John McCain supports the Arizona ballot initiative to outlaw racial quotas in most instances. Barack Obama, by contrast, supports racial preferences to the hilt.
In other words, McCain supports efforts to prevent my children from being discriminated against because of the color of their skin, while Barack Obama prefers to uphold disadvantaging my kids because they're white. That's clarifying, even though I suspect the Republicans, as usual, will cave on this issue (Obama is right: McCain did flip-flop on this, but I prefer McCain's position now, however insincere, to Obama's). Here's Roger Clegg:
Disappointingly, Senator Barack Obama immediately criticized McCain: "I think in the past he'd been opposed to these Ward Connerly initiatives as divisive. And I think he's right. These are not designed to solve a big problem, but they're all too often designed to drive a wedge between people."Obama's criticism is wrongheaded for at least three reasons: (1) it is obviously preferential policies that are divisive, not their abolition; (2) the "big problem" of helping people from disadvantaged backgrounds can be addressed by helping people of all colors who are disadvantaged, rather than crudely and unfairly using race as a proxy for disadvantage; and (3) Obama himself has recognized as much, albeit fitfully and inconsistently, in his own statements--for instance, acknowledging the divisiveness of preferential treatment (in his Philadelphia speech), and the fact that his own daughters, for starters, come from privileged backgrounds and thus are "probably" not deserving of preferential treatment.
Like I said, clarifying. Barack and Michelle Obama's daughters should not be more privileged than the sons and daughters of white bricklayers and supermarket clerks because of the color of their skin. Saying that they should is not only divisive, it's un-American.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
"...All men are created equal..."
- Source: Declaration of Independence (1776)
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness." - Complete quote
These words were written by 'white aristocrats' that owned 'black slaves'.
They knew full well that they never fully intended to meet the obligations of the contractual agreement that they had entered into as they later signed the Constitution, a 'contractual agreement' defining obligations between individuals and the state.
...After 200+ years of institutionalized racism, its nice to see that we as a nation are doing something, anything, to pay reparations to the very people once considered property.
mattc
I'm definitely against 99% of Progressive policies, but they can be justified in a public setting. They can't be justified in a private one.
More to the point, I don't think they're a good idea at all when they help one specific person at the expense of another specific person. That is disastrous to support of such programs.
Some people will grumble, and others will think it a good idea, when the government takes a little from everyone and uses it to help people. This is well and good. Too much grumbling and obviously it's something society doesn't want, so it will go away.
But they will raise holy hell when they specifically are cut in front of in line. As will all their friends, and everyone who identifies with them.
... It's not a reminder of unacknowledged race preferences, it's a statment that the government should not rest until proportional representation in educational statistics, admissions & hiring practices, wage earning, etc...is homogenous in race (and gender and anything else they can think of).
This is where I have to part ways with that thought. People are not stupid. People know admissions and hiring are zero sum games. Someone wins, someone loses. (Wages, while in theory a zero sum game, are something that people are willing to go along with equality in.)
And education, while not a zero sum game, the goal is not that everyone receive an equal education...it's that everyone receive the best. Yes, the worse off schools should be improved first, but that's just simple triaging, as the difference in end cost between F and C students is much larger to society than the cost difference between B and A students.
This is exactly the sort of weird and destructive influence that progressive thought has had on liberal thought. The goal of liberals is not to 'even out' society, it is to correct injustices. Maybe that should extend to injustices in private industry, but extending it to specific slots for jobs and education is just absurd.
While that's going on, us progressives work on 'leveling' society so that 20% aren't stuck in some hereditary underclass, which we will do by the slight injustice of taking money from everyone else and building steps up for that 20%. Conservatives will complain, but have much much less traction if people can't say 'I would have gone to college if I wasn't white'.
This is why the liberals are supposed to be fighting the progressives. Progressives supposed to say 'The poor needs some extra help' and liberals are supposed to say 'That's unfair to people who started the same as them but made something of themselves' and we meet somewhere in the middle. But now liberals are using progressive tactics and progressives are thinking about things in terms of liberal framing and it's all massive confusion.
I find the entire subject hogwash. With white america, dominating 97% of the top positions in large corporations; I do not understand how Affirmative Action is helping any African American familes, nor do I find it hindering poor white families. Looking closely at affirmative action, we find it covers many types of immoral conduct.
America is not a great place when black men and women were slaves under the same constitution we hold dear. Interpretation is critical. Who really suffers after hearings when the court finds no misconduct? The company who is being sued. The company pays legal fees.
Blacks, by far, have not been graced with any type of preferential treatment, at least by a moral panel. We must realize we are not perfect; and also realize black men are targeted for arrest and harassment on the roads. Check the stats, where is the preference? The preference is to pull him over. Please read Executive Order:
“Affirmative action was initiated by the administration of President Lyndon Johnson (1963–69) in order to improve opportunities for African Americans while civil rights legislation was DISMANTLING THE LEGAL BASIS FOR DISCRIMINATION. The federal government began to institute affirmative action policies under the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964 and an executive order in 1965. Businesses receiving federal funds were prohibited from using aptitude tests and other criteria that tended to discriminate against African Americans. Affirmative action programs were monitored by the Office of Federal Contract Compliance and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). Subsequently, affirmative action was broadened to cover women and Native Americans, Hispanics, and other minorities and was extended to colleges and universities and state and federal agencies.”
IS DISCRIMINATION ALIVE? YES, IN THE SOUTH THERE EXISTS A "WHITE TREE" OR "WHITE AREA" IN A SCHOOLYARD. HAVE WE GROWN? SHOULD WE CONTINUE TO DEGENERATE AND AMEND AFFIRMITIVE ACTION? UNTIL YOU REALIZE WHO YOU REALLY ARE, ESPECIALLY IF YOU ARE REAL, YOU WILL SEEMINGLY MAKE THE WRONG CHOICE. BLACKS REMAIN UNTRUSTED IN ACCOUNTING AND FINANCIAL FIELDS.
"...All men are created equal..."
- Source: Declaration of Independence (1776)
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness." - Complete quote
These words were written by 'white aristocrats' that owned 'black slaves'.
They knew full well that they never fully intended to meet the obligations of the contractual agreement that they had entered into as they later signed the Constitution, a 'contractual agreement' defining obligations between individuals and the state.
...After 200+ years of institutionalized racism, its nice to see that we as a nation are doing something, anything, to pay reparations to the very people once considered property.
Gina,
I like the argument that you make against affirmative action.
1) "We should not provide favoritism for any specific group, but we should provide equal opportunities for all."
I agree, but generally speaking people do treat others with favoritism and therefore unequal opportunites are given to those people, and we do it on a daily basis. We treat attractive people better than unattractive people. We treat intelligent people better than less intelligent people. We treat mentally ill people better than healthy people. We treat wealthy people better than homeless people. We treat Presidents better than we treat local officials. We treat celebrities better than non-celebrities. etc...
2) "When we provide affirmative action, it's always at the cost of someone else."
This does not have to be the case. Let us not provide a program of affirmative action at the cost of others, but let us provide a programs that are fair to all.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.