Jump to content
Red and Black Revolution!

Student walkout to protest Initiative 424 (affirmative action ban)

Recommended Posts

UNL student group plans Thursday walkout

By the Lincoln Journal Star

Wednesday, Oct 29, 2008 - 02:48:27 pm CDT

A UNL student group has planned a walkout in opposition to a proposed affirmative action ban.

 

Organizers of Students United for Nebraska said students, faculty and staff will meet at noon in the plaza in front of the Nebraska Union on the University of Nebraska-Lincoln campus for a silent rally against the proposed constitutional amendment, known as Initiative 424.

 

Nebraska voters will vote on the initiative on Nov. 4. The proposal would amend the state’s constitution to prohibit preferential treatment based on race, gender, ethnicity or national origin in public hiring and admissions decisions.

 

The group urged participants to wear black attire and black tape on their mouths as a part of the demonstration. Speakers also are expected at the event.

 

Organizers said the rally is to show students' solidarity against the amendment, which the group says "will limit equal opportunity and equal access to higher education for all Nebraskans."

 

On Wednesday, a group of Omaha business and community leaders also planned to gather to speak out against the proposed ban. The Greater Omaha Chamber of Commerce’s Young Professionals Council was partnering with the Latino Center of the Midlands and the Conference for Inclusive Communities and other groups that stand against Initiative 424.

http://journalstar.com/news/local/doc4908bbcdb304c522283898.txt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your walkout is pathetic. If you cared about changing minds, you'd host a public debate about it, because I think it's reasonable this day to no longer support race-based policy, in line with Obama's views.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Your walkout is pathetic. If you cared about changing minds, you'd host a public debate about it,

 

Several debates have already been done including Professors Orey and Harbison, Nebraskans United campaign manager David Kramer, and ACRI leader Ward Connerly. Further, for every initiative amendment state law requires three debates to be held around the state moderated by the secretary of state, to my knowledge 2 of these have so far been completed (North Platte and Omaha, with Lincoln on the way).

 

because I think it's reasonable this day to no longer support race-based policy, in line with Obama's views.

 

Obama opposes the initiative. In fact, it's why Ward Connerly is now an opponent of Obama.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wish I would have heard more about the Omaha meeting today.

Unfortunately, my school doesn't care much for these types of issues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A classmate sent me an invitation for this walk-out as well (Stamm I'm assuming you've seen this already). The classmate sent the e-mail through blackboard.

 

This is a WALKOUT in PROTEST of the BALLOT INITIATIVE 424 that will amend our state constitution to limit equal opportunity and equal access for all people in Nebraska.

 

This initiative was paid for by people outside of our state that wish to impose their will on our state and our communities by changing OUR laws.

 

This is an outrage should not be tolerated! The opposition should stand together and WALK OUT of their classes and gather on the City Union Plaza in a SILENT PROTEST of the proposed INITIATIVE 424.

 

Its time to STAND UP, WALK OUT, and MAKE A STATEMENT!

On Thursday October 30th, come to campus in BLACK ATTIRE and at noon, WALK OUT, and join the SILENT PROTEST on the UNL City Campus Student Union Plaza!

 

This was my professor's response:

 

Hi all,

 

While I am certainly not one to discourage protest, let me instead encourage you to remain in class on Thursday.

 

I say this for a few reasons, the most obvious of which is that protesting a ballot initiative seems less productive than attending class. The time to protest might have been a good deal earlier, when people were collecting signatures to get this initiative on the ballot in the first place.

 

Even more productive, for those who want to do something about said ballot initiative, would be to vote against it next Tuesday and to encourage others to do the same (vocally, not silently).

 

That said, perhaps you could commit to wearing black on Thursday and then joining the group at 12:15pm, when our class ends. If the protest is, in fact, a silent one, you likely won't miss much by getting there a few minutes late.

 

Best,

AK.

 

Thought you guys might find this interesting....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I really love about being an activist is the almost-condescending "why didn't you guys try this other thing?" comments from bystanders. I appreciate Dr. Kohen's response, in fact I was planning to do the very same thing he mentioned last. I've never participated in previous walkouts, and always suggested that we offer the most convenient time for people to help out.

 

It just really gets to me when people suggest things we've already done. We've had debates. We opposed the initiative all summer, running around not just Lincoln and Omaha every day but making trips to educate voters and dissuade potential petition signers all over the state (you can tell from the substantial mileage we put on our vehicles throughout June). I'm sure these suggestions are generally made in good faith, but they're still not worth shit. There is absolutely no reason not to pursue several different forms of activism. There is no single way to win.

 

What the walkout attempts to do is mostly buy media attention. It succeeded with an advance article on the protest, a rare thing for activist groups used to getting at best a day-after article or more often ignored. An advance article allows people to know in advance and attend if they like. The second thing it attempts to do is show that there is a grassroots opposition to the ban, and this opposition is larger than the supporters of the measure. NCRI has managed only to promote a couple disgruntled professors as the vocal supporters of their measure - an astoundingly meager showing considering the majority of Nebraskans oppose affirmative action. If affirmative action were really a significant "problem" of "reverse discrimination" in Nebraska, they would presumably garner larger amounts of grassroots support.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure who those "out of state interests" are, but they are also involved in Colorado. We have Amendment 46, which proposes to "prohibit Colorado governments from discriminating against or granting preferential treatment to any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in public employement, public education, or public contracting -- [except] for federal programs, existing court orders or other legally binding agreements, and bona fide qualifications based on sex."

 

We saw a similar silent protest/walkout at the University of Colorado. As a non-college person, I hadn't heard much about Amendment 46 until the news covered the CU protest. Thus, the protest/walkout created media coverage and brought the issue to the attention of voters who hadn't heard about it. This is not a big TV ad issue (I don't think I've seen any) and I haven't received any mailers about this one. On the face, I would have thought, "gee, no discrimination sounds like a good idea." The protest brought the issue to the attention of the "average voter" and led to news coverage of the two sides.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm not sure who those "out of state interests" are, but they are also involved in Colorado.

 

There's a guy named Ward Connerly, head of the so-called American "Civil Rights" Coalition. The group goes state to state funding affirmative action bans through cookie-cutter organizations.

 

They attempted to push the bans in Oklahoma, Arizona, Missouri, Colorado, Nebraska. Nebraska and Colorado are the only states where it is left at this point, having failed for various reasons in the others.

 

As far as tv ads go - I don't have any particular knowledge about internal debates by ban-opposition groups. What I've heard is that whenever a group manages to raise enough meager funds for an ad buy, Connerly dumps hundreds of thousands of dollars into the media market to swamp the group's message and push his own. We got a taste of just what those ads might be like this summer when they ran a radio ad linking Jeremiah Wright and Ernie Chambers (you know, scary black men! run whitey run!) to the fight over affirmative action, though neither had any involvement in the fight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
UNL students rally for affirmative action

By the Lincoln Journal Star

Thursday, Oct 30, 2008 - 02:09:40 pm CDT

About 100 University of Nebraska-Lincoln students staged a “walkout” Thursday to protest a proposed ban on some forms of affirmative action.

 

At noon, the students silently filed onto the steps of the Nebraska Union Plaza. Many wore black shirts and black tape over their mouths, meant to symbolize the minority students’ voices they believe would be quieted if voters approve the ban next Tuesday.

 

The ban, known as Initiative 424, would amend Nebraska’s Constitution to prohibit racial and gender preferences in public hiring and admissions decisions.

 

Supporters believe it would ensure equality for all. Opponents say it would endanger programs that give opportunities to historically underrepresented groups, like scholarships and recruitment programs at UNL targeted toward women and minorities.

 

Thursday’s walkout was sponsored by a group called Students United for Nebraska.

 

“We want to show we’re together in solidarity against 424,” said Nic Swiercek, a UNL graduate student and leader of the group.

http://journalstar.com/articles/2008/10/31/news/local/doc490a011e204a7912372401.prt

 

More coverage appeared in the World-Herald, The Daily Nebraskan, and Nebraska Public Radio.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ya... because its good to promote the idea that underepresented minorites can't be held to the same standards or achieve at the same level as caucasian or asian people...

 

If you really wanted to "level the playing field" or make sure everyone has their "fair shake" then perhaps you should consider socioeconomic status rather than ethnicity.

  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't understand why Affirmative Action is necessary. Could someone please explain why it should even be around anymore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ya... because its good to promote the idea that underepresented minorites can't be held to the same standards or achieve at the same level as caucasian or asian people...

 

That isn't the case at all. Affirmative action is a recognition of the fact that racism and sexism still exist in this country and that this adversely impacts the ability of women and racial minorities to get an education and employment.

 

The racial paternalism argument is bunk. It's like asking if veterans can't be held to the same standards or qualifications as civilians, since after all veterans receive affirmative action in employment (it's just not called affirmative action).

 

If you really wanted to "level the playing field" or make sure everyone has their "fair shake" then perhaps you should consider socioeconomic status rather than ethnicity.

 

There are already affirmative action programs based on class, and I believe these should be expanded.

 

However basing all affirmative action on class removes any attempt to redress racism and sexism. Here's the example I always use for this argument - a study done a couple years ago sent several resumes and applications of similar or the same qualifications to several businesses. Some used names that are average for white people, other applications used names more common to black people. What they discovered was that the white-name applications received callbacks for interviews 50% more of the time than black-name applications. This unfairly impacts minorities regardless of their economic status; solely class-based affirmative action is unable to address this.

 

Adolf:

I don't understand why Affirmative Action is necessary. Could someone please explain why it should even be around anymore.

 

I might answer this later with some time. In the meantime I would suggest you read Martin Luther King's "Why We Can't Wait" or interviews from the mid-60s, or President Johnson's famous speech on affirmative action. Or Ira Katznelson's "When Affirmative Action Was White," or any of several books and essays written by Tim Wise (timwise.org).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That isn't the case at all. Affirmative action is a recognition of the fact that racism and sexism still exist in this country and that this adversely impacts the ability of women and racial minorities to get an education and employment.

 

The racial paternalism argument is bunk. It's like asking if veterans can't be held to the same standards or qualifications as civilians, since after all veterans receive affirmative action in employment (it's just not called affirmative action).

 

 

 

There are already affirmative action programs based on class, and I believe these should be expanded.

 

However basing all affirmative action on class removes any attempt to redress racism and sexism. Here's the example I always use for this argument - a study done a couple years ago sent several resumes and applications of similar or the same qualifications to several businesses. Some used names that are average for white people, other applications used names more common to black people. What they discovered was that the white-name applications received callbacks for interviews 50% more of the time than black-name applications. This unfairly impacts minorities regardless of their economic status; solely class-based affirmative action is unable to address this.

 

 

 

I might answer this later with some time. In the meantime I would suggest you read Martin Luther King's "Why We Can't Wait" or interviews from the mid-60s, or President Johnson's famous speech on affirmative action. Or Ira Katznelson's "When Affirmative Action Was White," or any of several books and essays written by Tim Wise (timwise.org).

 

But would these pieces of literature only point out why Affirmative action was necessary then, not why it is necessary now. Also similar studies done to the one where the names were utilized was a study where the ethnicity f the applicant was also known a head of time, and regardless of race it was merely whether or not the name was a common name to the area, or the mainstream of society which garnered the most attention. Also I'm not sure of the specifics of the Affirmative action laws in Nebraska, but I know that some laws make it possible for a person could get a job over another person who is more qualified than them based merely on their race, in fact there are certain laws in Louisiana which effect our education system in that way.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[/b]But would these pieces of literature only point out why Affirmative action was necessary then, not why it is necessary now.

 

Katznelson's book concludes with why it's necessary now, and almost all of Wise's writings focus on the contemporary. Further, the theme running through all these pieces is that past injustice and continuing injustice both demand some form of redress.

 

The thing I really took from Katznelson's book is how wealth is transferred across generations of a family. He looks at programs of the New Deal, the GI Bill of Rights, Social Security, etc., and how these built the modern American white middle class through things like cheap home and business loans, education payments or reimbursements. These same programs were systemically and purposefully denied to the majority of people of color. So these programs became essentially affirmative action for white people, with a corresponding accumulation of wealth and education that has been handed down to their future generations; on the other hand the black population of America was relegated to poverty and urban ghettos with only menial social program redress (and even those menial programs under constant threat of conservative backlash politics), which has also impacted their future generations.

 

Also similar studies done to the one where the names were utilized was a study where the ethnicity f the applicant was also known a head of time, and regardless of race it was merely whether or not the name was a common name to the area, or the mainstream of society which garnered the most attention.

 

You say "regardless of race" but we know, and we can verify, that different ethnicities and races use different common names and that the difference of names will negatively impact some groups more than others.

 

Notions of commonness and the mainstream are bound in whiteness. There's a reason why Tim Wise describes white privilege as a fish unaware really of the water it swims in; or why Peggy McIntosh describes white and male and heterosexual privileges as an invisible knapsack. I'll never forget the day I was tabling for Nebraskans For Peace and talking about the work we'd done against the initiative with a group of freshmen entering UNL. We talked about this same study, one of the guys looked straight at me and said, "Why don't they just name their kids something normal?" Well, because it feels like a grossly unethical position to take, and it doesn't really get to the issue of why there is such a problem in the first place.

 

Without more info about the study I'm really unable to say more on it.

 

Also I'm not sure of the specifics of the Affirmative action laws in Nebraska, but I know that some laws make it possible for a person could get a job over another person who is more qualified than them based merely on their race, in fact there are certain laws in Louisiana which effect our education system in that way.

 

If there's any substance to the accusation that the minority person is less qualified and still received the job there are often if not always non-discrimination laws which apply. But, after hearing this point from several people over the summer who just happen to somehow someway know the qualifications and resumes of competitors in the job market, I'm more inclined to think these stories are scapegoating or pure fabrication.

 

As far as the education system itself goes - the studies I've read show that whatever qualification differences there were at the start of college are negligible or disappear entirely by the end of college. Further, we can really debate how valuable some qualifications are. Bakke successfully sued the U of California system for allowing a minority person into the medical school and denying him a spot, a Supreme Court ruling that outlawed AA quotas. He went on to be an anesthesiologist, a necessary but not exactly notable career. Minorities admitted into college through affirmative action often go on to become important leaders or performers of essential services in poverty-stricken communities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Red-and-Black -- you were doing great with your argument until you began attacking Bakke (the guy, not the case). The decision was a necessary check-and-balance on Affirmative Action run amok. Because of Bakke, the reverse decrimination of the 1970's isn't that much of a problem again.

 

But what difference does it make what career he pursued? Are you suggesting the individual who had been admitted ahead of him would have automatically been a greater contributor to society? What if the individual who had been originally admitted ahead of Bakke had also become an anesthesiologist? Would that have lessened that person's relevance?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That isn't the case at all... It's like asking if veterans can't be held to the same standards or qualifications as civilians, since after all veterans receive affirmative action in employment (it's just not called affirmative action).

 

Ah... the reasons behind "affirmative action" for veterans and affirmative action for minoirties are totally different.

 

Minority aff act exists becasue we feel the need to redress sexism and racism that exists in america today. (those are you words and your reasoning). I don't think anyone feels there's much bias against veterans. We don't have veteran aff. act. because they are thought to be discriminated against. Veteran aff action is recognition of someones service to their country. It can almost be veiwed as a qualification... "I served in the army for a decade and learned discipline and the sort". The main difference is that veterans get the aff act becasue they are viewed as superior (for lack of a better word) and minorities get aff act because they are veiwed as inferior.

 

What I mean is that veterans have done something others haven't and minoirties are thought to be incapable of doing something others have. Affirmative action is based on idea that underepresented minorites need extra help... it does indeed promote the thought that minorities ought not be held to the same standards as others.

 

If we constantly blame society for gang violence in prodeminently black neighborhoods or poor performance in school rather than hold those people accountable then we just perpetuate that criminal activity or underachievement. I know that the "white power structure" is most likely responsible for minorities (particularly african americans) plight and some horrible atrocities have been commited... as I think Katznelson says... but affirmative action doesn't seem to working like it needs to be.

 

There are already affirmative action programs based on class, and I believe these should be expanded.

 

However basing all affirmative action on class removes any attempt to redress racism and sexism. Here's the example I always use for this argument - a study done a couple years ago sent several resumes and applications of similar or the same qualifications to several businesses. Some used names that are average for white people, other applications used names more common to black people. What they discovered was that the white-name applications received callbacks for interviews 50% more of the time than black-name applications. This unfairly impacts minorities regardless of their economic status; solely class-based affirmative action is unable to address this.

 

Poverty effects opportunity way more than race. I've been at college for three months and already I've seen rich African American kids that have had opportunities (research on the other side of the country, ridiculuosly fance prep schools or even just the materials and knowledge they had access too) that some poor white people would have to killed for. Keep in mind that minorites would recieve the most benefit from a policy focused on income... as for the racism/sexism that such a policy wouldn't address...

 

Perhaps aff act had a purpose in the 70s and early 80s, but I think what adolf and I were getting at was "why now?"

Yes, sexism and racism still exist and to some degree its sad that both probably will continue to exist. However, there's certainly cases of black employers turning down white applicants. In that study you presented location and the demographics of that location weren't very controlled variables. Perhaps they should also have sent in those some application to businesses owned by minorities in neighborhoods that are mostly composed of minorities. I bet "Darius Jackson" and "Tomika Williams" would have gotten more looks the a "Mary Fairchild" or "Blake White"

 

Moreover, sometimes its just about fit. Not always or even the majority of the time... but still. For example, I think victorias secret would be more comfortable hiring women than males because of the knowledge they have that men mostly don't and the fact that their customers would most likley be comfotable with other women. I was considering this, but I don't think we had one so I pulled a 180 and worked at radio shack.

 

You also say there are policies that look at class as well... Thats exactly what happended at UMich when the literally added points to underepresented minorities standarized test scores or to a general numerical score used to evaluate applicants before they reviewed the application as a whole. Native Americans and African Americans revieved an automatic 20 points (out of 150) not because of merit or live experience, but soley becasue they were born with skin a different color than me. So thats what Martin Luther King Jr. was talking about in his speeches:

 

"I have a dream that my children will not be judged by the color of there skin (unless it is to their social, financial, or educational benefit) but by the content of their character"

 

I'm glad that President Johnson extended his hand to help minorities, especially from the powerful position he was in, but it shouldn't be too big a suprise that I'm not a very big fan of his "Great Society."

 

I read a little of that Wise guy (not too too much)... it was interesting. However, based on what I've seen and what I've read I think that the general consesus by both conservatives and liberals is that aff. action. isn't the solution.

 

In fact, alot of people are discovering that affirmative action is actually disadvantageous to minorites who would have recieved a job or acceptance into a univeristy even without special consideration.

 

Diversity... generally a good thing. Making sure women and minoirties have a "fair shake"... always a good thing. However, must we resort to adding points or reaching a specific quota? How about we... ready for it... treat everyone equally unless they differ in "content of character" or qualification.

Edited by MC "Donalds"
constipation

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am a Minority and affirmative action hurts me more than it helps me, how do you explain that

 

I think what I'm getting at is aff act hurts minorities because they gain acceptance into programs they have have no business being in. This is known as the "mismatch effect"... in which people of all genders for whatever reason gain accpetance into an elite univeristy they aren't ready for, struggle, and either do poorly, or drop out. The most common thing though seems to be giving up on aspirations. Most in engineering or hard sciences (Ive seen this first hand with people of all ethnicities as most find engineering is pretty damn tough) switch majors and most are detered from applying to phd programs because of the low grades they recieved in comparison to their classmates. Aff action seems to be the biggest cause of this as most of the prestiguos schools as well as most other are stressing diversity... The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights actually looked into the "mismatch effect" issued a 280-page report on these issues that came to the same conclusion. Two other studies, one of which compared the ivy league with state schools, also support this.

 

its common fact that aff act allows minorities to attend more elite universities and graduate programs that they would have been able to be on otherwise. Sometimes they shouldn't get into med/law school at all.

 

Yet another study (this ones is quickly becoming about as famous as the one with names the rb revolution brought up) found that students who were given "preferencial treatment" in an elite University of california law school (UCLA) were 10 times more likely to fail the BAR Exam and than those who weren't and that most who recieved this special treatment never became lawyers.

 

What's more after proposition 209 which limited aff act in california was passed the rate at which black and latino law students passed they bar exam when up and was comparible to out-of-state rates.

 

According to Capitalism Magazine, “At UC San Diego, in the year before Proposition 209’s implementation, only one black freshman had a GPA of 3.5 or better.” Compare this to 20 percent of white freshman. The reason is that the black students who could compete at San Diego were foolishly accepted by UCLA and Berkeley.

 

As soon as affirmative action was moslty derailed, 20 percent of black freshmen at UCSD had a 3.5 GPA.

 

hmmm.... coincidence

 

 

Minoirities underepresentation in college is caused by the schools unability to prepare students, typically ones the live in "ethnic ghettos"... I don't think aff act can remedy that.

 

In fact Thomas Sowell says that more black climbed out of poverty between 1940-1960 than in the fourty years after... that is kind of amazing because:

 

1) Hardly any legislation comparible to aff act was passed. Note that I'm not talking about equal rights or voting here... but legislation in which blacks were treated preferencially.

 

2) attitudes towards black people were even worse then

 

3) the study didn't account for population growth which makes the effect more pronounced

 

4) this not only shows that the social mobility of minorities predates legislation intended to help them, but also that this type legislation hurts minorities

 

The worst part is that when minorities do poorly because affirmative action it reinforces negative stereotypes which in turn makes cries for more aff act stronger (ahem... R&B revolution).... it also makes employers question whether minorites have the same qualifications as there degree suggests... in both these repspects it even hurts minorities that do belong at those schools.

 

But once again the most concerning thing was said in the first lines of my first post... promoting the idea that minoirties shouldn't/can't be held to the same standards is dangerous because of what it perpetuates.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You'd shouldn't worry though... I'm sure protesting silently will answer all of this nonsense I've posted.

Edited by MC "Donalds"
i before e accept after...
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you think there's even a risk that Affirmative Action is necessary in some times or places, or that programs which seek to benefit particular disadvantaged groups rather than simply targeting "poverty" as a general concept, you should probably vote against these types of amendments. It's one thing to oppose particular Affirmative Action or minority-group-targeted policies; it is quite another to ban them altogether. A constitutional amendment is a pretty firm blanket ban, so if you think there are cases where race-specific education and poverty initiatives might be useful, or that women-only domestic abuse shelters are good for those women who are abused by men, or that Affirmative Action or race/gender specific scholarships can sometimes be a good method for remedying an obvious imbalance (say, the small number of women in science programs), you should vote "No." That way we can at least have legislative and public debate over any specific Affirmative Action measure that comes up in the future, and determine whether it is needed or useful or right in a given case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you think there's even a risk that Affirmative Action is necessary in some times or places, or that programs which seek to benefit particular disadvantaged groups rather than simply targeting "poverty" as a general concept, you should probably vote against these types of amendments. It's one thing to oppose particular Affirmative Action or minority-group-targeted policies; it is quite another to ban them altogether. A constitutional amendment is a pretty firm blanket ban, so if you think there are cases where race-specific education and poverty initiatives might be useful, or that women-only domestic abuse shelters are good for those women who are abused by men, or that Affirmative Action or race/gender specific scholarships can sometimes be a good method for remedying an obvious imbalance (say, the small number of women in science programs), you should vote "No." That way we can at least have legislative and public debate over any specific Affirmative Action measure that comes up in the future, and determine whether it is needed or useful or right in a given case.

 

You've looked at the ban right?... it prohibits the state from granting preferential treatment based on skin color or gender in 3 specific areas and only these areas: public contracting, public employment, and public education.

 

Not even close to the blanket ban you make it out to be...

 

Women-shelters won't be destroyed... Private scholarships will still exist... Are those truly the things you think this ammendmant is directed at?

 

Although I'd like to have more women in my engineering classes, everything I said about the mismatch effect applies applies here as (results in more stereotypes, is ultimately not beneficial to the one treated preferencially, etc.)... why is it absolutely necessary to have more women engineers... we don't seem concerned about the imbalance of males or caucasians in certain occupations...

 

If anything this imbalance is because of the general attitude of our society... aff act. doesn't remedy this (or poor public schooling either). If you look back a couple decades there were barely any women doctors or male nurses... now it becoming more prevelant because the collective perpeption of gender in these occupation is changing... not because of aff act.

 

The fact is that we've allowed, "legislative and public debate over any specific Affirmative Action measures"... but the same flawed and counterproductive stuff is still happening.

 

Hell... even King and Douglas were against affirmative action.

 

"In regard to the colored people, there is always more that is benevolent, I perceive, than just, manifested towards us. What I ask for the negro is not benevolence, not pity, not sympathy, but simply justice. The American people have always been anxious to know what they shall do with us... I have had but one answer from the beginning. Do nothing with us!"

 

Your a debater... you trying to find a way to win the arguement and only looking at the stuff I posted so you can come up with your next answer. Your treating it like a round and not even considering what I have to say and what most scholars (even ones who would recieve this "special" treatment) are increasingly accepting as fact...

 

jfeist... while I support you stance, there's no such thing as "reverse dicrimination"... discrimination and racism ought to be called precisley that... no adjectives... no euphemisms... no matter who it targets.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...