphoald certain parts of AA will not only affect admission standards. This shyt will fly for employment, etc.

I truly feel that the problem of racial equality will improve with each generation. I'm 20. Most people I've come into contact with around my age (give and take 5 years) do not see my black skin as a negative thing. We have a whole generation of white cats loving the hip hop culture. And alot of them aren't on some "thievry of black culture" tip. The shyt is genuine.

With that being said, do i believe there will still be a need for affirmative action 10 years into the future? yes. Because the issue of color runs deeper than some cats diggin black culture. And black people and people of color carry the stigma of mental aspects of color.

the cat a few posts up talking about intergration..and i understand that...the history of africa and the affects of amalganation and intergration. It's true that when you deal with color it adds a new level of complexity but at the same time the solution to the stigma isn't seperation..the problem will still exist. It's important to have our own but we can have our own and support our own and still effectively live with whites. One thing i agree with fully is that the american culture and mentality and system is destructive. I took a look at the ancient african consitution and i was thinking " this is the reality that the american constitution dreamt of when they based it on the african constitution.

When I applied to college it was through a national talent search and I figured that there was no way for the college to know that I was Black. My mentor at the time was quick to school me that the admissions people would know and soon I realized he was right. I went to the awards reception realizing that I was one of two or three minorities out of about 20 winners. Four years later I had my BFA and another scholarship to grad school through Phillip Morris' Artists of Color program.

While in graduate school, a bunch of us had a heated discussion about affirmative action, esp. since a few of the students in the department were folks who got Artist of Color scholarship. The white students didn't think it was fair but we all agreed that it helped to level the playing field a little.

Being the token isn't easy. Usually, these people are singled out and unable to find a real niche in their environment, so they join others like them. Education sometimes does more damage because it causes many Black folks to believe that they are somehow above other Black folks. The "talented tenth" are not known to remain in the Black community. They have a ticket out and so they go. This creates a hole or rift in Black communities that social programs can't really fix.

All things equal I would not have to worry about distancing myself from my own family and community. I would expect to be supported and acknowledged but my folks are still struggling. My successes made it no better or worse for them. We live on opposite sides of our world. If you were to ask them they would feel proud of my sister and my accomplishments but they probably couldn't tell you why we never speak.

My father got his GED one year before I graduated from high school. He was proud when I got my first college scholarship but perplexed when I decided to continue on to grad school. Currently, we are estranged. He acknowledges that he did not support me through my lean college years but insists that he was giving me the freedom I wanted. He is aging and is bitter/sad about not having a relationship with his daughters. Like our mother, he grew up poor and unlike our mother he dropped out of high school. Affirmative action gave my sister and I opportunities that my father did not have. It gave my mother a chance to escape poverty but...

...it did nothing to build our family/community. Affirmative action is not a fix but it does provide opportunities for people to improve their lives (individually). I am sure that it is necessary for many of us but we still need a community foundation that strengthens ties and bridges the rifts.

----------------------
Avatar? Lead or Leave.

_______________________


"...I'm telling ya these walls are funny. First you hate 'em, then you get used to 'em. Enough, time passes, you get so you depend on 'em. That's "institutionalized."

Red, The Shawshank Redemption.

"We're gonna sit here, and we're gonna drink this thing out" ...My boy Tremaine during a hurricane sweeping past Georgia Southern Univ. in '99.

----------------------
Avatar? Lead or Leave.

_______________________


"...I'm telling ya these walls are funny. First you hate 'em, then you get used to 'em. Enough, time passes, you get so you depend on 'em. That's "institutionalized."

Red, The Shawshank Redemption.

"We're gonna sit here, and we're gonna drink this thing out" ...My boy Tremaine during a hurricane sweeping past Georgia Southern Univ. in '99.

Since there been a lot of talk bout Affirmative Action, here's a newsletter from the Harvest Institute (Dr Claud Anderson's organization) The main focus of the newsletter is about Affirmative Action. Check it out!!!!!

http://www.harvestinstitute.org/spring_2003.pdf