RSS Feed MenuRecently, at a packed house during the National Association for Colored People (NAACP) Convention held in New York City, Republican National Committee (RNC) Chairman Michael Steele spoke about a joint-venture with the RNC & the NAACP. The hope is to find common ground in addressing some of the major problems facing both blacks and urban America.
Michael Steele began his speech with a litany of sobering statistics on the fate of blacks in America. As he ended the speech he noted that instead of reading a recent study he was actually quoting John F. Kennedy from the 1960’s, sharply underscoring the fact that while there may be an African-American president, there is still much that has not been done for African-Americans.
The NAACP working with the RNC will indeed be a unique change of course given the often testy relationship between the two institutions. It is not without precedent given that many of the NAACP’s first defenders and early founders were registered Republicans. The future relationship between these two groups will be an interesting one to watch. Will it fade out as soon as Steele leaves his chairmanship? Will other RNC chairmen participate in future events? Can the two groups work together on an urban agenda that encourages self-empowerment?
Nevertheless, a more interesting question is: How is the Republican Party doing with regards to reaching out to minorities and urban folks in general? What has the message been in the past and what will it look like in the future?
I believe that at the heart of the GOP’s failure to effectively reach out has been an unwillingness to mention race or demographics with regards to any type of legislation that may be favorable to minorities or urban America in general. This is to say that we do not take credit where credit is due, often giving Democrats the opportunity to claim such ideas as their own. Recently John H. McWhorter, a Manhattan Institute Senior Fellow in Public Policy and a Contributing Editor to City Journal, stated on a recent radio interview that Republicans don’t take credit for the things they do to benefit black America.
He stated that Bush and many other Republican presidents had polices implemented that helped minorities and urban areas but never took credit for those policies. They preferred to highlight other policies while allowing the Democrats to take credit for their ideas. One example of this theft is the Democrats increasing willingness to accept charter schools. Democrats knowing that charter schools are popular are trying to take credit for this implementation also. It’s actually one of the hardest polices for them to take credit for because Republicans invoked race when selling charter schools. The GOP argued earlier that charter schools would benefit minority and urban communities and made this very clear. Amongst a host of other things, however, we have not made it clear who its beneficiaries will be.
A solution to much of this idea-stealing would be the creation of a broad taskforce and initiative working with a coalition of urban and minority Republicans around the nation. Imagine a team of urban Republicans from around the nation: from the Bronx, Harlem, Los Angeles and Detroit coming together and offering up strategies and suggestions for winning the hearts and minds of urban and minority voters. Once thetaskforce gets the results in, it could send the results over to Michael Steele. Michael Steele, in working with the RNC, could create an urban Republican website which would come up with practical solutions on a host of urban topics.
These topics could include such issues as transportation, education, gas prices and housing just to name a few. Also, the taskforce could request a panel of urban Republican experts in various fields who could offer some suggestions for improving urban America. Another important factor is using the voter vault to empower those already registered as Republicans. How many registered Republicans are in Harlem or the Bronx or Detroit? The RNC and state chairs could begin reaching out to these Republicans in the inner-cities. While it is true that most of these areas are heavily Democratic, there are still hundreds and thousands of registered Republicans and independents in these areas.
One suggestion for those interested in this issue is to read a study entitled Blacks & the Republican Party by the Joint Center for Economic Studies. The document is a great start in chronicling where we, as a party, went wrong. Perhaps it can demonstrate where we can turn the tide. In order for the GOP to win in urban America a few hard systemic questions must be asked and analyzed. The questions asked should be strong questions.
For instance:
Who is responsible in each state for minority and urban outreach?
What type of accountability structure is in place to determine if the State is doing the job or the task assigned?
Is an urban and a minority coalition team in place?
What are the goals of such a team?
Does the party have a strong nationwide urban platform?
Has the party figured out why many black Republicans who run for office do poorly in polls?
What modules could be used to better propel a candidate?
Have we begun to effectively create an online strategy to use micro-targeting via Facebook and blackplanet.com?
Are we targeting the young?
The future of African Americans and other minorities in the GOP should be focused primarily on young people. We must, therefore, make sure that in every policy decision that essentially our message is targeted toward the youth. In other words, we want The Fresh Prince of Bel Air’s, Carlton Banks, not his parents.
Another, more important, issue deals with resources. Are we, as a party, going to put our money where our mouth is by creating a special fund for minority and urban outreach? If such a fund were created would it have an advisory board and an auditor to see what metrics work and what did not?
Also, we must ask:
Have we built effective candidate farms in which scouts find up and coming talent? Do we stand behind them should these urban and minority candidates choose to run? Or do we encourage them to run and hide behind them just to see what happens?
Have we started a school to train minority and/or urban candidates before they seek office?
Have we made sure that urban minority GOP state groups have functioning websites?
Are state chairs taking their responsibilities seriously by making outreach a real goal? If so, are they funding such outreaches? Are the outreaches effective? These and many other issues must be considered.
Given that state chairs have a great deal of power in our party, 70% percent of the work in this area will be up to them; not the RNC. A suggestion would be to allow the RNC to run all such operations if the state chairs neglect to do so.
The building blocks for repairing the GOP’s fractured relationship in urban areas must start as soon as possible. It will take all sectors of the party coming together and making firm commitments to change. Whether we as a party are up to this daunting and Herculean task still remains to be seen. Let’s hope for everyone’s sake that as a party we pull through. Let’s remember also that outreach is not pandering its being responsible for taking action to grow our party in communities where we are currently under-represented.
sinz54 // Jul 31, 2009 at 6:21 pm
dacookson sez: “Regarding affirmative action, psychological studies have shown that human beings favour the familiar.”
Sure. But black people are no longer “unfamiliar” to today’s Generation Xers. They’re accustomed to growing up in an Internetted, diverse world. So if there’s any “unfamiliarity” to overcome, it’s not based on race anymore–at least not on the coasts. There may be some left in the South, but not elsewhere. Hence I would argue that imposing affirmative action on cosmopolitan New York City or Seattle, makes no sense. (New Yorkers meet all kinds on the subway!)
dacookson // Jul 31, 2009 at 6:55 pm
I agree it’s a minefield. On official forms in Britain I can choose between White British, White European and White Irish for my ethnic group. It’s a mess if you go too far. But then the BBC and some of the other TV channels hire disproportionate numbers of people from minorities so that they’re over represented and this actually works quite well. Because TV is such an important cultural institution I think it pays to have this policy. In France they don’t do this as much, certainly not in newsreading, and they seem to have had more race riots and tensions over the last decade or so.
Maybe you just do it in a kind of common sense, informal way. Just tell people that next time they hire someone make sure they’re not white. I know that maybe sounds unfair or odd but in some cases I think it’s justified. Do you think if Fox News had a higher proportion of non-white presenters and guests, for example, you’d find that more non-whites become engaged with the channel and it’s conservative/Republican agenda? I think it would personally.
In British politics, leaders of parties sometimes impose all women shortlists for local party selection of parliamentary candidates. This is rarely popular but really the only way to get a better representation of women in Parliament. The conservatives in the UK have historically opposed this and at one point had more people called David in the conservative parliamentary party than women.
It can come from the top, from proper leadership, and can avoid getting bogged down in meaningless ethnic labels with a bit of commonsense.
barker13 // Jul 31, 2009 at 11:48 pm
Re: Dacookson // Jul 31, 2009 at 12:43 pm –
“Well Bill I’ll give you one last chance to get off your high horse.”
(*SMILE*) Thanks for the offer, but I think I’ll take a rain check. There’s absolutely nothing I wrote that requires backing off from.
Dacook… (*SIGH*)… you’re on record in favor of reverse racism. I’m against all racism. You’ve written what you’ve written… I’ve written what I’ve written. (*SHRUG*)
Re: Dacookson // Jul 31, 2009 at 6:55 pm –
“…a kind of common sense, informal way. Just tell people that next time they hire someone make sure they’re not white. I know that maybe sounds unfair or odd but in some cases I think it’s justified.”
As I was saying… (*CHUCKLE*)… you’ve written what you’ve written.
BILL
sinz54 // Aug 1, 2009 at 9:51 am
dacookson: I have no problem with private organizations, like Fox News, instituting their own diversity policies for their own public relations.
I did have a problem when the U.S. Government defined specific minorities (usually the loudest ones politically) as “protected classes,” and then demands that private organizations staff up with more from those particular “protected classes.”
In America, blacks and Hispanics got this favored treatment. Vietnamese immigrants, Korean immigrants, did not.
dacookson // Aug 1, 2009 at 1:21 pm
sinz I take your views on board. I was actually talking about ‘Republican’ organisations for the purposes of responding to this article so we’re kind of in agreement. Like you say, as a national policy it’s a minefield and the government is safer sticking to enacting positive discrimination in the public sector, the police force etc.
As for Bill. Being contentious again? Am I noticing a pattern? The first bit of mud being slung my way was the line “One very interesting thing to come out of this thread is the apparently color fixation not of the more “conservative” element who post here, but the views of Sinz and now Dacook”. The article that we’re commenting on is about “reaching out to minorities and urban folks in general”. So there you have it.
The latest bit of mud is the accusation of ‘reverse racism’. What I’m describing is more commonly known as ‘positive discrimination’ or ‘affirmative action’. This is because the term racism is usually understood to include many more elements than simply favouring one ethnic group over another. For example here’s the Chambers definition.
racism noun 1 hatred, rivalry or bad feeling between races. 2 belief in the inherent superiority of a particular race or races over others, usually with the implication of a right to be dominant. 3 discriminatory treatment based on such a belief.
Since I made it pretty clear that I believe a familiarity bias to be a universal human trait, accusations of racism directed at me are unfounded. Then there’s the question of what ‘reverse racism’ even is. The term implies that racism only goes one way (from whites towards people of colour presumably) and that ‘reverse racism’ is the reverse of that. It’s all racism, it doesn’t matter what direction it goes in.
So what’s the deal Bill? Are you just trying to be insulting or a bit muddled about the concepts? Your comments imply that organisations that are under-represented in terms of ethnicity, gender or class are that way simply because no qualified people from the under-represented groups were available. Either that or you think that a bias or racism is the underlying cause of this and nothing should be done to try to compensate for it.
My argument in response to this article is that the RNC needs to go beyond a taskforce and ensure that their organisations and those affilliated to it are properly representative. They need to embrace the principle of affirmative action in other words. Then they need to try to persuade Fox News and others to do the same.
Spartacus // Aug 1, 2009 at 2:11 pm
sinz54 // Aug 1, 2009 at 9:51 am wrote: “I did have a problem when the U.S. Government defined specific minorities (usually the loudest ones politically) as “protected classes,” and then demands that private organizations staff up with more from those particular “protected classes.” ”
Ok, now I get. You’re all bent out of shape over issues of race because you simply have no clue what you’re talking about. The U.S. government did not define specific minorities as “protected classes.” It defined specific attributes as protected classes. Those attributes include, race (not specific races, but any race), religion (not specific religions, but any religion), gender (not a specific gender, but any gender), national origin, etc. The law prohibits discrimination against ANYONE based on these attributes. Therefore, Frank Ricci, as a white fireman, is entitled to the same protection under these laws as is anyone else of a different race. The law prohibits discrimination against him based on his race.
You’re also dead wrong about the U.S. government requiring private organizations to staff up with people of certain races. There are no laws requiring private organizations to staff up with people of certain races, and you cannot produce any evidence of this so-called requirement.
Being completely impervious to facts, I would not expect any of this information to alter your views, nor would I expect you to respond to this post since you ALWAYS disappear after you’ve been debunked.
Incidentally, it’s awfully rich of you to be so snide when referring to the political loudness of certain minorities when, but for that loudness, it’s possible that they still wouldn’t have the right to vote.
hhr // Aug 1, 2009 at 5:12 pm
The New York Times Magazine has a profile article out on Britain’s, David Cameroon in which he is quoted as saying this concerning his support of affirmative action – “Its not enough just to open the door and say, “You’re very welcome, come on in, please join. Because if people walk in and all they see are a sea of white faces, that is not enough. You’ve actually got to go out and recruit the right people.”
sinz54 // Aug 1, 2009 at 8:40 pm
Spartacus:
I specifically said “demands,” NOT “requires.”
Don’t you know the difference between a demand and a requirement? The Goverment can never *require* that a company hire black people. But they can sure load the dice.
I used to work in the aerospace industry. A company that bid on a Government contract and did not demonstrate sufficient commitment to affirmative action lost so-called “brownie points” (that’s what we actually called them)–lose enough of them and you would lose the competition. Our company’s Human Resources Department was constantly on the hook to show a sufficient commitment to “diversity”. Evidently the Government, when awarding contracts, cared as much about a contractor’s “diversity” as they did about the contractor’s competence to do the job.
As for “protected classes” protecting white people as well as black people, you know as well as I do that this is not how those laws work. You’ve heard of minority set-asides for black-run businesses. Have you ever heard of set-sides for WHITE-run businesses???
The concept of a racial “protected class” was made with respect to the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Anyone who claims that this Act was intended to protect white people as well as black people is out of his ever-lovin’ mind. Maybe you weren’t around when that law was passed?
As long as the economic pie of the U.S. kept increasing, it was possible to undertake affirmative action programs for blacks and Hispanics without discomfiting whites too much. But once the number of jobs starts shrinking, as it does in every recession, you have to start making choices as to whom to lay off. You can either lay off the white guy or the non-white guy. Guess which one they’re going to pick. If they lay off too many white guys, the EEOC won’t say a word. But if they lay off too many black guys, watch out.
Remember: You’re talking to a guy who worked in private industry since the 1970s, and who had his fill of all this affirmative action garbage long ago.
sinz54 // Aug 1, 2009 at 8:49 pm
Spartacus: I do have a life, you know, and I do have medical problems that require my attention. So I can’t always be here to respond to every one of your rants.
But I’ve always prided myself on keeping an open mind. I do listen to opposing points of view.
But so far at least, liberals haven’t come up with one new argument on race in the last 20 years. They’re still spouting the same old, tired nonsense they spouted in the 1960s. And for those of us who lived through all that, it’s long since worn very thin.
So if you want to recruit more liberals, I suggest you go to the colleges, where we now have young people who are too young to remember anything before 1990. Maybe you can bamboozle them. They didn’t get to witness the failures of liberalism in the 1960s and 1970s firsthand, the way I did.
Spartacus // Aug 2, 2009 at 1:20 pm
sinz54 // Aug 1, 2009 at 8:40 pm wrote: “The concept of a racial “protected class” was made with respect to the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Anyone who claims that this Act was intended to protect white people as well as black people is out of his ever-lovin’ mind.”
I did not say the Civil Rights Act was enacted to protect white people. It was enacted to protect victims of racial discrimination, almost all of whom were black at the time of the Act’s enactment. So, of course, very few white people benefit from the Act, but that is because comparatively few white people are discriminated against on the basis of race. However, when white people are the victims of racial discrimination they receive the same protections under the Act as persons of any other race. Frank Ricci is the perfect example of this, but you ignored this salient fact. So, you’re simply dead wrong in asserting that the government, through the concept of a “protected class,” gave some special protection or benefit to minorities that it didn’t give to white people. It gave the same protections to white people and they have been suing under the Act for almost as long as minorities.
You also wrote: “Don’t you know the difference between a demand and a requirement? The Government can never *require* that a company hire black people. But they can sure load the dice.”
No, I’m not really clear on the difference between a government demand and a government requirement. However, I do know the government neither demands nor requires private companies to hire a specific number of minorities. Racial quotas have been illegal in this country since the Supreme Court’s Bakke ruling in the late ‘70s. If your employer believed it had a racial quota to fill then not only was it dead wrong, it also acted illegally.
The government does, however, require private companies with whom it contracts to enact affirmative action policies that would help provide the same opportunities (not same outcomes) to minorities as to whites. Most companies fulfill these obligations by demonstrating that that they’ve made some kind of outreach effort to find qualified minority job candidates, which is exactly what the Republican party has been trying to do at least since GWBush came to office in 2000. So if this concept of affirmative outreach to minorities is so offensive, why does the conservative GOP do it?
As for minority set-asides, you are correct that the federal government sets aside a small percentage (typically around 5%) of a procurement to go to businesses that are small or owned by women, minorities, veterans or the disabled. These set-asides are intended, in part, to help reverse the historical disadvantages these types of companies faced in the government procurement process. People of good will can have an honest debate over whether such set-asides are still necessary, but that honest debate ought to acknowledge that (1) historically, these business often were not allowed to fairly compete against white-owned businesses, and (2) there is/was a legitimate policy objective in creating a multi-faceted supplier base.
Spartacus // Aug 2, 2009 at 1:21 pm
sinz54 // Aug 1, 2009 at 8:49 pm wrote: “So if you want to recruit more liberals, I suggest you go to the colleges, where we now have young people who are too young to remember anything before 1990. Maybe you can bamboozle them. They didn’t get to witness the failures of liberalism in the 1960s and 1970s firsthand, the way I did.”
I’m not in the business of recruiting liberals, but if by liberalism’s failure you mean the expansion of civil rights to all Americans, the expansion of college grants and loans so more people can go to college if they desire, the creation of a healthcare program that keeps senior citizens healthy, the enactment of environmental protections and a strong opposition to needless and costly wars like Vietnam and Iraq, then I’m not worried.
Who wouldn’t prefer that over conservatism’s long uninterrupted track record of being on the wrong side of every single major social issue this country has ever faced (slavery, child labor laws, suffrage for women, civil rights, environmentalism/global warming, stem cell research, gay marriage) combined with the unprecedented deficits and decline in median household incomes that Presidents Reagan, Bush1 and Bush 2 produced?
barker13 // Aug 2, 2009 at 1:30 pm
Re: Dacookson // Aug 1, 2009 at 1:21 pm –
“As for Bill. Being contentious again?”
Hey… let’s start a cheer – you know, like “Let’s Go Mets!” I humbly suggest..
“YOUR OWN WORD! YOUR OWN WORDS! YOUR OWN WORDS!”
Com’on… let’s practice…
Dacook writes… “Am I noticing a pattern? The first bit of mud being slung my way…”
Reply: “YOUR OWN WORD! YOUR OWN WORDS! YOUR OWN WORDS!”
Dacook writes… “The latest bit of mud…”
Reply: “YOUR OWN WORD! YOUR OWN WORDS! YOUR OWN WORDS!”
(*WINK*) (See how this works, Dacook?) (*CHUCKLE*)
Dacook… seriously… you’re boring me. Worse… you’re disappointing me. I truly expected better.
(*SHRUG*)
“So what’s the deal Bill?”
Re-read the thread. (*SHRUG*) My “deal” is pretty clear. I respond to what others actually write in addition to sharing my own personal views.
(*SHRUG*)
Again… Dacook… is this REALLY the way you wanna go…??? I get my fair amount of criticism, but certainly even those (who are honest) who tend not to share my ideological/policy views and prescriptions note that I’m a straight shooter who tries to make his positions as clear and precise (specific) as possible; a guy who to ask direct questions and who gives direct answers.
Anyway… at this point the horse is dead and we’re both way off topic.
Furthermore… STILL NO RICHARD IVORY…! (*SNORT*)
Yep… so much for “dialog” and “renewal of the Republican party.” (*SHRUG*)
BILL
barker13 // Aug 2, 2009 at 1:54 pm
Re: Sinz54 // Aug 1, 2009 at 8:40 pm –
“Have you ever heard of set-sides for WHITE-run businesses???”
Yeah. (*SHRUG*) White WOMEN-run businesses.
(*SHRUG*) Sorry… but as I tried to explain to Dacook… I actually DO READ what other posters WRITE.
(But, hey, Sinz… I get your point and obviously I agree with it; in other words, I acknowledge reality.)
Re: Spartacus // Aug 2, 2009 at 1:20 pm –
“Frank Ricci is the perfect example of this…”
(*CHUCKLE*)
Spart. Com’on. Be serious. If Sinz was wrong and you were right there never would have been a Ricci case in the first place! (*AMUSED SMIRK*)
Yes. The High Court held 5-4 that New Haven’s decision to ignore the test results violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
(*SMILE*)… but let’s reiterate… 5-4!
Please. The fact that Ricci only “won” by one vote in the USSC after getting screwed time and again is if anything further proof of the basic correctness of Sinz’s read on reality in this debate.
“No, I’m not really clear on the difference between a government demand and a government requirement.”
(*FALLING TO THE FLOOR LAUGHING*)
Yes. Yes you are, Spart – admit it. (*CHUCKLE*)
Again… as with our fellow poster Dragonchick on the Right… I have far too much respect for you to believe for a second that “you’re not clear” on the differences Sinz pointed to. (*SMILE*)
“…I do know the government neither demands nor requires private companies to hire a specific number of minorities.”
(*STILL LAUGHING*) (*WIPING TEARS OF MIRTH FROM MY EYES*)
“…specific…” (*SNORT*) Cute, Spart. While you “win” a debating point on style, as for substance… com’on… you know you’re making a bullshit argument and I know you’re making a bullshit argument.
(Hey… nice try, though!) (*HIGH FIVE*) (Gold star for effort!)
“The government does, however, require private companies with whom it contracts to enact affirmative action policies…”
…which in the real world often degenerate into reverse discrimination.
(Hey… you’re the one who brought up Ricci!) (*GRIN*)
Anyway… interesting exchange between you and Sinz. Too bad Richard Ivory couldn’t be bothered to join the dialog.
BILL
Spartacus // Aug 2, 2009 at 3:44 pm
barker13 // Aug 2, 2009 at 1:54 pm “The fact that Ricci only “won” by one vote in the USSC after getting screwed time and again is if anything further proof of the basic correctness of Sinz’s read on reality in this debate.”
Not so at all. A fair reading of Sinz’s intial post was that the government had granted SPECIAL benefits to minorities by way of the “protected class” concept. This, of course, is consistent with what appears to be a consistent theme of his that minorities are a favored class in society and that whites are really the group that is disadvantaged and discriminated against. He is wrong, dead wrong, on both points.
The purpose of the “protected class” concept was never to grant SPECIAL benefits to minorities; it was to prevent discrimination based on race – any race. The fact that pervasive discrimination against blacks was the triggering event in no way implies that minorities received a SPECIAL benefit – unless you believe the natural order of things is to permit discrimination against blacks. If the govt had intended to grant special benefits to minorities it would not have granted whites the right to file discrimination claims based on race. So, on Sinz’s initial point about a govt intention to grant special benefits to minorities, he is wrong and Frank Ricci is only the most recent and prominent example of whites successfully obtaining protected class protection under the Civil Rights Act.
As for the 5-4 decision in the Ricci case, that in no way substantiates Sinz’s claim that the “protected class” concept was intended to protect only minorities from race discrimination. None of the 4 dissenting justices claimed that Ricci did not have the right to file a race discrimination claim under the Act because he was white, nor did any of them argue that race is not a protected class as far as whites are concerned. The Court has long acknowledged the right of whites to obtain protected class protections, and the Bakke case of 1978 is proof of that.
The 4 dissenting justices’ main argument in the Ricci case was that the City of New Haven had the right to throw out the test on the belief that the test results may have indicated racial bias against blacks. Look, reasonable people can disagree on whether the test results indicated racial bias, or whether set asides or even affirmative action are good public policy, but it is an indisputable fact that the concept of a “protected class” was never intended to exclude whites. It is also an indisputable fact that whites have successfully brought protected class lawsuits for decades.
As for your contention that in the real world an affirmative action policy requires quotas, I can only relay my personal experience as well as general observations. I’ve had the occassion to work for and/or with at least 3 government contractors as well as their outside consulting firms and outside legal counsel who developed affirmative action plans. In none of those cases did any of those entities engage in the kind of quota-based conduct Sinz has alleged. It simply is not the practice of corporations, in large part, because it’s illegal, but also because it is rather easy to comply with an affirmative action plan without resorting to that kind of conduct. Are you able to provide a link to a reliable source that shows that companies are using quotas on a pervasive basis?
As for set-asides for white owned businesses, I don’t think any policy-maker over the last 5 decades has alleged that white-owned businesses were the victims of the kind of discrimination that women, minority, disabled or veteran owned businesses historically suffered. Have whites ever been discriminated against? Of course, but that was not the point Sinz was making, nor is it a point that I ever denied.
As I implied earlier, once you acknowledge the long-standing discrimination in procurement that benefited whites and hurt minorities, you then have to decide whether there should be any remedy for that. It seems that most conservatives think that it is sufficient to merely stop discrimination from happening on a going forward basis. However, many other people think that if you simply stop it on a going forward basis without doing anything to reverse the effect of the just-ended discrimination, you unintentionally perpetuate the injustice because those minority businesses will not have gained the experience and expertise to now compete on a fair basis.
Crudely speaking, it’s as if one runner in a race breaks a leg of another runner. The judge can issue a ruling to prevent him from breaking the second leg, but it would still be unfair to force the runner with one broken leg to run against the guy who broke his leg. I say this is a crude analogy because I am not accusing those white-owned businesses who win contracts of “breaking the leg” of minority owned businesses, but white-owned businesses, as a class, did benefit from the historical discrimination suffered by minority owned businesses. So, if you’re going to have a remedy to reverse the effects of this discrimination, it seems to me that set-asides, while imperfect, are probably better than any of the other alternatives.
Should these set-asides end at some point? Should they end today? If we believe a remedy is still needed, should we develop something completely different? Have some white businesses been denied contracts that went to minority businesses despite the fact that those white businesses never discriminated? I think the answer to each of these questions is “possibly or probably so,” but that doesn’t undermine the fact that there was large-scale discrimination that, absent some remedy for reversing its effects, probably would have been permanently enshrined in this society.
Sorry for the lengthy post, but I wanted to address each of our main points.
dacookson // Aug 3, 2009 at 2:06 pm
Well Bill, other readers can judge for themselves whether your responses to me are logical or match your apparently high opinion of yourself. One pattern I have noticed is that the amount of sense you make seems to enjoy an inverse relationship with the amount of psychotic emoti-words you use.
barker13 // Aug 3, 2009 at 2:54 pm
Re: Dacookson // Aug 3, 2009 at 2:06 pm –
“Well Bill, other readers can judge for themselves…”
EXACTLY…!
(*WINK*)
Glad it’s finally sunk in.
BILL
barker13 // Aug 3, 2009 at 2:58 pm
Re: Spartacus // Aug 2, 2009 at 3:44 pm –
“Sorry for the lengthy post, but I wanted to address each of our main points.”
Nothing to be sorry for, Spart. (*SMILE*) I enjoyed reading your response.
In any case, I leave to you the last (substantive) word.
(*BOW*)
If Sinz wants to rejoin the “battle” (which I wouldn’t bet on) I’ll read anything he writes as well.
Re: Dacookson // Aug 3, 2009 at 2:06 pm –
“Well Bill, other readers can judge for themselves…”
EXACTLY…!
(*WINK*)
Glad it’s finally sunk in.
BILL
sinz54 // Aug 5, 2009 at 9:50 am
Spartacus sez: “it’s as if one runner in a race breaks a leg of another runner. The judge can issue a ruling to prevent him from breaking the second leg, but it would still be unfair to force the runner with one broken leg to run against the guy who broke his leg.”
The problem is, that you’ve replaced discrimination against blacks as a group, with discrimination against whites as a group.
You’re not just punishing the one runner who broke the leg of the second runner. You are punishing ALL future runners of every race that is ever run, ever again. Any time that second runner competes, you’re demanding that other runners give him a special break.
I keep trying to explain to you: There are a lot of us who weren’t around in the antebellum South. My ancestors immigrated to America in the first third of the 20th century. They were poor themselves, lived in New York City’s slums. I’m the first generation of my family who went to college. We owned no slaves. We had no KKK members. We didn’t own any businesses at all, so how could we discriminate against blacks or anybody else?
Yet to you, my family and I are just lumped into “white people,” and you demand that MY FAMILY, and many others like mine, must pay the price for what some OTHER white people may have done to some OTHER black people years ago. The absurdity of rich black businessmen being able to send their kids to college on affirmative-action, whereas some impoverished white kid in West Virginia gets no such favorable treatment, is something you just ignore.
You insist on seeing the world as WHITES oppressed BLACKS, thus WHITES must pay a price. A racial guilt trip on all white people, regardless of their own personal history or personal conduct.
You tried that argument on white folks in the 1960s and 1970s. They fled. Literally. White flight, and a political flight to the GOP, was the result.
Now, deluded that Obama represents a turn to social liberalism, you’re trying to resurrect that same argument.
And white folks are going to reject it. Again.
sinz54 // Aug 5, 2009 at 9:52 am
Spartacus: One more thing. I am not interested in paying any prices for any discriminations that you may care about.
You cry crocodile tears over black people, then I suggest YOU take YOUR life savings and donate most of it to charities to help black people.
Leave me out of it. My family was always poor. They worked very hard, holding two jobs, to send me to college. Yet here you are demanding that we must pay a price for what other people did.
Go to hell.
Spartacus // Aug 7, 2009 at 2:21 pm
sinz54 // Aug 5, 2009 at 9:50 am
Not only have you demonstrated that you are impervious to facts, you’ve now demonstrated that you also are not capable of thinking critically.
First of all, I never alleged that you, your family or any particular whites were guilty of discrimination. In fact, I described my analogy as “crude” expressly because the white businesses who may suffer very well may have never committed any discrimination.
Affirmative action was never based on the concept that the inidividuals involved were the actual perpetrators or victims of past discrimination. Affirmative action was always a class-based remedy to reverse the effects of class-based discrimination. Consequently, membership in the class is, alone, sufficient to subject a person to the effects of affirmative action irrespective of whether or not the particular person was either a perpetrator or victim of discrimination.
These are not MY arguments, these are THE arguments regarding affirmative action. No one really cares if you personally don’t like affirmative action or think it’s unfair to you. Your particular circumstance is not relevant when formulating policy on a national level.
Spartacus // Aug 7, 2009 at 2:25 pm
94 sinz54 // Aug 5, 2009 at 9:52 am wrote: “Spartacus: One more thing. I am not interested in paying any prices for any discriminations that you may care about.”
This is awfully rich coming from a guy who would literally be dead, but for the beneficience of the liberals in his state who demanded healthcare reform.