Michigan voters ban affirmative action
 

so the other week michigan voters banned affirmative action ( thanks to the high profile university of michigan admissions lawsuits over the past few years) and now the tables have turned with every single university and government office preparing lawsuits to counter the ban which is slated to begin next month. I don't understand the outrage because, according to census estimates, michigan is to become a "minority-majority" state within the next ten years due to the ever growing latino/african-american population. Now in regards to AA helping women, the retired, disabled, vets, etc.. doesnt equal oppertunity laws prohibit discrimination against any and all?

There is already a thread on this topic. Please post there.

You mean the general back and forth banter for/against AA in university admissions? I'm talking past college, in the work-force, in a minor-majority state, is there a place for affirmative action? proponets of AA are saying that whites just shot themselves in the foot banning this, since they are expected to be the minority in michigan within ten or so years. Is AA even designed for that? I feel like the system would collapse before benefiting a white male.

I had started a thread about the proposal before the election...

http://www.greekchat.com/gcforums/sh...ad.php?t=81918

Instead of people nitpicking and debating where AA should fit, college or in employment, the bigger discussion is about the state of this country and whether we can challenge the status quo without such measures in place.

If we find that we still need AA (like we still need EEO and social welfare initiatives) somewhere then it doesn't matter where it is implemented. Prejudice and discrimination were never so selective so why are people trying to be?

^^What she said...
 

Pike2001--

What are you really trying to say? Do you live in Michigan? And does the elimination of AA directly affect you?

Have you been displaced by any person of color, sex or disability for access and opportunity?

I just cannot get out of my head when I heard Mrs. Betty Shabazz speak. She kept saying "you MUST read the 1965 Civil Rights Act if you say you are for liberation...

My understanding of PiKA's post is that he doesn't understand the uproar over the Michigan ban because of the racial demographic that Michigan is estimated to have in the coming years. Then he's responding to people who argue that on a societal level AA has benefitted more white women and disabled than racial and ethnic minorities. He's saying that equal employment laws like the EEO (which aren't the same as AA for a reason) that help one group helps all groups. Not necessarily. This society is still very racially and class segregated so it is not uncommon for companies to use EEO laws to open the doors for some people who fit under the law and not others. The status quo is kept.

Yeah, i'm from Michigan. I didn't vote to ban AA, and as far as I know, it has never affected me. I'm not too in tune with HR or hiring practices, but EEO and AA always confused me in the sense that they somewhat contradicted each other. I wondered if AA was even necessary because we have EEO, which protects individuals of all backgrounds from discriminatory hiring practices.

AKA, i still don't get the whole "if it doesn't affect you, you shouldn't care," attitude. So if white on black racism doesn't affect me, I guess I shouldn't care about that either.

I don't care what you think, period... ;)

Now with that being said, I am not asking a question of emotion and wondering how people feel about it.

What I am asking is "what is/are your experience(s) with the relevant question"?

If you have never been overtly discriminated against, then how would you know what the problem is? Especially if you are not visualizing it everyday or you actually live in the midst of the problem...

Until the United States solve the issues with poverty, then we will never get beyond equal rights and protections as asked by the Feds.

Who is supposed to "deal" with poverty?

A whole lot of people...INCLUDING the federal government.

What exactly is the federal government going to do? Please tell.

I gather you're a (I hate labels, but...) Conservative who believes in minimal gov't involvement, especially when it comes to money and general social equalities. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

I believe that the government should have Moderate involvement in ensuring that the status quo is challenged and the haves don't become richer as the have nots become poorer. This usually takes the form of social welfare programs including but not limited to AFDC, welfare-to-work, and civil rights initiatives to combat the numerous "isms." I know that's not exhaustive and a bit vague but for a list of actual initiatives and proposed initiatives you can do a government documents search of your own.

In essence, I feel you can't target class inequality without targeting other inequalities. I don't advocate complete Socialism because it would be hard to get the tax payers to agree to this. I also believe that some inequality is functional for society (in terms of roles and statuses) and inevitable when we have socially constructed distinct categories such as social class. I simply believe that this society has gone too far with the status quo and pyramid-formation wealth distribution.

I can always count on you. :)

For the record, you continue to ask these (usually white) people on GC about their experiences with these issues. Are you waiting for some groundbreaking information that will make you more receptive to their opinions and experiences? I highly doubt that many if any of the whites who choose to post in such threads will have a tangible experience that they want to share with you. Some might not have a tangible experience at all and others might not want to make themselves vulnerable to being told their experience doesn't count for some reason.

But on the flip side of the whole "you wouldn't understand because of XYZ" stance:

Does every racial and ethnic minority experience discrimination directly. Indirectly? Do "we" get knowledge and understanding of such things via osmosis? Do all of "us" know and understand?

A lot of racial and ethnic minorities are not "overtly discriminated against" as far as they know and do not consciously "visualize it everyday or actually live in the midst." The intersection of race, class, and gender makes it such that we are not monolithic groups who can all relate to an assumed group experience. My race and gender top the list of socially relevant things I will have in common with a poor black women. However, we might experience racism and sexism differently. We certainly experience social class/classism differently since we don't have that in common. But instead of one of our experiences being placed above the other or deemed irrelevant, it's important to share and learn.

Yeah, you could term me a conservative. My problem is not with the government helping people to get back on their feet, its with people EXPECTING that. I think social programs have a history of discouraging personal responsibility of both those needing such programs, and the rest of us who don't. I just hate the idea that our government, or our well off citizens, "owe" anyone anything. Ideally, what I'd like to see is minimum government social programs, with increased emphasis on religious and charitable organization work. From a Christian standpoint, I think that government involvement in this area is allowing Christians to slack off on their responsibilities. I also think that the government's complete failure in the arena of social programs has turned those who could help away from doing so, because of things like incredibly high tax burdens and little restrictions on aid. It would require some time and a complete societal change to fix the system to how I would like to see it, but lets be honest, the government will never be able to fix the poverty problem. The only way we'll fix it is to put the responsibility on private organizations and individual Americans, and emphasize to those in poverty that while they may be given the tools, they'll have to put in the work.

Thanks for your candid response. It's not about "fixing" the poverty problem because the world is too dynamic to assume that a few years of social programs will fix any social ill. As long as we have capitalism, globalization, and large sums of money going to establish democracy in other nations, the U.S. government benefits more by having a huge disjuncture between the haves and have nots.

Shouldn't taxpaying citizens expect for the government to provide safetynets? The poor, which includes the people who are between jobs and the working poor, still pay taxes. Didn't the nonpoor who fell on bad times after 9/11 expect the U.S. government to assist them with certain social welfare programs? If paying taxes and being citizens of this great land don't lead to certain expectations, what does?

If you look at the history of social welfare programs especially those dating back to the early 20th century, it was never about dismissing personal responsibility for the poor and nonpoor. The government simply took up the slack for the poor and nonpoor when times of war or economic depression hit. Even today, the average person on welfare is of the working poor or has lost a job and gone back on welfare. No people in their right minds will not do for themselves just because they think the government will do for them once the bureaucratic red tape clears. The stereotypical poor person who'd rather sit around waiting for a paycheck is a small percentage as is the welfare mother with tons of children. Even people who are considered "middle class" and upper middle class live paycheck to paycheck because their class status is based on income and not wealth. They don't realize how close they are to the edge until times like 9/11 hit.

The well-off citizens who comprise the top 5% didn't get there on their own. They got help along the way in the form of government wealthfare programs and tax cuts, as well as stepping on the heads of the less well-off on the way to the top. This isn't a pure meritocracy and if you were to tell the well-off that the government was providing no more incentives or safety nets for them and their corporations, they'd flip and contact some politicians.

Sure, I'm for a safety net, if it were feasible. The fact is, its really not now. It is simply a logistical and financial nightmare to help people get back on their feet while ensuring they are doing their part to make the assistance temporary. Also, we're never going to fix poverty, as you seem to agree, but I don't think we'll make any substantial gains when the government is leading the way either. I agree with you that the point is obviously not to discourage responsibility, but regardless, it has. I also agree with you that the large majority of people getting help aren't sitting around waiting for a check, or continuing to have children or whatever, but the fact is that plenty of them are.

As for the upper classes, you're right, some had help along the way. But more importantly, somewhere along the way, those people's father or grandfather busted his ass to provide a future for his family. Is that happening in today's society? Sure. As much? I don't think so.

It is always feasible for the wealthiest and most powerful industrialized nation in the world.




It is happenening today but the economy and overall society has changed such that "busting your ass" means something different now than it did generations ago. Moreover, I don't know about you but, my grandparents busted their asses in the fields and in blue collar jobs and both of my parents busted their asses through higher-end academia and raising children so that I wouldn't have to "bust my ass" in the exact same way they did. It's called wealth accumulation and intergenerational mobility. I praise the Lord that I am a beneficiary of it. I'm not in the top 5% of society but I don't need to be to have the quality of life that I want for myself and my family.

How has AA helped you?

DSTS, how is it feasible. Its not working now, so tell me your plan. America is not what it is because of our government, its because of our people. There is opportunity here, and it doesn't start or end with the US government.

Basically, what I'm interested in is how the government is going to help people in poverty, and who is going to pay for it. I think I probably know the answer to the second part.

We currently have safety nets. Combatting poverty is not only about having safety nets but also challenging the class pyramid formation.

LOL. America is what it is because of our government. We haven't been without a government for hundreds of years. The opportunities here most certainly begin and end with the government. Even wealthy people know that. That doesn't mean that the government completely controls the people's drive for success but the government provides certain incentives for success and lack thereof. It's how the status quo is upheld.

Everyone's going to pay for it. The poor pay taxes too. We all pay the same percentage. Of course those with more money will pay more in the end. That's okay because they get all sorts of tax breaks and tax writeoffs. They will survive. Trust.

you really can't help everyone. It would be great to eliminate poverty but it's never going to happen.

Sigh, I just can't deal with that mindset. "Its ok, you have money, don't worry about it..." Yeah, we'll live, but that doesn't make it right. Affirmative Action probably won't ruin my life, but it doesn't make it right. I'm also amazed at how people just assume that the upper classes are so deeply involved in tax shelters and write-offs that the high bracket doesn't affect them. Go to an upper middle class neighborhood and ask those people how it feels to work for the government from Jan-May every year.

Our country is not our government, if thats how you think, then wow, we're worse off than I thought. America's strength is its people, always has been, always will be. Do you honestly think the government is how people survived during the great depression? No, they survived because their fellow man helped them out. We're so out of touch with what made America great, I'm beginning to fear its lost. Its not our government who sacrifice their lives and their careers to fight for our country, its our individual citizens. Not to be morbid, but sometimes I think the lack of adversity most Americans have to go through is making this country weak, because its people are completely unprepared to sustain it. Thankfully, there are still some people around to instill those values in some of us. Note, thats not a shot at you, its a shot at Americans in general.

Off topic:

San Francisco banned JROTC from schools this week. Wow.

why???

I haven't read any substantive articles yet, but MSNBC I think was saying it had to do with don't ask don't tell policy...and get this, promoting a culture of peace, or some other San Fran crap like that.

I'm not for booting ROTC programs off any campus, but I can see the conflict between a non-discrimination policy and the don't ask don't tell mentality. It's discrimination plain and simple.

However if you allow other groups of limited membership (Boy Scouts for example) there's no real grounds to boot out JROTC.

Can they even do that? I mean, JROTC is sponsered by the military, which is sponsered by the federal government.

LOL. This paragraph borderlines on pretentious. :D

It's cool that you're taking ownership but also try not to take such ownership over this whole thing and see it from a new perspective. As a black woman who can't relate to being in poverty (well, graduate student poverty is only a temporary reality when you know you have always had options) I have to also be able to step outside of my class, race, and gender position and see different angles.

I'm not convinced by much of what you typed. I feel as though it's idealism and humanized nationalism, which I think contradicts much of your posts against AA and social welfare programs. If it's about the people then, based on the logic I'm reading from your posts, self-serving citizens who want to succeed while other hardworking Americans fail should be considered unAmerican.

I do believe in the existence of a Protestant Ethic but, as you articulated, we don't get where we are by ourselves. We work hard and pull each other up by our bootstraps where we need to. So I hope you see how you've just supported the necessity of affirmative action and social welfare programs. When people don't choose to or can't pull each other up, the government programs are there. The government taxes us and reminds us that our hard earned money goes into the same pot.

It is idealism. It is nationalism. However, striving towards something we'll never get to, doesn't mean it wouldnt bring improvement. Also, I'm not trying to convince you of anything, I don't expect such people to be persuaded to a view like mine. I value things a lot differently than you, I would suspect.

"If it's about the people then, based on the logic I'm reading from your posts, self-serving citizens who want to succeed while other hardworking Americans fail should be considered unAmerican."



-Contradictory,how so? I think you'll have to come up with something interesting to make that one stick. I do think its somewhat un-American to serve only yourself. Granted, thats simply an opinion, I'm not qualified to determine who is American and who isn't...If you'll note, I'm not against helping people, I've said this numerous times, I'm against people demanding to be helped. I'm also against people being forced to help, especially when the system providing the aid is such an utter failure. Forced giving just doesn't hold the value that true giving does...it doesn't hold as much significance with the people receiving or to the person giving. Also, I'm not against some sort of government aid, safety net if you will, but I've yet to see it work.

Back to my idealism, I think that if government left us the responsibility, we'd have no choice to act. I truly believe the American people would respond, we generally do. But then, I still place some faith in this country.

However, when the majority of people think government is what makes this country great, then we've already lost. Pack it up folks, its over.

Now I'll get into the real idealism, but our country certainly is our government, or more to the point our government is our people. That's the essense of representative democracy. The people, through their elected representatives, govern themselves. If those elected representatives are not doing the will of those who elected them, then the electorate should elect someone else.

Sometimes I think the biggest crisis facing this country is that we have bought into the mindset that we are governed by others rather than accepting the responsibility of governing ourselves.

[/idealism]

Once again, you're supporting why AA and social welfare programs are both feasible and necessary. :)

Semantics leads you to debate the whole "demanding to be helped" and "forced to help" thing. That's a neither here nor there debate because most people in need aren't so much demanding it based on their inadequacies but expecting it based on the idealism and nationalism that you typed about. "Forced to help" is like saying we're forced to do most things in this country through taxes and laws. If you want an anarchy or complete free will then leave America and find a tiny island off the coast.

DS, no, I think its equally unAmerican to force people to help others. Is that what we've resorted to? AA isn't a helping hand, its a good idea which has spiraled into overt discrimination. Welfare is a completely failed policy which does little to further people's success. Let the people keep more of their money, and allow them to help who they can. I imagine discriminating citizens are much better at spotting true need and geniune effort. The government has proven itself to be completely inept in this area, turning those who can give away from giving and continuing to appease those who refuse to help themselves.

Mystic, I agree with you. But go to small town America, and ask them what this country is, what the backbone is. Its not giving money to Darfur or affirmative action or a seat on the UN security council, its giving your neighbor a job when he's been laid off, even though you can't really afford to. Its the community taking up a collection to pay for the rehab of a local kid hurt in a car accident. Yeah, I've got a baseball and apple pie and waving to every person you pass on a rural road mindset, but I guess thats just what I prefer America to be. Sure, it can be whatever yall want it to be as well, but I don't have to be happy about it.

In other words -- it's "taking care of our own."

I've got that same small-town background and mindset -- I even wave to everyone, too -- but I really don't see what that has to do with it. I don't see it as that far of a jump from taking care of our own in "this town" to taking care of our own in "this country." Not that I would for a second deny that the welfare system in this country is far from perfect. It's not even close. Nor would I deny the philosophical distinctions between voluntary aid and involuntary (through taxes) aid. But is that an argument about which way is more "American" or about which way is more effective? The latter, I think, which is why the "that's not what America is about" argument doesn't fly with this small-town boy.

If you think that people survived during the Great Depression mainly because they were simply voluntarily helped out by their fellow man, then I think you're taking a very selective view of things. The Great Depression is pretty much the origin of the welfare system that we have inherited (not to mention Social Security), and I would suggest that much of the trouble in overhauling the welfare system (and Social Security, for that matter) has historically come from collective memories of the Great Depression. Being one generation removed from the Great Depression, that's certainly how it looks to me.

Your argument seems to pretty much boil down to "taxes = bad" (unless, I suppose, they're taxes that pay for the things you think they they ought to be paying for). That's a perfectly acceptable philosophical argument, but not one in which one side or other can be characterized as the "American" way with any credibility. Our history has been much too complex for that kind of simplistic suggestion.

MysticCat for President.

Not to mention that "social welfare programs" includes but is certainly not limited to AFDC.

"Social welfare programs" is not just about foodstamps and welfare-to-work programs.

LOL!!!

Only if you'll be my VP. :D

Will I have to worry about assassination attempts? :(

I'll be on a knoll somewhere.

Mystic, as I said, I'm not really calling anyone/thing unAmerican, I'm simply responding to what I don't think is a core value of America. Our government isn't unAmerican, its just not what I think makes this country better than all the rest.

All social welfare isn't bad. To be frank, I'm not that upset with how it is now, I'm simply against the mindset that to improve, we need more of it. If I were in charge, I wouldn't go slashing all social welfare programs, I just think people place too much faith in government to solve the problems that we as citizens should be working on. Now, as for taxes, I think its absurd.

Hello, Frank.

I think we agree on this point. "Too much faith" is different than "it isn't the government's role."