I picked this up from the Trent Lott thread - when one poster (jokingly, I think) said all Democrats support affirmative action and quotas, and claimed they were the same thing.

Now, not to debate the meaning of these terms, I have a more general topic - should we get rid of Affirmative Action, and if so, how much of it. The Supreme Court has taken the case of U of Michigan, in which white students are suing for being denied admission when less qualified black students were accepted. Texas, Florida and, I believe, California have already done away with racial Affirmative Action.

But, if we take away only racial Affirmative Action, is that fair? Shouldn't we take away all forms of Affirmative Action (particularly in education), including that based on gender, on economic circumstances, on "special status" (such as being a good athlete or musician) and based on being a "Legacy" (most schools give preference to the children of alumni). After all a Harvard study found the group with with lowest qualifications of all those accepted were the legacies.

Thoughts?

Doom, That was probably me, but I didn't say that ALL Democrats support these two evils in one. I DID seriously say and I DO believe that AA and quotas are one and the same and that it is/they are wrong, whether for minority groups on the verge of becoming majority ones, legacies or anyone else.

Merit and merit alone should be the deciding factor. As I said before, two wrongs don't make a right. It's just not that hard and all the obfuscation that's been foisted on the effort to justify these programs has only increased the difficulty in resolving the issues they purport to redress.

Merit alone would require a level playing field- in my humble opinion, that has not been achived. However I am unsure if AA is the BEST way to achive a level playing field.

Quotas are wrong, remunerative Affirmative Action is necessary. But it should remunerate those people and their descendants who were denied opportunities in specific areas, not serve as a catch-all. We do not live in a society that operates on merit alone, though it has grown more egalitarian in many regards over the last 50 years. When we get to the point that we have adequately addressed past wrongs (particularly with regard to race) and our society really operates fairly, we will not need affirmative action. Also it should not be forgotten that although the two plaintiffs in the Affirmative Action cases are white women, studies have shown that the majority of beneficiaries of federal affirmative action over the last three decades have been white women.

Re: higher education. In the United States, from the founding of Harvard in 1636 to the early 1970s, *very few* colleges and universities admitted Black students who were qualified to attend, except those schools that were founded specifically for that purpose--historically Black colleges and universities. These schools, one of which my grandfather (Lincoln in Missouri) had to attend, usually had state-imposed inferior funding, resources, and training, though they still turned out very good graduates. In many cases, like the University of Virginia, founded in 1817 or so, Blacks built much of the early campus for its founder, Thomas Jefferson, yet were barred from attending until 140 years later. We all know about the outrageous cases of the University of Mississippi, University of Alabama, etc. Even schools in the midwest, northeast, and west, however, limited the number of Blacks they would admit, refused funding, and segregated the living quarters of their students. Rare exceptions include UCLA, Ohio State, Oberlin, and many colleges in New England and New York City. Princeton, another institution that employed Blacks as servants and domestic workers for quite some time, was as recently as the 1960s urging Black applicants to apply to institutions better suited to them, like Dartmouth! Rice had to go to court in the mid-1960s to break its will to admit Blacks. Johns Hopkins would not allow Blacks in its main hospital, and didn't admit any for a long time, although the founder, Johns Hopkins himself, did not specifically bar Blacks. And on and on. Since racial discrimination has occurred regularly in every area of American life, but especially in areas involving the government over the years, remunerative action is needed. 25-30 years of programs don't make up for 200. Affirmative action didn't just come out of nowhere.

Schools will continue to use other forms of "affirmative action" to bring on legacies and athletes, and other students who may be less academically qualified, even if they're barred from doing so on the basis of race. Derek Bok (former President of Harvard University) and William Bowen (former President of Princeton University and currently the head of the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation) have written an excellent book on affirmative action titled The Shape of the River. I highly recommend it.

Aha, FT, your true roots are showing now, with your question-begging reference to and argument for "remunerative action." Based on the definition of that "r word," am I correct that you are actually arguing for the other, much more divisive one: financial reparations to Blacks? If so, say it loud and let the debate begin, but I'll tell you right now that I'm dead set against it and all the additional strife it will bring. As if 40 years of AA legislation and litigation hasn't brought us enough already!

A friend of mine and I debated this topic once and he noted that of all the ethnic groups in the US, Blacks had suffered worst. I granted him that for the sake of argument, if not as a matter of fact, given what the Indians, Irish and Eastern Europeans went through. But there's one indisputable counterargument: none of these groups have been given anything near the amount of recompense, reumneration or remedial action that Blacks have, nor for so long - and it continues today! Yet Blacks continue to lag and many Blacks affirmatively reject notions of education and self-improvement because to do so would "be like whitey." No, more of the same, taking from those who can least afford to give it, and giving to those who can least demonstrate their rightful entitlement to, let alone any productive use for, it is not a good thing.

Reparations is a separate issue. We're talking about affirmative action, which has been in effect for no more than 30 years. I am 37--it was not in effect when I was born. My parents still had to go to the back doors of restaurants in the city where I was born at the time of my birth. No Irish or Eastern European person had to do that in 1965. Perhaps you should read books by David Roediger, Noel Ignatiev, Matthew Fry Jacobson and others that detail how the Irish, like most other European groups, benefited from white skin privilege, and were able to use government, unions, and other organizations to support themselves, while Blacks were denied these opportunities, often by outright violence.

In fact, no group--no other group--EXCEPT Native Americans--has experienced anything like the same level of racial discrimination and exclusion in the United States that Blacks have. Yes, Irish Catholics (as opposed to Irish Protestants), Eastern Europeans (who did not begin to arrive in large numbers till the turn of the century), Jews, and many other European groups, were discriminated against. The Chinese and Japanese suffered considerable discrimination, particularly in California. Latinos also have been discriminated against extensively (and Blacks were enslaved in every nation from Canada to Argentina). No Irish, no Eastern Europeans, etc., were ever enslaved here, though Indians were in the early colonial period before being either driven out of their homelands, felled by disease, or slaughtered in wars that continued into the 1850s. If you are unaware of the long and very horrible history of official and unofficial racial violence and discrimination, you should not tap on your keyboard about what Black people have gone through. Blacks have been in what is now the U.S. since 1619--and merit was, for basically 350 years, cast aside across the spectrum of society.

BTW,. I also am of Irish, and I can assure you that once the Irish moved West of the Alleghenies opportunities opened up for them, as was the case in the South and many parts of the west. Outside of Massachusestts and parts of the northeast, Irish were not barred from voting, Irish were not barred from purchasing homes, the Irish were not barred from using the very facilities that their blood and sweat helped to construct. The Irish were already being elected to municipal offices by the time of the Civil War--but I think you know this.

[ December 12, 2002: Message edited by: fantomas ]

BTW, just an adjunct, Native Americans are on the whole the poorest racial-ethnic group in this country, they have the worst health indicators, the lowest levels of employment, etc. So the Indians have really have had it very bad. Blacks lived through slavery and apartheid here; Indians lived through slavery, exile, slaughter and forms of apartheid. I don't want to compare the two groups, though. Historical and current wrongs are still wrong. Quotas aren't the answer, affirmative action is one element of redressing past wrongs.

FT, AA was well underway by 1972, 30 years ago. Where were your parents living when you were born, because the prejudice you describe, wrong as it was, ended in the '60s at the latest, and much earlier in the North.

Ironically, it was RMNixon who first advocated AA while Veep, several years before LBJ's runner in the race analogy. But age hasn't improved it any and I know, at 50, because I did live thru its implementation, opposition, retrenchment, failures and now, happily, what I hope is the beginning of its demise. At root, it's nothing more than a form of appeasement, the most abject form of which would be reparations.

What you say about the Irish eventually became true, but not until they had suffered nearly half a century of oppression. (I'm not Irish, but of Eastern European stock.) And I never disputed the argument that Blacks didn't suffer the most discrimination, given the official sanction it had in slavery and Jim Crow laws; who in their right mind could deny that, as I was careful to point out. But the corollary to my admission was that they also have had - except for perhaps the Indians - the longest and costliest investment of aid to remedy their lot, yet with the most disappointing results. So, from knowing and understanding the history and the issues, as well as from having grown up in what is now a predominantly Black city, (Gary, IN), I am confident I can make reasoned arguments against AA, quotas and reparations because I have seen firsthand both the problems they would cure and their utter failure to do so.

The bottom line is that everyone should be treated equally. The problem is determining what "equal" is.

If two people are not equal, by whatever measure, you obviously can't treat them equally by doing the same thing to them.

Take taxes for instance. A flat rate tax doesn't treat everyone equally because they are not equal to begin with. A graduated tax which is eliminated entirely for those below a certain income would treat unequal incomes in an equal manner.

Ultimately you have to treat each according to the need and each must contribute according to the ability.

Otherwise we will simply suffer the consequences, which is what we are doing now.

I believe that I read somewhere that the effect of taking away AA in California and Texas was a massive drop in Minority Enrolement, but an increase in Minority Graduation Rates as a whole. This would lead me to believe that more qualified and serious students that actually have a chance of graduating are being accepted, and that sounds like end product that we SHOULD be looking for.

As a member of a race that is for the most part unaffected by Affirmative Action, I have conflicting views on the policy. The argument that admission should be based on merit is a logical one, but AA became policy because merit had been ignored for so long. If merit had been the standard from day one AA would not have happened.
Now the roles are reversed. Now that the white population is getting the short end of the stick, the cries for merit based judgment is coming from the other side of the racial divide. Ironic.

Is AA unfair? You bet! That's the way it is supposed to be. The cliche does not apply: Two wrongs don't make a right. But what can we do when one of the wrongs is so pervasive and in the past that is cannot be corrected directly?

Ultimately AA must become a thing of the past. The question is WHEN.

The only compelling argument against AA that I have come to accept is that stupid non-blacks tend to think that an educated black person only earned his or her degree because of AA. The fault should lie on the misconceptions of the ignorant, right? But I don't see that happening.

Bobcat, That very point was stated by Justice Stevens or Powell in a great line in a decades old Supreme Court decision: "We are not looking for Black doctors any more than we are looking for White or Red doctors. The goal is to produce GOOD doctors."

The argument that AA has to end sometime is fine, except as far as it recognizes its purpose in being around in the first place. It's kind of like a dictatorship of the proletariat, actually; a halfway point along the road to equality paradise. But the experience has been not to end AA but to continue it using its own admitted failure as the basis for doing so. This is an especially glaring inconsistency in communities where minorities have achieved majority status numerically, technically ending one of the prime justifications for AA, but where it continues to operate to the detriment and vexation of all - except its practitioners who profit from the mini-industry it produced.

I was hoping we would get a spirited discussion, and I was not proven wrong! I continue to argue in favor of affirmative action in part because we have not ended the discrimination faced by minorities in this country, particularly blacks, and we certainly didn't end it through Johnson's signature on civil rights laws.

Blacks continue to be over-represented in the poorer classes of our society, and a lot of that has to do with the continuing effects of racism in this country. You cannot hold people to a lower social and economic class for hundreds of years, and then just say - oops, we were wrong and we won't do it anymore. First, black people's health and development continues to be affected by the poverty suffered by their ancestors - do you know it takes 3 generations out of poverty for black and white birthweights to equalize? We're talking 3 generations raised in relative affluence before the physical effects of poverty are removed. The social and economic effects are even longer-lasting. Generations of being given the shaft does not create a community that has too much reliance on the goodwill of the majority, or the American dream.

Second, racism is alive and well, and almost unseen by white people. I remember working at my first job, when we did not have an HR department. I was part of the team responsible for recruiting new employees each year, and I suggested expanding our search to more local (DC) universities. The only university the leadership rejected was Howard, arguing the quality of students there was too variable. I saw then how pervasive racism is, even when there is no evil intent.

Incidentally, I personally am the beneficiary of a form of AA - having been accepted at my college in part because I came from a geographic area that was under-represented at my school. I see no problem with the school making that decision, as I would not see a problem with schools deciding to include minority students because of what they may bring to campus.

There is some great stuff here, this topic really fuels emotion because it deals with one of the concepts that all Americans hold dear; fairness. In my mind the keyword here is responsibility. I realize that all immigrants into this country had considerable obstacles in their way and some people worked hard to overcome them and others are still at the lower rungs of the economic ladder. There are many factors that cause Native Americans, Blacks, and Hispanics to be underepresented in the educational system. The problem is that you can't blame slavery, present day ecomonic policy, racism, social stratification for the fact that the above members lack of social progress. I think it would wrong not to consider those factors, because they do have an effect on each individuals story and how they present themselves to the world. Does the society have an obiligation or a responsibility to try to make an even playing field? I think that they do. How much responsibility is open to debate. I was accepted into UCLA in 1971 on an affirmative action program, it was very difficult for me as I was not academically prepared. I got the help I needed and I worked hard, but I am proud to say the I did graduate and went on to get a graduate degree. Now that comes personal responsibility, I was lucky in that I had internal processes and external support to reach my educational and personal goals. There were better odds of me going to prison than earning a graduate degree, to me that is shameful. I was given an opportunity to make my future better, should people be given an opportunity? Of course I am going to argue that they should. However with that opportunity comes personal responsibility, nothing in this world of value comes easily.

I am going to make assumptions from the postings here that most of the people responding to this thread are white and at least middle class. For one moment just imagine what life would have been like if you did not have that privelege and you grew up poor and a person of color and your family had values that were very much different than the mainstream. I hear all the time that one needs to pull themselves up by the bootsraps, but it is easier to do that when your enviornment supports your goals and your view of the world. Once again, I would interested in your opinions

I am younger than most in outsports, being only 23 y/o, an dhave not lived through the times that my parents and grandparents, and many of you, have lived through. I have though benifitted from affirmative actions in my life. As a child, I was in a predominantly white school, where I was one of about 8 black students at the whole school. During the second grade the school board gave IQ tests to the black students becuase of an affirmative action protest in the county and I scored a 143 and two others scored 139 and 133, while the minimum requirement was 130. The sad part about it is that they would never have tested us unless they were forced to, according to our principal, who is now a member of the school board. I did though earn a presidential scholarship to FSU, whether it be because of AA or not I feel that I earned it (scorin a 1450 on my SAT and having an unweighted 3.83 GPA). The reason that affirmative action is still needed at times is because there are times when, even today, blacks and other minorities will blanketly (if that is a word) be overlooked for certain things. This is largely do to the societal sterotypes that everyone, even members of the minorities, accept so easily and willingly. Yes, there are many blacks (for example) who don't have the resources, schools, and teachers that their white counterparts have and this is why many people, even black people, feel that blacks are inferior to whites. This often leads to organizations' justification for not considering black or other minorities for jobs, college admission, and many other things. I just wanted to add a little of my own opinion into this thread.

Da Kid.

In my experience and knowing people on this board as I do, I actually think that there are 3 white guys gmginsfo, CPT_Doom and I, 3 black guys (Fontamas, Blkbr, sportinlife, ), one Asian( orsino4), and I'm not sure about the other guy, I haven't heard much from him. So your perceptions are skewed. I am willing to be that most of us are Middle class though.

[ December 13, 2002: Message edited by: MSUBobcat ]

[quote]Originally posted by blkbear:
The problem is that you can't blame slavery, present day ecomonic policy, racism, social stratification for the fact that the above members lack of social progress.

---

I think, to some extent, you CAN blame slavery - especially when detractors of the totality affirmation action are, for the most part, merely hoping to erase the reality of slavery from the national consciousness.

Never gonnna happen. Sorry.

We still live in day and age when, in 2002, Black men are not considered good enough to sell American products on TV unless they're rich or famous.

Mathematical/legal "solutions" are not going to get it; and even if affirmation action is abolished and it very well could be, if we have had our last Democratic government for 12 (?) years - but, America will still be left with the problem of creating and managing an equitable America. (Hint: we are not there yet - women, except in technology, still don't get dollar for male dollar in the corporate payroll departments).

The abolition of affirmation action without facing the underlying American realities can only work as a drug.

Coming: the digital divide, biotech, desginer babies (who [guess why?] don't need affirmative action), a free-agency workplace, and self-managed payments for healthcare.....

[ December 13, 2002: Message edited by: bluebird48234 ]

That was a great reply Blue-, and to think that you are going on a sabbatical for a year!! What you we do without your thoughtful insight!!! We're gonna miss you man!!!!

Da Kid.

[quote] I think, to some extent, you CAN blame slavery - especially when detractors of the totality affirmation action are, for the most part, merely hoping to erase the reality of slavery from the national consciousness.

Never gonnna happen. Sorry.

---

I don't think that America wants to erase the reality of slavery, I just think that America needs to heal it's self. Playing the blame game back and forth is not the way to do that. My Great Grandparents weren't even living in the United States during the time of the Civil War, and yet because of my skin color I am suppose to take the blame, and hold the responsibility for Slavery? I know that you will probably tell me that I finally may realize how it feels now. I say that it's time to begin to realize that Slavery was an abombanation for this country that was ended, and it's time to begin to heal that rift. Until we stop blaming one another and demanding Revenge, or retribution, this country will never be able to become reach it's potential.

[quote] desginer babies (who [guess why?] don't need affirmative action)

---

I'm sorry, but I seriously doubt that any mother or father that would be having a black child would ever say to their doctor, "we want you to make our kid a white baby." Come on! Reality check here.

[quote]Originally posted by bluebird48234:
We still live in day and age when, in 2002, Black men are not considered good enough to sell American products on TV unless they're rich or famous.

---

Somehow I doubt this is the greatest obstacle facing people of color in America.

[quote]Originally posted by MSUBobcat:
I'm sorry, but I seriously doubt that any mother or father that would be having a black child would ever say to their doctor, "we want you to make our kid a white baby." Come on! Reality check here.

---

No, that's not what I meant - but what are our CURRENT (read: December, 2002) notions of what is goodlooking and attractive? Your answers are there.

[ December 13, 2002: Message edited by: bluebird48234 ]

[quote]Originally posted by conor500:


Somehow I doubt this is the greatest obstacle facing people of color in America.

---

Oh, but THAT'S the punchline!!

Hey blue,
What are OUR current notions of what is attractive? Is seems to me that you are very concerned with the general in this area while I am only concerned with the specific in this area. What are YOU attracted too? That is the only really important question to ask yourself.

Besides that I also find, in that other discussion that there is a ton of black guys saying that white guys are dating gorgeous black men. Sounds like there are a lot of White guys who are actively seeking out Black men to have relationships with. What was your point again?

- - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
MSUBobcat said (couldn't get it to copy):

My Great Grandparents weren't even living in the United States during the time of the Civil War, and yet because of my skin color I am suppose to take the blame, and hold the responsibility for Slavery? I know that you will probably tell me that I finally may realize how it feels now. I say that it's time to begin to realize that Slavery was an abombanation for this country that was ended, and it's time to begin to heal that rift.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

YES - and let's proceed with clarity as to what that rift is.

It is an ECONOMIC rift, before it is all the other rifts (social, sexual, psychological).

- - - - -

I cannot BLAME individual people and would not try - simply because slavery was an economic SYSTEM accompanied by social LAWS that were artificially created based on skin color(s).

Besides, it is not worth my time to be angry.

What I am saying is that America, in this "healing process" everyone likes to call it, is to deal with what is, a quest for a nation characterized by EQUITY.

Just like many people STILL don't like the words "reparations", "discrimination", and "redlining".....I don't like to see/hear that I am not good enough to represent America, that I am burdened with trying to act/be "something that is more pleasant to White people", and to realize that, as much money as African-Americans spend in this country (to the point that we are criticized for being lousy savers), we cannot get ad jobs to sell on TV / we are still the "Michael Bolton's" in theatre, film, and opera, and classical dance / and we have yet to be represented at the higher levels of government and corporate America in a way that speaks clearly of our contributions to this nation / and WE always seem to be the "troublemakers" on race issues when we seek to be equitably in the workplace (FYI: there are several MAJOR class-action suits developing in the FBI as well as other Federal bureaus authored by HUNDREDS of professionals passed up for promotions over the years (1990s) when they were perfectly qualified for advancement).

You DO still realize that Tiger Woods is not welcome in most (American) country clubs, don't you? He, as well as every other American of color (regardless of age) cannot even take tennis lessons in country clubs - a priviledge that White TEENAGE CHILDREN of WHITE AMERICANS enjoy.

Even if America is not "blamed" for these trangressions 24/7, they are still issues that exist; and they, until handled in the proper fashion, will be cysts under the American skin.

Gist: Wouldn't it be nice if I could write about iris bouquets, noodle salad, and shopping for luxurious fabrics when it comes to race?

[ December 13, 2002: Message edited by: bluebird48234 ]

You know, everyone talks about Montana as being some po-dunk-little-state where life is simpler.

I find it intersting that out in the Big world out there, people like Blue are still carrying around this huge burdon in the stead of the entire race they are a member of. The sheer power of your posts show that you care deeply, and belive whole heartedly about every last statement, and I find that very attractive and I may even envy you for your strength under that burden. But on the other hand I have to wonder if you may be putting yourself through a lot of emotional stress by carrying that around. I guess what I'm trying to say is this, in your analogy of Tiger Woods not being allowed in Country Clubs and such, have YOU ever personally gone to a country club and been turned away based on your race? If you have, then be pissed off! Scream it to the mountain tops, and demand your rights. I don't know your history on this topic, but from what I have heard in your posts all these months it doesn't seem as though you experience much racism in you life. It sounds like you have it togeather and you are a respected individual in your circles. You stated that you don't like to feel as though you are not good enought to represent America and that you are burdened with trying to act/be something that is more plesant to white people. Why in the hell would you ever bring your self cofidence down low enough to the point where you would stoop to please ANYONE before you fulful your own desires? I guess I just don't understand. If people don't like you, then screw'em. Be who you are, date who you want, and live your life to it's fullest. Instea of being angry, be active.

On a side note: I also like those glass flowers, and those awesome embroidered pillows that Pier One has right now. They would go awesome with my Bedroom set.

[ December 13, 2002: Message edited by: MSUBobcat ]

Isn't it amazing how dominating the PAST is in our world right now? Religion. Terrorism. Race relations. Etc...

Prejudice and discrimination still exist virtually everywhere in this country and certainly not just against African Americans. To suggest that slavery can somehow be addressed or healed through financial reperations is outlandish to me. It trivializes the reality of what it was like for africans who were brought to america (sometimes by other blacks) specifically to be slaves. The mindset then has nothing to do with now. It's history. It must be let go. To say that the country now has to pay for it is insane...you can't go back and correct old ways of thinking; that's how it was back then. We must keep the focus on evolving not rehashing. We know it was WRONG, we know the Holocaust was WRONG. We must keep the focus on what's right which in our country is equal rights and freedom of opportunity for everyone willing to work for it.

Did anyone see the 60 Minutes from a few weeks ago? They reported that african americans have moved in record numbers into the middle classes all across America. Yet, even in professional families where parents are doctors, lawyers, etc., the children still have motivational problems in school. Other black kids imply to those who strive for good grades that they're trying to be "uppity" or "better" then them or the insidious arguement that by learning and improving their minds that they're somehow trying to be white. What's most damaging for young black America (and perhaps for all American youth) right now isn't slavery or the past, it's modern culture. Yes, rap music, MTV, and professional sports has created pervasive images encouraging irresponsible behavior and attitudes. Of course, I'm not damning MTV and Sports across the board, not at all..there's great stuff there as well and I love music videos...and teenagers are incredibly educated these days on certain issues, but, watch MTV for a day and tell me what a young impressionable mind walks away with? That the goal of life is to have big cars, flashy jewelry and lots of pussy? I'm simplifying it a great deal, of course, but our entertainment world has simply become too impactful in my mind on our youth...I'm not advocating censorship or government control, don't get me wrong, but I'm suggesting that families and organizations consider the present situations that are holding people back not just the past.

I gotta say that I agree mostly with gmginsfo on this issue (and i'm not just trying to play nice.. .) Affirmative action has been important to a certain extent...but no one's going to feel equal until they know that it's their own merit and character that has lead to their accomplishments and education. Of course, the country will always have places and institutions that favor someone...it happens across the board. But that only means one has to carve their own way. There are too many great examples in our country right now of those who've succeeded against the odds for us to continue overly embracing affirmative action...in my opinion.

Excellent post Bryan D!! We agree completely, and it's not even a cold day in hell.

Bryan D., I appreciate and respect your posts, so I'll reply to say that as I mentioned in response to gmginsfo, 30 years of policies do not make up for over 300 years of history. (I won't broach the Holocaust here, because that is an incommensurate issue.) Slavery truly ended in 1866 (as opposed to 1863), only 136 years ago (or just 36 years before Strom Thurmond or my late grandfather's birth), yet Jim Crow laws and other forms of official segregation, discrimination and violence did not end until the late 1960s and early 1970s--and with much blood shed along the way. Inadequate funding of schools, facilities and infrastructure continues even today, though I think in the mid-to-late 1990s things did improve. Yet as the Texaco, Denny's, and FBI lawsuits of a recent years have shown, systemic discrimination and racism continue. Affirmative action is only one solution to this, not the only one, and I await the day when workplace discrimination, redlining and the like end and we can move forward.

A personal story: I was hired to teach at a prestigious university in the midwest, so I have been out several times to prepare for classes and so on. Part of this has involved finding a place to live, so I began looking for apartments. At at least two places that I inquired, I had no problems when speaking on the phone, perhaps because the people I was speaking with didn't realize I was Black. However when I appeared in person, I encountered what was obvious discrimination, and this in a city that is one-quarter Black, and that has many Black professionals (including one who ranks among the richest Americans of any race) both within its limits and in its suburbs. At one place that I looked, I had a White man demand to know how much I earned, how often I was paid, and all sorts of other nonsense, not exactly politely. I mean, I am a professional, I have a graduate degree, I have won awards in my field, and so on, and I have some idiot treating me like this? He never even called back. At another, the prospective landlord scrutinized my references before showing me the apartment (fine), then asked me several times how much I earned, when I got paid, how I got paid, and so forth. A third person mentioned casually and without provocation on the phone that the "minorities" in the area were hardworking and okay--it wasn't like another part of the city that was more troubled, etc. I just let him talk--he was otherwise quite pleasant. I finally rented an apartment from an Asian immigrant woman who, thankfully, displayed no racial baggage or animus.

Now, this city has fair housing laws, but I wont' file suit. I want to move *forward.* Also, having gone through this before in Virginia, I really am ready to just say that since I have a place, I could care less. But I know that Blacks with far less resources than me go through similar or worse things every day. My father, who endured tremendous racism, became very bitter, and I am determined not to go that route. Other groups are mistreated too--immigrants, even poor Whites. We have laws on the books, but racism, classism, gender and age discrimination, and so on persist. Perhaps these people didn't want to rent to me based on their estimation of me, but the treatment, which I doubt most White people with similar credentials would experience, was uncalled for. Affirmative action isn't the best way to address *this* kind of discrimination, but it is a remunerative action to address the fact that official, state-sanctioned forms of outright discrimination did occur for many generations. Many generations.

To speak of people who've succeeded against the odds is great; as you probably know, even during the Jim Crow era, Blacks and other discriminated peoples did still succeed. However the long period of apartheid in this country has never been adequately addressed, and while gmginsfo does say that more money has been spent on Blacks, etc., the truth of the matter is that affirmative action and other programs barely address what was a separate and unequal system maintained for three centuries, that kept certain groups of people down and enriched others.

In terms of group attitudes and behavior, I do agree that Black people--and America in general--focus too little on intellectual achievement these days (although according to Richard Hofstadter American anti-intellectualism has a long pedigree). When my parents were growing up, however, the reverse was the case. Education was highly emphasized among Blacks in general, perhaps BECAUSE of discrimination--it was the ONLY way out of poverty for most Black people, and the educational opportunities then were far more constrained. Neither of my parents could attend the flagship or satellite schools in my native state; their options were HBCUs or teachers colleges, or they could go out of state. I personally don't want segregation to return to spur Black people to action, but I do agree that in addition to state action, Black popular culture in particular needs to de-emphasize bling-blinging.

[quote]Originally posted by MSUBobcat:
My Great Grandparents weren't even living in the United States during the time of the Civil War, and yet because of my skin color I am suppose to take the blame, and hold the responsibility for Slavery?

---

MSU Bobcat, this is an important point. The issue isn't only slavery, but the fact of Jim Crow and other exclusionary policies like segregated schools, unfair housing practices and redlining, exclusions from unions, from municipal contracts, and so on, that did not affect European immigrants to the same degree if at all in many parts of the country. This is NOT to say that European immigrants have had an easy ride; some groups have had a very tough time in America, and the discourse on the Irish in Boston in the 19th century, or on Eastern Europeans by some (especially WASP eugenicists) at the beginning of the 20th would have been in keeping with Nazi Party discussions.

Really, I think the answer is to keep moving towards a more inclusive society, but we cannot simply wipe away the past. We've tried to do that, and the Trent Lotts of this world try to make sure, at least for Black people, that the most negative aspects of the past are alive and well, however covert they usually are. Okay, I won't write any more on this. I agree to disagree.

I trust that this forum will PROVE to be a way for us to talk THROUGH this (and other similar) issues, as opposed to taking AT each other.

- - - - -

On country clubs: I advocate what a mentor of mine once presented: "So what! Black Americans can't get into country clubs? We have enough money to collectively build a few ourselves, if that's what we want".

My point was: that SINCE I, as an American of color cannot gain access to a U.S. country club, this AUTOMATICALLY TRANSLATES into a SERIES of discriminatory realities: I won't be able to network for jobs; I won't be respected at work for my ability to make deals on the course; I won't be able to refer a friend's child for tennis lessons, atmosphere, and general social education; etc., etc., etc.

- - - - -

On my respect: I DEMAND respect everywhere I encounter disrespect. I have been ridiculed by some on this board; nevertheless, I have stood up to it in my own way, and incidentally, my courage has fortified me to try sports teams, knowing that I might encounter homophobia, bi-phobia, race-related jibes, jabs at my intellectual approaches to life, and insensitive comments. Though, one has to be psychologically PREPARED to endured this IN ADDITION TO learning the sport, as I am sure anyone in this community can relate to.....

[quote]Originally posted by MSUBobcat:
I find it intersting that out in the Big world out there, people like Blue are still carrying around this huge burdon in the stead of the entire race they are a member of.

---

I am not "carrying it around (for example, I am an avid student of Turkey)"; but, as it IS a part of my economic, financial, social, psychological, and emotional legacy - I CAN write about it.

- - - - -

Suggestion:

View the 4-video set, Africans in America. Once you see and hear about how laws were created to change 17th-/18th-century American equity, how Blacks, in spite of periodic, violent massacres to stop the system that was annihilating their lives, died without change; and, how Black people risked their lives to run miles and miles without shoes to safety, praying that the Underground Railroad was, in fact, a reality - then I think you'll have a better idea of the references we have.

Then, get an interview with a successful Madison Avenue ad exec and ask probing questions about his/her perceptions about why American people of color "don't sell products and services" just like (blond, blue-eyed) Whites. This will be most helpful, as you'll already know (from these discussions and your research) how much African-Americans pump into the economy as consumers.

- - - - -

What is a person like fantomas supposed to say (in 2002) to a potential landlord? If a complex won't rent to you, you can forget it. The laws exist, but why would you want to stay where you're not wanted?

- - - - -

NB: These are the types of "lessons" that our (kind) Black heterosexual mentors share when they tell us about their work in civil rights and housing discrimination, working for equity in the performing arts, lobbying against racial profiling, and fighting for justice in the legal/courts system.

Those that are trying to "move on" are trying to share a little bit of why we think this country has SO MUCH WORK to do in bringing us together in a capitalism marked by equity.

- - - - -

BTW, I once dated a guy (Native American) from MT.

[ December 14, 2002: Message edited by: bluebird48234 ]

[quote]Originally posted by fantomas:
Bryan D., I appreciate and respect your posts, so I'll reply to say that as I mentioned in response to gmginsfo, 30 years of policies do not make up for over 300 years of history.

---

Though your posts are always informative and well-supported fantomas, this one has most impressed me because of its personal yet reasoned nature.

All of us black men have faced such treatment and, as another poster alluded to in another thread, it is not always clear whether the treatment is due to race/sexuality/gender or whether the perpetrator 'just had a bad day'.

The subtleties of discrimination only require explanation to those who have not experienced them (and a few in self-denial who have), so it is good to see someone take the time to give such an in-depth description of a single case.

Just a few points in this discussion:

1. BB's point re: Blacks in country clubs, fraternities, etc., is not as true as it once was, with which there can be no quarrel. I first met Tiger Woods 2 1/2 years ago in the jacuzzi of the Olympic Club here in SF, to which I belong and which has other Black members besides TW. We had a nice chat - that started when I jokingly told him to take off his hat in the club - he was wearing a baseball cap in the jacuzzi - and he laughed and landed it neatly on a bench nearby. And not all white kids belong to or can even visit country clubs; the economic divide works there too. Besides, these places are private clubs that like-minded people congregate in, in my case for the athletic nature of the organization. (The OC is the oldest private athletic country in the US.)

2. College fraternities are MUCH more integrated than they were in the past and my own chapter of EX scored a two-fer, although we weren't keeping count, while I was an u-grad when we first initiated a Black gay man, as we have done subsequently. Same as far as advertising goes, which shows an ever increasing number of bi-racial couples every day, in addition to the Black athletes and celebrities who sell products. So to those who would say the bad old days are still here, I say, no way.

3. FT refers to the Texaco and Denny's suits, but are you sure you want to rely on those as accurate indicia of discrimination? The untold story in the Texaco suit is that the remarks do indeed appear to have been taken out of context and Texaco simply felt it was cheaper to pay the settlement than contest the matter further. In the Denny's cases, what's come to be called racial profiling seems to be the closest analogy. There was a regional pattern of Black customers coming in, raising hell and then leaving without paying; this was documented and undisputed. Based on that pattern of incidents, Denny's began requiring payment up front, which would be insulting enough to any customer and would guarantee my avoiding places that practiced it. But were they entirely wrong in what they did? They had a problem based on experience, not dreamt up out of nowhere. Perhaps they overreacted to it by singling out all Black customers, but the existence of several bogus suits later filed by Black customers seeking to play off Denny's discrimination rap leaves me thinking that perhaps the company's behavior was not so reprehensible as some would argue.

And what of the role of the racial extortionists in these matters? Yes, I'm talking Jesse Jackson now, who's made a nice living shaking down corporations by playing the race card. Apart from his own personal lapses, can it be said that his conduct has advanced the cause of racial harmony in the US? It's not entirely clear to me that he has, but reasonable minds will differ.

4. Finally, FT's comments about landlords in - Chicago? Some, but not all of the conduct you describe was wrong, for landlords are well within their rights in asking for proof of income, frequency of paychecks and the like, as long as they do it across the board and on a race neutral basis. When they don't, well that's what lawyers are for!

[quote]Originally posted by gmginsfo:
When they don't, well that's what lawyers are for!

---

That is a critical point. The more complicated and expensive justice is the less likely the poor and less powerful will be able to use it.

Multiple factors may come in to play that cause the burden of proof to weigh more heavily on the weaker party regardless of who has the law on their side.

Ah, but in Sec. 1983 civil rights litigation, which I do a lot of on both sides, the prejudice, if it can be described that way, is in faovr of the Plaintiffs. Thus, they are usually not held accountable for costs and fees if they lose, whereas the defendants are; they have their choice of forums, whereas the Deft's don't; and moreover, there is a very well financed civil rights bar in the US, especially in the South and in metro areas, that actively courts such cases and aggressively litigates them, no doubt driven by the promise of large fee awards if they win. Most, if not all, lawyers take such cases on a contingent fee basis, meaning the plaintiffs need not pay up front. Also, a lawyer performs the valuable - and unpaid - function of screening out less worthy cases, which go to "hungrier" less experienced counsel, if anywhere at all, which is good for all concerned since I don't think anyone is advocating taking worthless cases to court in hopes of extorting settlements out of anyone. Finally, many large "downtown" law firms routinely handle such work on a pro bono basis as training for their younger, (and often rapidly jading) associates, so the lack of lawyers just isn't a factor. Indeed, at times, there may well be a surplus of well-dressed wolves snarling at the courthouse door.

Hey guys, I'm sorry I didn't get a chance to reply sooner, but I have been sick, and wasn't near a computer since Friday afternoon.

I'd like to thank Blue, and Sportnlife and all the rest here. It's nice to talk to a group of people that are able to articulate their thoughts so well without letting your emotion cloud your true thoughts. I have learned a lot both in this thread, and others here on this board.

I like to think that I am very worldly and unbigoted. Living in Montana I do consider myself pretty darn accepting and open, and after reevalutating my life and my perspective I do consider myself an unbigoted person. Now as for the worldly part, I think that due to my geographical location I may have a ways to go on that one. I have visited numerous large cities over the years, and I try to keep up on national news and talk to E-friends from all over the US, but I still don't think that I have a real grasp on the true feelings and sentiments of the people of the US. When I ask questions about things such as the country club issue, or other topics, I am asking in a serious manner becuase I actually don't know that answer. Once again, I appreciate all of your willingness to share your experiences and knowledge with me, rest assured it does not fall on deaf ears.

Thanks guys!

Gmginsfo, I do agree with you about Jesse Jackson. He has used the horrible legacy of racism to enrich himself and his family, and while I supported him during his president run years ago, primarily because he spoke to the needs of poor, working-class and middle-class Americans at a time when the country was in serious trouble, I have found his actions since that time often reprehensible.

With regard to the landlord, I have never met any White person, and certainly I'm sure none of my colleagues, who had to endure a landlord questioning them about how much they made either before or just after they walked through the door to view an apartment. This is not the first time I've endured it, and for a long time it made me wary about househunting, etc. Fortunately now banks use statistical measures to assess credit worthiness and many states have fair housing laws that are enforced, but redlining persists.

An excellent discussion of this occurs in Toi Derricotte's award-winning memoir The Black Notebooks. Derricotte is a very light-skinned Black woman who often is mistaken for white; her former husband was brown-skinned. When they were looking for a home in suburban northeastern New Jersey, she often had to deal with real estate agents without him, because whenever they saw him, the real estate people would steer them towards predominantly Black areas as opposed to taking them to see the homes they were interested in, no matter what the racial makeup of the area. This is not uncommon, and it continues to occur.

BTW, Trent Lott claimed last night that he was "for affirmative action." I guess that really marks the death knell for this particular social and political policy....

FT, we agree on one thing: early support for JJackson, abandoned by his subsequent actions. I also supported him for his presidential run back in - '84 was it? - because I thought he had some good things to say and was a breath of fresh air in the Democratic Party, to which I then belonged. (My friends in LCR tell me I'm not so much a Republican as a libertarian populist.) I also felt the same about Clinton but it was his cave in on DADT that precipitated my headlong rush to the GOP in '93.

[quote]Originally posted by fantomas:


An excellent discussion of this occurs in Toi Derricotte's award-winning memoir The Black Notebooks. Derricotte is a very light-skinned Black woman who often is mistaken for white; her former husband was brown-skinned. When they were looking for a home in suburban northeastern New Jersey, she often had to deal with real estate agents without him, because whenever they saw him, the real estate people would steer them towards predominantly Black areas as opposed to taking them to see the homes they were interested in, no matter what the racial makeup of the area. This is not uncommon, and it continues to occur.

---

I actually had the reverse problem from this. i was house shopping, and the realtor kept showing me expensive small homes in "nice neighborhoods". I went online and found a house that was perfect and asked my realtor about it. She wouldn't show it to me because she said the neighborhood was undesirable. I called up another realtor to go with me and open it up and the place was perfect. The only reason it wasn't shown to me is because it's in a primarily black neighborhood (I'm white). Needless to say, I bought the house and it's been a great investment.