Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
I'm simply saying it's not simple, as yurt tried to portray it. Much of what you attribute to me merits no response.
Affirmative action has a proper role, but not if it's interpreted as quotas. Are there organized movements that address quota discrimination without going further? Please enlighten me.
blah blah blah.
the church still espouses white power. what would your answer be? what if the church did allow others to join, but had a strong slant towards white power and white liberation theology? what if this was the church's motto:
We are a congregation which is Unashamedly White and Unapologetically Christian... Our roots in the White religious experience and tradition are deep, lasting and permanent. We are an European people, and remain "true to our native land." God has superintended our pilgrimage through the days of turmoil, the days of hardship, and the long night of troubles. It is God who gives us the strength and courage to continuously address injustice as a people, and as a congregation. We constantly affirm our trust in God through cultural expression of a White worship service and ministries which address the White Community.
would this motto trouble you? if this was john mccain's church, would that raise questions about mccain?
I know of no White Power movement that seeks to redress past discrimination against whites or end discrimination against whites.
MYTH: Affirmative action is reverse discrimination, it gives preferential treatment to people of color and women.
FACT: Racism is power plus discrimination. The parameters of discrimination based on race are distinguished by the power dynamics. Reverse racism is not, therefore a reality if people of color are not in positions of power and perpetrating the discrimination. An Urban Institute study shows that less that 100 of 3000 cases could be considered reverse discrimination. Less that six of those cases were deemed by the court to be substantiated.
Affirmative action has been mislabeled "preferential treatment" for certain members of society. In reality it is a kind of social restitution and an attempt to create a more democratic society. President Johnson, in describing affirmative action, stated, "You do not take a person who for years has been hobbled by chains, liberate him and bring him to the starting line of a race and say, 'You are free to compete with others,' and still justly believe that you have been completely fair." Thus, it is not enough just to open the gates of opportunity: all must have the ability to walk through those gates. Affirmative action is an attempt to facilitate a more level playing field.
Affirmative action recognizes the interconnectedness of race, class, gender. Many of the symbolic gates are beyond reach due to economic disparity which in turn is one of the effects of racism. We cannot divorce these interconnected issues from one another. Beginning with the consideration of race as permissible in university admissions, in the Regents of the University of California vs. Bakke, the court rejected the notion that the constitution prohibits considerations of race. In the UC system, race and ethnicity are not solely considered for admissions. Thus, there is no such thing as preferential treatment. Other criteria such as socio-economic level, state residency, special abilities, disabilities, familial ties and athletic ability are used in determining admissions. These supplemental criteria benefit everyone, not only people of color.
MYTH: Affirmative action benefits only a select few, and is a primarily Black vs. White issue.
FACT: If we as a society value equality and fairness, which is what affirmative action seeks to ensure, then we all benefit. Despite some of the gains made by affirmative action, discrimination still persists. We as a society have, as a result, not been able to fully benefit from affirmative action. We have barely begun to enjoy the benefits and increased diversity that affirmative action provides; in this light we can hardly consider dismantling the existing programs. National enrollment figures illustrate that enrollment of people of color has grown from negligible figures when schools were segregated to about 20% of the nation's post-secondary education students. 1993 figures show African Americans comprise 9.2% of enrollment, Chicano/Latinos are at 4.9%, Asian Americans also 4.9% and American Indians at 0.7% in four year institutions. However, yearly gains are minimal. It has taken twenty years to arrive at this point. Even though white women have advanced in some areas, white women managers and administrators earned only 65% as much as white men.
Many reports on affirmative action in the public media have focused only on the aspect of African-Americans and affirmative action versus the "angry white male". Many articles fail to acknowledge the multifaceted dynamics of affirmative action which incorporate Latinos, Chicanos, Asians, Pacific Islanders, Native Americans, and women. In fact, studies show that white women tend to be the primary beneficiaries of affirmative action.
MYTH: Affirmative action hurts Whites and Asians.
FACT: Though affirmative action is believed to have harmed white men, this contradicts the reality that white men hold structural power in society today. For example, a Washington Post study shows that 95% of top corporate executives are white males. Asians benefit in many ways from affirmative action by making use of services provided by programs such as the Educational Opportunity Program, Upward Bound, and so on. It is another myth to believe that all Asians are a success story. A UCLA School of Urban Planning study shows that Pacific Islanders and South East Asians have poverty rates which are three times greater than white Americans. Other studies indicate enrollment of Pilipinos in higher education is much closer to African-Americans and Latinos that other Asians. Asians, revered as the "model minority" includes Pacific Islanders, South East Asians and Philipinos, yet there are distinct disparities between say a third generation Chinese student and a first generation Cambodian refugee. Thus affirmative action can only help not hinder the Asian community.
MYTH: I have a friend/brother/sister/____(fill in the blank) who was qualified for the job/college but didn't get it because the position went to a person of color or a woman.
FACT: Many of us have heard this statement or made it ourselves. It's a logical error to apply what happens to a few individuals to the entire society. On the societal level, systemic forces continue to keep people of color and women at a disadvantage. For example, Asians and Pacific Islanders who on average have higher percentages receiving bachelor's degrees - 38% compared to all other Americans - 20%, are not proportionately represented in the job market, specifically in areas of management and executive positions. The reality does not accurately reflect the numbers of qualified Asians and Pacific Islanders that enter the job market.
We must also question why race and gender are so hotly contested when other types of preferences are not being discussed. A 1991 report by Berkeley's Institute for the Study of Social Change noted that "far more whites have entered the gates of the 10 most elite institutions through alumni preference than the combined number of all the Blacks, and Chicanos entering through affirmative action." For the past decade, Harvard's admission rate for "legacies" or the children of alumni, has ranged between 35-40%. Yet, there have been no attacks on these century old preferences based on family ties and perpetuating the "old-boy" networks.
In higher education, as in other areas, it is the perception of lost position rather than the reality which fuels "white male anger". In 1973 approximately 18 million of white Americans between the ages of 18-24 were high school graduates. By 1993, due to falling birth rates, this number dropped to about 16 million. However, in 1973, only 30% of white high school graduates entered college, whereas in 1993 that number increased to 42%. Thus, despite an overall drop in numbers, more white high school graduates are going to college. The pattern of increased college participation holds true for every ethnic group. Nearly 15 million students are now enrolled in college, and participation by every racial group has increased. That is partly what the anger on campuses is about - not that people of color are taking white places, but that whites, and everyone else, want even more spaces. Yet, white's nationally constitute 75% of the student body, earn 88% of the PhD's awarded to U.S. citizens, are 87% of the college administrator, and hold 875 of the full time faculty positions.
The growth of minority participation in higher education has been modest at best, but it is the "perception" of loss of majority privilege that politicians have seized upon and irresponsibly whipped into a frenzy. This makes holding dispassionate discussions about affirmative action exceedingly difficult.
MYTH: Affirmative action goals can be achieved through sole consideration of socioeconomic status, without regard to race or gender.
FACT: Contrary to popular belief, in an exploratory computer simulation, the possible effects of using socioeconomic status in place of ethnicity in the undergraduate admissions process at the University of California, for example, would possibly wield opposite results. The computer simulations predicts that African-American enrollments could see a 40-50% reduction, and the same for American Indians. Chicano/Latino enrollments could face a possible 2-25% reduction. Instead, with socioeconomic status as the primary factor in admissions, we would see a possible increase by 15-25% of Asian students as well as a marginal increase in the proportion of white students. Overall, the UC system as an example would not fare progressively in racial demographics if socioeconomic status became the sole factor for determining admittance.
Unfortunately, the same political figures supporting the dismantling of affirmative action programs do not support increases to financial aid programs. In fact, the current system of financial aid, including grants and loans could not withstand and accommodate the estimated increase of low income students, if the option became a reality. Not to mention, existing financial aid presently faces grave threats from the budget cuts.
MYTH: Affirmative action and meritocracy are mutually exclusive.
FACT: Meritocracy is defined as a system in which advancement is based on achievement or ability. The concept that universities admit less "qualified" students in the name of affirmative action is untrue. Race is one of the many facets of criteria for admission. Linda Clement, Director of Admissions at the University of Maryland, College Park, states that SAT's and GPA's are only a 50% prediction factor of a student's success at university. She indicates that admissions officers need to have an "understanding of students' special talents and interests in light of the opportunities they have available to them." In general, students with lower SAT and GPA scores have higher graduation rates than others. We must also recognize the difference between secondary schools, many of which do not offer honors, Advanced Placement (AP), or SAT preparation courses. Schools in low income, low tax base areas receive less funding and therefore have lower quality facilities and fewer resources such as teacher's energy, computers, current or functional libraries and so on. Studies have also indicated that the SAT could be considered culturally biased. Merit is just a word for whatever qualifications are deemed desirable for the performance of a particular task and there is nothing fixed about those qualifications.
Faculty of color are less likely to be hired or promoted because of the "old boy" network and have fewer publishing opportunities. For example, many committees that determine tenure, which tend to be comprised of tenured white men, discredit where faculty of color publish their material. Faculty of color commonly have work published in community journals, the audience they intend to reach, yet these publications are not deemed scholarly enough. In a system of "publish or perish" advancement becomes difficult.
MYTH: Affirmative action equals quotas.
FACT: Quotas, on one hand, are dismissable because they are illegal. What is permitted under current affirmative action instead are benchmarks, targets and goals. Goals and timetables are set by employers for the employment of people of color and women, along with time frames for achieving these goals. Employers are encouraged to make good faith efforts but there are no legal penalties if they make good faith efforts and are unable to meet the goals. Those who oppose affirmative action claim that this type of perspective still leads to quantification of proportions, making one's ethnicity equal a number. However, when ranges, targets, or goals are in place, their implementation always occurs in relation to a pool of already qualified applicants. No one is telling anyone to hire or admit persons who are unqualified; rather, employers and admissions officers are being told that when a pool of qualified applicants have been assembled, choices within it can take "minority" status into consideration in cases where gross, disparate underrepresentation is obvious and long standing. There is, however, a misconception that affirmative action entails admitting or hiring unqualified people of color and women.
MYTH: Affirmative action is reverse discrimination, it gives preferential treatment to people of color and women.
FACT: Racism is power plus discrimination. The parameters of discrimination based on race are distinguished by the power dynamics. Reverse racism is not, therefore a reality if people of color are not in positions of power and perpetrating the discrimination. An Urban Institute study shows that less that 100 of 3000 cases could be considered reverse discrimination. Less that six of those cases were deemed by the court to be substantiated.
Affirmative action has been mislabeled "preferential treatment" for certain members of society. In reality it is a kind of social restitution and an attempt to create a more democratic society. President Johnson, in describing affirmative action, stated, "You do not take a person who for years has been hobbled by chains, liberate him and bring him to the starting line of a race and say, 'You are free to compete with others,' and still justly believe that you have been completely fair." Thus, it is not enough just to open the gates of opportunity: all must have the ability to walk through those gates. Affirmative action is an attempt to facilitate a more level playing field.
Affirmative action recognizes the interconnectedness of race, class, gender. Many of the symbolic gates are beyond reach due to economic disparity which in turn is one of the effects of racism. We cannot divorce these interconnected issues from one another. Beginning with the consideration of race as permissible in university admissions, in the Regents of the University of California vs. Bakke, the court rejected the notion that the constitution prohibits considerations of race. In the UC system, race and ethnicity are not solely considered for admissions. Thus, there is no such thing as preferential treatment. Other criteria such as socio-economic level, state residency, special abilities, disabilities, familial ties and athletic ability are used in determining admissions. These supplemental criteria benefit everyone, not only people of color.
MYTH: Affirmative action benefits only a select few, and is a primarily Black vs. White issue.
FACT: If we as a society value equality and fairness, which is what affirmative action seeks to ensure, then we all benefit. Despite some of the gains made by affirmative action, discrimination still persists. We as a society have, as a result, not been able to fully benefit from affirmative action. We have barely begun to enjoy the benefits and increased diversity that affirmative action provides; in this light we can hardly consider dismantling the existing programs. National enrollment figures illustrate that enrollment of people of color has grown from negligible figures when schools were segregated to about 20% of the nation's post-secondary education students. 1993 figures show African Americans comprise 9.2% of enrollment, Chicano/Latinos are at 4.9%, Asian Americans also 4.9% and American Indians at 0.7% in four year institutions. However, yearly gains are minimal. It has taken twenty years to arrive at this point. Even though white women have advanced in some areas, white women managers and administrators earned only 65% as much as white men.
Many reports on affirmative action in the public media have focused only on the aspect of African-Americans and affirmative action versus the "angry white male". Many articles fail to acknowledge the multifaceted dynamics of affirmative action which incorporate Latinos, Chicanos, Asians, Pacific Islanders, Native Americans, and women. In fact, studies show that white women tend to be the primary beneficiaries of affirmative action.
MYTH: Affirmative action hurts Whites and Asians.
FACT: Though affirmative action is believed to have harmed white men, this contradicts the reality that white men hold structural power in society today. For example, a Washington Post study shows that 95% of top corporate executives are white males. Asians benefit in many ways from affirmative action by making use of services provided by programs such as the Educational Opportunity Program, Upward Bound, and so on. It is another myth to believe that all Asians are a success story. A UCLA School of Urban Planning study shows that Pacific Islanders and South East Asians have poverty rates which are three times greater than white Americans. Other studies indicate enrollment of Pilipinos in higher education is much closer to African-Americans and Latinos that other Asians. Asians, revered as the "model minority" includes Pacific Islanders, South East Asians and Philipinos, yet there are distinct disparities between say a third generation Chinese student and a first generation Cambodian refugee.
would anyone have a problem if it were found out that mccain's church was founded on white power?
Yada, yada, yada.
If you don't have power, your discrimination doesn't mean crap.
The Irish were sold as Slaves? I didn't know that. I have heard the term, "Black Irish." I wonder if that is what it means?
You're right about Blacks selling other Blacks as slaves, but what relevance does that have to this discussion?
Only to the extent that the candidate agreed with the church in its white power stance and what policies and practices the candidate would advocate to further such white power. I feel the same whether it is Obama and his alleged Black Power church or McCain and his supposed White Power church.
The affirmative action office, eh? Surprising stance they take on the issue of affirmative action.
it is not alleged. go to TUCC's website, the church is all about black power and was founded on black power. to those that view this "founding" as something of the past, where do you get such notions? the church has not stated such and if you to to their website, black power issues are all over the place.
http://www.tucc.org/about.htm
it is clear that their current vision still encompasses black power:
Dr. Wrights talking points (3.1.7) for Trinity United Church of Christ its Web site and the Black Value System (in response to Erik Rushs comments (2.28.07) on the Hannity and Colmes show):
One of the biggest gaps in knowledge that causes the kind of ignorance that you hear spouted by this man [Erik Rush] and those like him, has to do with the fact that these persons are completely ignorant when it comes to the Black religious tradition. The vision statement of Trinity United Church of Christ is based upon the systematized liberation theology that started in 1969 with the publication of Dr. James Cones book, Black Power and Black Theology.
http://www.tucc.org/talking_points.htm
how is this about ending divisiveness? how is this about integrating society?
it is not alleged. go to TUCC's website, the church is all about black power and was founded on black power. to those that view this "founding" as something of the past, where do you get such notions? the church has not stated such and if you to to their website, black power issues are all over the place.
http://www.tucc.org/about.htm
it is clear that their current vision still encompasses black power:
Dr. Wrights talking points (3.1.7) for Trinity United Church of Christ its Web site and the Black Value System (in response to Erik Rushs comments (2.28.07) on the Hannity and Colmes show):
One of the biggest gaps in knowledge that causes the kind of ignorance that you hear spouted by this man [Erik Rush] and those like him, has to do with the fact that these persons are completely ignorant when it comes to the Black religious tradition. The vision statement of Trinity United Church of Christ is based upon the systematized liberation theology that started in 1969 with the publication of Dr. James Cones book, Black Power and Black Theology.
http://www.tucc.org/talking_points.htm
how is this about ending divisiveness? how is this about integrating society?
Okay. Alleged or factual that part was not my point. The point that I was trying to make was that Im only concerned to the extent that the candidate agreed with the church in its white power stance and what policies and practices the candidate would advocate to further such white power.
The whole Wright Obama thing does not concern me. Obama said that he does not agree with the harsh rhetoric that Wright puts forth. I dont see any Black Supremacy commentary on Obamas web site. This is much to do about nothing.
so obama's deep connection with his church is all about black and white people getting together in harmony. nothing about black power....
