Fullilove v. Klutznick

While Bakke struck down strict quotas, in Fullilove the Supreme Court ruled that some modest quotas were perfectly constitutional. The Court upheld a federal law requiring that 15% of funds for public works be set aside for qualified minority contractors. The "narrowed focus and limited extent" of the affirmative action program did not violate the equal rights of non-minority contractors, according to the Court—there was no "allocation of federal funds according to inflexible percentages solely based on race or ethnicity."

United States v. Paradise

In July 1970, a federal court found that the State of Alabama Department of Public Safety systematically discriminated against blacks in hiring: "in the thirty-seven-year history of the patrol there has never been a black trooper." The court ordered that the state reform its hiring practices to end "pervasive, systematic, and obstinate discriminatory exclusion of blacks." A full 12 years and several lawsuits later, the department still had not promoted any blacks above entry level nor had they implemented a racially fair hiring system. In response, the court ordered specific racial quotas to correct the situation. For every white hired or promoted, one black would also be hired or promoted until at least 25% of the upper ranks of the department were composed of blacks. This use of numerical quotas was challenged. The Supreme Court, however, upheld the use of strict quotas in this case as one of the only means of combating the department's overt and defiant racism.

Thanks to Clinton;( Bill that is, not his husband.)

White House guidelines on affirmative action

President Clinton asserted in a speech that while Adarand set "stricter standards to mandate reform of affirmative action, it actually reaffirmed the need for affirmative action and reaffirmed the continuing existence of systematic discrimination in the United States." In a White House memorandum on the same day, he called for the elimination of any program that "(a) creates a quota; (b) creates preferences for unqualified individuals; (c) creates reverse discrimination; or (d) continues even after its equal opportunity purposes have been achieved."

OMG!! Ca. did one right thing!

Proposition 209 enacted in California

A state ban on all forms of affirmative action was passed in California: "The state shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting." Proposed in 1996, the controversial ban had been delayed in the courts for almost a year before it went into effect.

Just too sad it was so they did it for the sake of the Illegal Alien.

Here is when AA started to really fail.

Initiative 200 enacted in Washington State

Washington becomes the second state to abolish state affirmative action measures when it passed "I 200," which is similar to California's Proposition 209.
Feb. 22, 2000 Florida bans race as factor in college admissions.

Florida legislature approves education component of Gov. Jeb Bush's "One Florida" initiative, aimed at ending affirmative action in the state.


Ricci v. DeStefano, Firefighters Go to Court

In a lawsuit brought against the city of New Haven, 18 plaintiffs—17 white and 1 Hispanic—argued that results of the 2003 lieutenant and captain exams were thrown out when it was determined that few minority firefighters qualified for advancement. The city claimed they threw out the results because they feared liability under a disparate-impact statute for issuing tests that discriminated against minority firefighters. The plaintiffs claimed that they were victims of reverse discrimination under the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Supreme Court ruled (5–4) in favor of the firefighters, saying New Haven's "action in discarding the tests was a violation of Title VII."

Considering the racism in this country they need to bring it back in full force obviously.

Can't have employers being racist.

Affirmative action is racism towards white people.You are judging people by the color of their skin!How ironic is it that you have all these people complaining about this new Arizona law and profiling.Yet you have Affirmative action that is 100% profiling,and 100% federal law that you have to give that job to someone of a minority.It's total BS.It is amazing that it has gone on for as long as it has.Everything has to be equal right?Except if you are a white skinned male or female.In that case everyone who isn't white gets hired before you do.

She can't see the forest for the trees!

All this liberal nonsense is about to come to a screaching halt come November.

Affirmative action policies are numerous across the country. I would never be so self righteous as to say NONE of these policies have flaws or need correction, but I will never be so pompous as to believe that ALL of them do.

really? everyone gets hired before whites? lol

so, although 80 percent of jobs are not publicly advertised, but filled through networking,

Do you think the network of most white males in upper management positions is a network of less qualified minorities?

Do you honestly and logically believe that those white males in the majority of the power positions are SEEKING out minorities ahead of their white male counterparts?


is that why across the board, AFrican American unemployment rates are almost double that of caucasian americans?

is that why . even though white males are approximately 40% of the US population,, they hold a disproportionately high number of senior management positions in Fortune 1000 industrial and Fortune 500 service industries,

If merely being a minority has all these built in privileges, why havent I or any of my family and friends been told about it( surely, if an HR person explains to someone how their race kept them from a job,, SOME of them would have told us how our race GOT us ours? after all, wouldnt one be more frightened that someone who lost out would complain about the reason than someone who got hired?)


and why do I not find ONE SINGLE AFFIRMATIVE ACTION law that even uses the words 'whites' or 'blacks' to support this claim that somehow one or the other MUST get the job and the other not?


and if minorities are so privileged and treated so special,, why is there so much fear about mexicans, blacks, or whomever becoming the majority?



I see the forest just fine,, I am guessing that although I am no expert on these things, I probably have been taught more about the ACTUAL LAWS than most who are complaining about experiences they THINK(or were told by some third party) had to do with the laws

come on people, I understand emotion,, but try to temper it with logic

AFfirmative action LAWS (not to be confused with the various diversity programs different groups and organizations implement) do not REQUIRE EMPLOYMENT,, they require that OPPORTUNITIES be equally shared. If a community of mostly white people happens to hire mostly white candidates , that does not warrant the same suspicion as if a community of mostly minorities is hiring mostly white candidates. There is an EEO commission to INVESTIGATE things on a case by case basis and there is NO MANDATE in AFfirmative action LAWS that require anyone to hire someone SOLELY because of race. In hiring, AA applies to QUALIFIED APPLICANTS and the EFFORTS made to give an equal opportunity. AFTER an investigation, a JUDGE may decide to implement a quota, but that is a judicial decision and not an affirmative action mandate.

can you please site an affirmative action policy or law that specifically mentions any one race or skin color?


we can debate policies and laws all day long that fall under Affirmative Action, but to cry about Affirmative ACtion and how it fails is like crying about Family Law and how it fails(because in so many cases it discriminates against fathers), or crying about Civil Law and how it fails (because it only mandates a preponderance of evidence in stead of a more substantial burden of proof)


point being that I tire of people crying about Affirmative Action as if it is just ONE thing, one law, one policy,,,,when in fact

Affirmative Action is NOT A LAW, it is a category of a specific area of laws and regulations,,, If anyone could debate about a SPECIFIC regulation or law I could believe that maybe THEY actually educated themself about Affirmative ACtion and not just the experiences and claims of themselves and others.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^Sounds like double speak. Either it is a law or it's not.

It may not seem to be a law by your definition but, when quotas are mandated and fines are imposed for not complying with said mandates, I'd say. it's pretty danged close to a law.

Accept AA is an antiquated attitude and allow it to die.

lol,,, can I state this ANY clearer. AA is a CATEGORY of laws.. like Family Law, Civil Law, Tort Law.

no double speak there at all.

again, show me the AA law or regulation which mandates a quota and I will debate it with you,,,but there are none. quotas are mandated by JUDGES and not by any AA law.

from another thread ....

Points are discrimination.
They do not award to the most qualified person the educational spot.
They give the minority educational welfare.

If I may interject a point here. The topic is illegals and their anchor curtain climbers.

There is an open topic on the aa welfare program.



I agree points are a sort of discrimination,, at Mich U, they already had such discrimination which in effect all but excluded minorities, and were not fair, since students have no control over where they lived or where they went to school or who their parents were , yet got PointS for these very things.

As I was saying though, the discrimination wasnt a problem until it SEEMED to exclude majorities in some way. Those other POINTS , which benefit mostly non minority, are still in place.

Try telling that to an EMPLOYER who tries to violate ANY of the AA LAWS ...

Failure to comply with the Executive Order and its non-discrimination or affirmative action provisions is a violation of an employer's contract with the government. A contractor in violation of EO 11246 may have its contracts canceled, terminated, or suspended, and the contractor may be debarred (i.e., declared ineligible for future government contracts).

http://www.kumc.edu/eoo/aff.html#requirements


no mention of fines THERE

lol, can you give an example of even ONE of these Affirmative Action laws,,complete with the fine imposed for violation,

or is this going to continue to be a debate about how people FEEL ....

http://www.lewrockwell.com/yates/yates70.html

What Went Wrong With Affirmative Action (And Why It Never Could Have Gone Right)

An Essay by Steven Yates

(full essay at the above link)

interesting opinion

now mine

claim #1 'Lack of specifics in the original legislation – plus the implication that carrying out its intent meant proving that negative, that one had not discriminated – had made the original "affirmative action" an inherently confused notion'


A. It is not so simple as proving a negative, it is showing the EFFORT being taken to produce a result. Much like requiring a student to write out their equations on a paper before submitting their answer, perhas it proves that they actually did the work, or to prove that they didnt cheat,, but it is still not such a difficult task for those who are being honest in the first place.

Claim/Question #2 'Did it call for group-based preferences or didn’t it? They walked a tightrope. No one wanted to be sued.'


From executive order 11246 , section 202

The contractor will not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. The contractor will take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, color, religion, sex or national origin

I dont know what is so difficult about that or why anyone would think that equates to group 'preferences'.



Claim #3 First things first. No one denies that prejudice is still around. But we cannot mechanically infer that something called "affirmative action" (or "diversity" or whatever you want) will magically erase it. If people are forced together against their will, with some getting favors based on group identity and others disfavored, this might make prejudice worse


Really, because I could swear that outside of AA, there were plenty of FAVORED groups,, most of them being caucasian males ,, ya know,, the good ole boy network,,,,,,

Claim #4 Moreover, when members of a favored group are taught to demonize the disfavored group ("their ancestors enslaved and brutalized your ancestors"), whatever friction already existing between them is likely to worsen rather than diminish


lol at Favored group,, but anyhow,,,I could swear I went to school with many of these supposedly DISFAVORED people (that assessment is cracking me up by the way) who were TAUGHT to look negatively upon the FAVORED group(oh yeah,, history is just RIDDLED with examples of how minorities are favored,,lol) , and after actually having their OWN EXPERIENCE were LESS likely to continue feeling as their parents had


,,,,anyway, the piece is rather too long to disect here. IT is an interesting opinion of course,

I disagree, not because I am black as the author suggests, or because I am a woman. I disagree with what seems to be his underlying premise,,,,that AA is about making things IDEAL or PERFECT or egalitarian. AA is an effort to make things more level, not completely level, as obviously would never happen in any situation.

Well they never get their facts right (see Vets thread!!) They think that being white makes them special??? Human beings make U special (YES even black ones, red ones, tall ones, diasabled ones ETC!!!) Where is compasion for your fellow human beings? These are probably the ones that tink the Holocost didnt happen either!!( Our Left Wing compassion for those that cant fight for themselvs!!) God Bless the Helpless and the yong kids that cant fight for themselves!!!

Just had to make this a RACIST thing, huh ... ? Al 'n Jesse's job is done ...

from a previous post in this thread (not from Mikey)

Affirmative action is racism towards white people.You are judging people by the color of their skin!How ironic is it that you have all these people complaining about this new Arizona law and profiling.Yet you have Affirmative action that is 100% profiling,and 100% federal law that you have to give that job to someone of a minority.It's total BS.It is amazing that it has gone on for as long as it has.Everything has to be equal right?Except if you are a white skinned male or female.In that case everyone who isn't white gets hired before you do.

and this is the rhetoric that gets repeated OVER AND OVER by those who dont take initiative or time to read the actual policies or laws ,,,,,,,for which the basic premise is that employers CANNOT discriminate based upon RACE(that word RACE, includes white folks too)

Two completely different attitudes ... one's factual, one's racist.

this is not an attitude..

The contractor will not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. The contractor will take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, color, religion, sex or national origin



its part of the Executive Order , and one of many ACTUAL laws, people often refer to when discussing Affirmative Action,

unlike the continuous stream of emotions and interpretations from peoples personal experiences in these threads



this is not fact
'Affirmative action is racism towards white people.You are judging people by the color of their skin' (unless NOT discriminating based on race is equal to judging people by their skin, but I kind of think they are POLAR opposites)