It's a simplistic idea based on a complicated philosophy and an emotional history....

Comply means maintaining a quota of minorities.

NAACP gonna' whine big time when the new, mexican minority gets the preferential treatment instead of them, (don't ya' know)? << Practicing speaking Canadian, just in case.

The real debate is about using Affirimative Action as a remedy for past discrimination...So what does that mean in terms of AA's legal status?..

Recently, some states have amended their constitutions to eliminate race and gender preferences because the public is becoming less and less tolerant of government picking and choosing based on "political correctness"...

Once a case manages to reach the courts, it must be dissected and then dissected again in order to pass constitutional muster...This is because "identified" discrimination needs to be served at the least amount of expense to those who have NOT been discriminated against...

As of now, the supreme court majority believes AA is constitutional as long as the reason(s) for undertaking the affirimative action are compelling...Courts are beginning to rule against AA when it is based solely on diversity issues, but I think cases tied to PROVEN discrimination, both past and present, will continue to survive and I think they need to continue to survive...

I hope not...The "poetic" pleasure would be short lived and I don't think women are that stupid or rhat naive...

“there were 98 female CEOs of 3,049 publicly traded companies analyzed by research company GMI.” The total number of women represents 3.2% of the total company CEOs, an increase of .1 percent from last year."

Harvard Targeted In U.S. Asian-American Discrimination Probe

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-02-02/harvard-targeted-in-u-s-asian-american-discrimination-probe.html

Alexandria Walton Radford, in their book 'No Longer Separate, Not Yet Equal', examined data on students applying to college in 1997 and calculated that Asian-Americans needed nearly perfect SAT scores of 1550 to have the same chance of being accepted at a top private university as whites who scored 1410 and African-Americans who got 1100. Whites were three times, Hispanics six times, and blacks more than 15 times as likely to be accepted at a US university as Asian-Americans.

It also gives preference to minorities with lower gpa's into colleges ahead of non-minorities.

Cuz, aa says they're special.

That was my point. However, I believe many employers started acting on it erroneously because of discrimination claims and the cost/hassle of dealing with them when not justified. This from a woman who HAS been passed over...and probably selected based on both gender and race over her lifetime.

I actually think the plethora of other labor laws cover the issues now and that Affirmative Action is a law that's served its purpose and should die a natural death. It's got repetition elsewhere under FLSA - which is actually easier to apply in some respects.

Race has been and remains inextricably involved in drug law enforcement, shaping the public perception of and response to the drug problem.[16] A recent study in Seattle is illustrative. Although the majority of those who shared, sold, or transferred serious drugs[17] in Seattle are white (indeed seventy percent of the general Seattle population is white), almost two-thirds (64.2%) of drug arrestees are black. The racially disproportionate drug arrests result from the police department's emphasis on the outdoor drug market in the racially diverse downtown area of the city, its lack of attention to other outdoor markets that are predominantly white, and its emphasis on crack. Three-quarters of the drug arrests were crack-related even though only an estimated one-third of the city's drug transactions involved crack.[18] Whites constitute the majority of those who deliver methamphetamine, ecstasy, powder cocaine, and heroin in Seattle; blacks are the majority of those who deliver crack. Not surprisingly then, seventy-nine percent of those arrested on crack charges were black.[19] The researchers could not find a "racially neutral" explanation for the police prioritization of the downtown drug markets and crack. The focus on crack offenders, for example, did not appear to be a function of the frequency of crack transactions compared to other drugs, public safety or public health concerns, crime rates, or citizen complaints. The researchers ultimately concluded that the Seattle Police Department's drug law enforcement efforts reflect implicit racial bias: the unconscious impact of race on official perceptions of who and what constitutes Seattle's drug problem . . . . Indeed, the widespread racial typification of drug offenders as racialized "others" has deep historical roots and was intensified by the diffusion of potent cultural images of dangerous black crack offenders. These images appear to have had a powerful impact on popular perceptions of potential drug offenders, and, as a result, law enforcement practices in Seattle.[20]

Crack in black neighborhoods was a lightning rod for a complicated and deep-rooted set of racial, class, political, social, and moral dynamics. Politicians were able to woo a white electorate anxious about its declining status through the race-coded language of "drugs" and "crime."[35]

Public discourse focused on addiction and violence but the subtext was understood as that of race. Crack cocaine was perceived as a drug of the Black inner-city urban poor, while powder cocaine, with its higher costs, was a drug of wealthy whites . . . . This framing of the drug in class and race-based terms provides important context when evaluating the legislative response.[36]

That response, most notoriously, included the federal Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986 and the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988, which imposed far higher penalties for possession or sale of crack cocaine than powder cocaine, as well as state laws that required prison sentences even for low level drug offenses.

When asked to close their eyes and envision a drug offender, Americans did not picture a white middle class man snorting powder cocaine or college students smoking marijuana. They pictured unkempt African-American men and women slouched in alleyways or young blacks hanging around urban street corners.[41] At least for the last twenty years, however, whites have engaged in drug offenses at rates higher than blacks.

According to the 2006 surveys conducted by the federal Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), an estimated 49% of whites and 42.9% of blacks age twelve or older have used illicit drugs in their lifetimes; 14.5% of whites and 16% of blacks have used them in the past year; and 8.5% of whites and 9.8% of blacks have used them in the past month.[42] Because the white population is more than six times greater than the black population, the absolute number of white drug offenders is far greater than that of black drug offenders.[43] SAMHSA estimates that 111,774,000 people in the United States age twelve or older have used illicit drugs during their lifetime, of whom 82,587,000 are white and 12,477,000 are black.[44] Even among powder and crack cocaine users-which remain a principal focus of law enforcement-there are more whites than blacks.[45] According to SAMHSA's calculations, there are 27,083,000 whites who have used cocaine during their lifetime, compared to 2,618,000 blacks and, indeed, 5,553,000 whites who have used crack cocaine, compared to 1,537,000 blacks.[46]

According to the most recent SAMHSA survey, if black and white drug users are combined, blacks account for 13% of the total who have ever used an illicit drug, 8% of those who have ever used cocaine, and 21% of those who have ever used crack cocaine. They represent a comparably small proportion of those who engage in non-possession drug offenses as well.

The difference between the black proportion of drug offenders and the black proportion of drug arrests reflects the ongoing salience of urban drug law enforcement, or, more specifically, drug law enforcement in black urban neighborhoods. In 2007, for example, 77% of drug arrests occurred in cities.[67] Although urban blacks account for approximately 6% of the national population, they constituted 29.8% of all drug arrests in 2007.[68] A longitudinal analysis of urban drug arrests by race shows that in the largest American cities, drug arrests for African Americans rose at three times the rate for whites between 1980 and 2003, 225% compared to 70%. In eleven cities, black drug arrests rose by more than 500%.[69] In the seventy-five largest counties in the United States, blacks in 2002 accounted for 46% of drug offense arrests, even though they represented only 15.6% of the population.[70] New York State provides a particularly striking example: blacks in New York City represent 10.7% of the state population, yet accounted for 42.1% of drug arrests statewide.

B. Incarceration
The racial disparities evident in drug arrests grow larger as cases wind their way through the criminal justice system.[72] Blacks constitute 43% and whites 55% of persons convicted of drug felonies in state courts,[73] and blacks account for 53.5% and whites for 33.3% of persons admitted to state prison with new convictions for drug offenses.[74] In 2007, blacks accounted for 33.2% of people entering federal prison for drug offenses.[75]

A comparison of the rates, relative to population, at which blacks and whites are sent to state prison for drug offenses offers what may be the most compelling evidence of the disparate racial impact of drug control policies: the black rate (256.2 per 100,000 black adults) is ten times greater than the white rate (25.3 per 100,000 white adults).[76] Disaggregating these rates by gender reveals that black men were sent to prison on drug charges at 11.8 times the rate of white men and black women are sent to prison on drug charges at 4.8 times the rate of white women. As Table 1 reveals, blacks are sent to prison on drug charges at greater rates than whites in every state for which the data are available.

C. Race, Crime, and Punishment
Just as conscious and unconscious racial notions helped define the drug problem, they have also helped shape political and policy responses to that problem. The legislative history of federal crack sentencing laws, for example, provides reason "to suspect that regardless of the objectives Congress was pursuing, it would have shown more restraint in fashioning the crack penalties or more interest in amending them in ensuing years, if the penalties did not apply almost exclusively to blacks."[78] To the extent that the white majority in the United States identified both crime and drugs with racialized "others," it has no doubt been easier to endorse or at least acquiesce to punitive penal policies that might have been rejected if applied at equivalent rates to members of their own families and communities. Politicians have been able to reap the electoral rewards of endorsing harsh drug policies because the group that suffered most from those policies-black Americans-lacked the numbers to use the political process to secure a different strategy.[79]

Throughout the modern war on drugs, measures to battle the use and sale of drugs have emphasized arrest and incarceration rather than prevention and treatment.[80] The emphasis on harsh penal sanctions cannot be divorced from the widespread and deeply rooted public association of racial minorities with crime and drugs, just as the choice of crack as an ongoing priority for law enforcement cannot be divorced from public association of crack with blacks.[81]

Faced with concerns about crack, the United States could have emphasized a public health and harm reduction approach prioritizing drug education, substance abuse treatment, and increased access to medical assistance.[82] It could have sought to stem the spread of drug use and the temptations of the drug trade in deteriorating inner cities by making investments to reduce poverty, build social infrastructure, improve education, increase medical and mental health treatment, combat homelessness, increase employment, and provide more support to vulnerable families. It could have restricted prison to only the most serious drug offenders (e.g., major traffickers).

Instead, federal and state governments embraced harsh penal sanctions to battle the use of drugs and their sale to consumers.[83] They adopted policies that increased the arrest rates of low-level drug offenders, the likelihood of a prison sentence upon conviction of a drug offense, and the length of such prison sentences. [84]

Defenders of anti-drug efforts claim they want to protect poor minority neighborhoods from addiction and violence. But the choice of arrest and imprisonment as the primary anti-drug strategy evokes the infamous phrase from the Vietnam War: "It became necessary to destroy the town in order to save it."[85] Noted criminologist Michael Tonry has pointed out that unless and until drug control policies are less destructive, the life prospects for many disadvantaged blacks and their communities will remain bleak.

It is a constitutional paradox. That is why it infuriates people.

Yes it is called Affirmative Action. It allows non qualified minorities and women into job opportunities and higher education opportunities

Stolen from an Okie.

'Got this in an E-mail.



THANK YOU, OKLAHOMA!!!

'Be who you are and say what you feel, because those that matter - don't mind... and those that mind - don't matter.'


Oklahoma is the only state that Obama did not win even one county in the last election...

While everyone is focusing on Arizona 's new law, look what Oklahoma has been doing!!!!

An update from Oklahoma :

Oklahoma law passed, 37 to 9 an amendment to place the Ten Commandments on the front entrance to the state capitol. The feds in D.C., along with the ACLU, said it would be a mistake. Hey this is a conservative state, based on Christian values...! HB 1330

Guess what.......... Oklahoma did it anyway.


Oklahoma recently passed a law in the state to incarcerate all illegal immigrants, and ship them back to where they came from unless they want to get a green card and become an American citizen. They all scattered. HB 1804. This was against the advice of the Federal Government, and the ACLU, they said it would be a mistake.

Guess what.......... Oklahoma did it anyway.


Recently we passed a law to include DNA samples from any and all illegal's to the Oklahoma database, for criminal investigative purposes. Pelosi said it was unconstitutional SB 1102

Guess what......... Oklahoma did it anyway.


Several weeks ago, we passed a law, declaring Oklahoma as a Sovereign state, not under the Federal Government directives. Joining Texas , Montana and Utah as the only states to do so.

More states are likely to follow: Louisiana, Alabama, Georgia, the Carolina's, Tennessee, Kentucky, Missouri, Arkansas, West Virginia, Mississippi and Florida . Save your confederate money, it appears the South is about to rise up once again. HJR 1003



The federal Government has made bold steps to take away our guns. Oklahoma, a week ago, passed a law confirming people in this state have the right to bear arms and transport them in their vehicles. I'm sure that was a set back for the criminals The Liberals didn't like it -- But ....

Guess what........... Oklahoma did it anyway .


Just this month, the state has voted and passed a law that ALL driver's license exams will be printed in English, and only English, and no other language. They have been called racist for doing this, but the fact is that ALL of the road signs are in English only. If you want to drive in Oklahoma , you must read and write English. Really simple.

By the way, the Liberals don't like any of this either

Guess what...who cares... Oklahoma is doing it anyway.

it's not a question of color...it's a question of class...

I dont wish to see a homogenized world at all.

I just wish to see that differences in those things that we have no conscious decision in,,

like what income status we are born into
or what gender our biology dictates
or what ancestral history (race) we are born into


are seen as not better or worse but merely different,

and that we can appreciate the wonderful things in say, a males testesteronal tendencies towards aggression without them having to be seen as neanderthals

or womens estrognic tendencies towards nurturing without them having to be seen as weak

I believe its better that we EMBRACE those things that make us different from each other but dont DEFINE us,,,,

IN another thread some are asserting a 'double standard' or 'race card' being played when black people do or say something compared to when others do or say it.

....does my brown skin cause you to presuppose I can sing and dance or does my gender cause you to presuppose I cant do math or put oil in a car?

I believe the different history of blacks in america to others, and the continuous different 'general' social and financial status and experience of blacks in america accounts for much of what seem to be the double standard.

I think different perceptions are inevitable based upon different experiences. I can concede there are absolutely double standards in the American Culture, which are to me best accented when people use terms like 'act black' or 'act white',,those people imply behavior itself is dictated by race (as opposed to environmental issues).

So, the double standard is deeply ingrained in a history that included a 'double standard' founding of America and all the double standard results it caused in the financial, social, and judicial systems of AMerica. ITs the hardest thing to get honest discussion on how to improve those perceptions and differences across racial lines though.

Is there a way to truly get people not to be 'colorblind' but 'color appreciative'?