Overall:
ideologically speaking, I stand for integration.
integration is the logical step after desegregation and I believe that in order to sustain a multiethnic pluralism, geography cannot be destiny -
especially because of the fact of American apartheid. in order to move forward, our nation must destroy the legacy of racial segregation.
since race, in an of itself, is a biological fiction we can achieve a more equitable society.
we have done what is required to destroy the legal basis for racist exclusion, but we have not destroyed the capital & infrastructure
developments of racist exclusion. when this is accomplished, all that will be left are racist memories, ideas and attitudes. we can deal with
that.
Affirmative action is an overloaded tactic because it is the only widely supported policy directed at the problem. it seems unsupportable
because it doesn't accomplish everything although it is very successful when properly applied. despite its faults, it is the only program
which is politically acceptable in the current racially regressive climate. and as such, is more important than it should be.What Kinds?
I support affirmative action in the workplace under the aegis of 'balanced workforce' guidelines.
I support affirmative action in higher education for the purposes of equalizing deficits at the secondary level and in recognition of higher
educational requirements for middle-class status. furthermore I believe the broad range of university requirements can take race into
account along the guidelines of Bakke - so long as they don't establish a separate class of requirements according to race.
I support affirmative action in municipal services in the strictest sense - proportional representation by community - as a special case. I
believe it to be a right of citizens to be self-reliant, and I believe that this right has been taken away from ghetto communities in the form of
all-white police and fire departments. I would support court orders and numerical quotas to establish adequate representation in such
public services to establish an organic, community-based set of municipal services.
I am wishy-washy about federal set-asides.Reasons Why:
I have always primarily advocated affirmative action from the standpoint of integration. What I've always said is that in a post-Jim crow society, anything in the mainstream that remains segregated is defacto wrong. So any way you can integrate that is good - even if it means taking black bums off the street and making them heads of Savings and Loan Associations. In short, I support tokenism too. When blacks can destroy the S&L industry and not be blamed because of their race, that is the day America will have reached equality.
Short of that day, any and every effort Americans make to destroy racial ghettoes is good work. Something much more strong than affirmative action is warranted if the myth of racial inferiority is to be destroyed.
Empowerment is the secondary reason I support affirmative action. To the extent that opening doors serves the interests of beneficiaries of affirmative action, that's all good. Even if non-distinct individuals get bumped in a zero sum game. Anyplace that is capable of supporting politics of hardball affirmative action, quotas and targets and other overproductions should continue. As long as this remains a significant minority of affirmative actions, these don't despoil the market.
Diversity is the third reason I support affirmative action. Ethnics *are* different, and there *are* no objective standards by which all Americans can or should be judged. As long as affirmative action doesn't create situations like that surrounding David Cash in which persona non grata is the rule rather than the exception the discomfort level should be ignored. People who can't get along inter-ethnically should recognize that their days are numbered.
Having argued around in a dozen circles several points numerous times, I have hit upon a few themes which reappear from time to time. I have abstracted these into the below in an attempt to have quick mental shortcuts which support general ideas.
Mnemonic Meaning My Position Asian Prophylaxis Racial preferences established in affirmative action for the benefit of blacks and Latinos effectively block opportunities for Asians. I doubt it. Proximity Premise Black children's self-esteem is undermined by educating them in separate schools. Therefore integration is good because black students will feel better about themselves if they study with whites. False Liberal Corporations Corporate America implements affirmative actions for same reasons leftists support it. False Quotas Without End Nobody knows, objectively speaking, when enough Affirmative Action is enough. Incredibly False Californian Dreaming The example of UC Berkeley's Affirmative Action program is typical and the case of Proposition 209 is a bellwether for race and politics. White Displacement Affirmative action is a zero-sum game which costs whitefolks jobs. Prove It
More (& Older) Stuff
Affirmative Action is reverse discrimination. No it's not. So there. But seriously, one has to ask oneself if the discrimination of affirmative action is indeed the same kind of discrimination as it sought to remedy. The question of the efficacy of affirmative action in the workplace is generally answered by comparing incomes of blacks Vs whites. I would ask, then if affirmative action cures racial discrimination against blacks by increasing their average income, does it create discrimination against others by lowering their average income? I believe the answer to that is no. Did affirmation action commit a criminal act when it discriminates against white males?
Affirmative action is legal and constitutional and has been ruled so since its inception. The various laws and Supreme court decisions limit the way affirmative action can be legally implemented. Some of these laws are controversial, such as the Adarand v. Pena decision. others are less so, such as the Bakke decision. Is reverse discrimination a crime? There is no such thing as 'reverse discrimination'. It's a special term created for white folks. There is racial discrimination and there is racist discrimination. Racial discrimination means I take your race into consideration and change the way I view you because of that. racist discrimination means I only consider your race and nothing else and that unalterably changes the way you will be treated. see the difference? Racial discrimination can be used for good or evil. Racist discrimination is always wrong. the borderline between them is generally determined by the amount race matters. this is how the supreme court has been ruling, more or less consistently over the past 30 years. in the Bakke decision, for example, when race is the sole criteria for university admissions (a racial quota), then it is racist and illegal.
now if you call 'reverse discrimination' any discrimination (be it 'racial' or 'racist') which doesn't decides in favor of white folks, then you have just established a category which necessarily makes everything that helps non-white folks wrong. I believe that is the idea behind the term.
if you are discriminated against for racial or racist reason, there is not a separate law that white folks use. it's the same law. that's why 'reverse discrimination' is not a legal term, it's just rhetoric.
How are white males affected by reverse discrimination? if the popular press is to be believed, white males have reserved a special type of anger and resentment. but what they haven't done is present a convincing number of legal cases that their civil rights have been trampled on. Why are white males mostly affected by reverse discrimination? because that's what reverse discrimination is, by definition. What percentage of the white male population are affected by reverse discrimination? let's try some math.
let's assume that 25% of America is non-white. and of those non-whites,
50% are in the workforce (>18 and <65)
thus 12.5% of America has the potential of being chosen, for the worst
reasons, over whites. oops but you said white males. so make that 12.5%
Vs 37.5%.
now, let's further assume that 50% of all American businesses has an affirmative action plan which is in effect. (remember that federal guidelines for affirmative action only applies to business with 12 or more employees). and let's assume that ALL of the 12.5% of non-white working men and women work ONLY in those business. and finally let's assume that EVERY one of those non-white working men and women ONLY get promoted or hired because of the WORST kind of RACIST and ILLEGAL affirmative action decision not because they earned it.that being the case, mathematically it's 12.5% Vs 18.25%. (18.25 because
half of the white men work in companies not affected by affirmative
action at all whereas all of the non-white men and women work ONLY in
affirmative action companies). so, under these absolute worse
conditions, all the non-whites could only take 68% (12.5/18.25) of the
jobs away from 1/2 the white males anyway. so 32% of the jobs are left
to white males IN affirmative action companies and 100% are left to the
white males in non-affirmative action companies.
that being the case, 34% of all *working* white males, a distinct
minority, would be the worst kind of victims of the worst kind of
affirmative action and all of it would be illegal.
now, let's interject some reality.
#1. non-whites have higher unemployment rates than whites. so that reduces the 12.5%
#2. white woman have been and always will be part of affirmative action, so that reduces the racial aspect.
#3. fewer than 50% of American businesses have affirmative action programs.
#4. even where these affirmative action programs are in effect, they do not cover all types of employment.
#5. even in the areas covered, every hire or promotion is not programmatic. i.e. non-whites *do* merit.
#6. the overwhelming majority of affirmative action programs are legal in every respect following the Bakke decision. that means none of these hires or promotions is based *solely* on the matter of race.
So 'angry white males' are arguing against logic and mathematics and in ignorance of the law and facts. But their rhetoric and politics are pretty loud.