Affirmative Action

[Pindar]

Our positions are within handshake distance, I believe.

I think so too.

a soft voice is heard: put out your hand and I will pull you to safety

Yes. But since some level of near-equity of opportunity for social advancement was (rightly, I think) deemed good and necessary, this ugly, compromise thing called AA was instituted as a temporary catch-up measure.

Opportunity discourse does not have to displace meritocractic principle nor should it. To attempt to do so is to run the risk of the swamp AA illustrates.

If we have disenfranchised group X and the source of that disenfranchisement is a socio-cultural bigotry couched in law: the more enlightened civitas can change the law, and thus remove the legal impediment, that is all. The personal failings of the soul are beyond the scope of law. Further, to attempt to redress what was through a reverse bigotry fails both conceptually and practically. We agree on the conceptual question. I have illustrated the practical issues and would therefore rather put the knife in the beast now rather than wait even another six years.

The alternatives were:
1) do nothing. Pretend discrimination didn't/doesn't exist to the significant disadvantage of one group. Or

2) take it to the courts, where there is and was jurisprudential referent for financial compensation for unwarranted damage to one party by another.

The argument the thread starter posed is basically he and his fellow voters deciding: "Have we caught up yet?". Many say 'yes', for reasons you and others have outlined. I think 'not yet'; we need to go the full course of a generation, so that a black man who was 18 in 1972, can have benefitted from AA policies, AND his son - with the AA spigot being turned off just as his grandson is coming into majority - under the assumption that Pa and Grandpa now have the resources to help.

I think this "Have we caught up yet?" is the wrong question. I think it is wrong because it violates the base role of the state. If politics includes the art of the possible then AA is not possible and a-politic. I don't think hundreds of years of bondage and bigotry can be quantified for redress under any legal schema. Attempts to do so reflect a hubris of legislation to the detriment of the presumed recipients. Aside from what I have put forward already: AA instills dependency. The dependant oft times comes to despise that which it depends on as the largess can only reinforce the sense of weakness and victimhood. I think this consequence is all too evident within the current larger Black community. AA has brought a new evil to those it sought to help to the continued shame of the nation.

[Ice]

I think this "Have we caught up yet?" is the wrong question. I think it is wrong because it violates the base role of the state. If politics includes the art of the possible then AA is not possible and a-politic. I don't think hundreds of years of bondage and bigotry can be quantified for redress under any legal schema. Attempts to do so reflect a hubris of legislation to the detriment of the presumed recipients. Aside from what I have put forward already: AA instills dependency. The dependant oft times comes to despise that which it depends on as the largess can only reinforce the sense of weakness and victimhood. I think this consequence is all too evident within the current larger Black community. AA has brought a new evil to those it sought to help to the continued shame of the nation.

This was my argument, worded differently, last night. All AA is doing is further dividing the US population.

[KukriKhan]

a soft voice is heard: put out your hand and I will pull you to safety

Ha! Not only did I invite that, I sat it in my Barcalounger, served it a brewski, and handed it my remote control!

...I have illustrated the practical issues and would therefore rather put the knife in the beast now rather than wait even another six years.

Hence our crux. I say wait (because the good end has not yet arrived from the nefereous means). You say now (because of the deleterious effect of the means on the civitas as a whole).

It looks to me that we are fairly intractable on these. Were it to you and I alone to decide the fate of AA programs, I'm certain we could craft an agreement in less than 24 hours (with some staff assist to pull stats).

However, I'm willing to throw it to the voters, and live with the result. I am a fan of Initiative, Referendum, and Recall, particularly at the state and county level.

I have appreciated the discourse.



And thank you, Ice for the topic

[Pindar]

Ha! Not only did I invite that, I sat it in my Barcalounger, served it a brewski, and handed it my remote control!

I couldn't resist.

Hence our crux. I say wait (because the good end has not yet arrived from the nefereous means). You say now (because of the deleterious effect of the means on the civitas as a whole).

It looks to me that we are fairly intractable on these. Were it to you and I alone to decide the fate of AA programs, I'm certain we could craft an agreement in less than 24 hours (with some staff assist to pull stats).

I agree. Of course there is always the Klingon method of resolving issues.

However, I'm willing to throw it to the voters, and live with the result. I am a fan of Initiative, Referendum, and Recall, particularly at the state and county level.

This is where we come together. I always prefer appeal to the voters over pronouncement from the bench.

I have appreciated the discourse.

Cheers

[Major Robert Dump]

This comes from the federal labor law signs that are required to be posted at work, you know, the ones you never read. From the Affirmative Action poster:

Vietnam Era and Special Disabled Veterans:

38 USC 4212 of the Vietnam Era Veterans Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974 prhobits discrimination against and requires Affirmative Action to employ and advance in employment Vietnam Era Veterans and qualified special disabled vets.

So what exactly does this mean? Growing up in a military town I often heard people complain about losing out on job bids to someone who was a disabled veteran, but what if the disabled veteran is some kid who broke his collarbone in AIT as opposed to a guy who took some shrapnel in the leg at Grenada or pulled 2 tours in Nam? What are we repaying, what wrong are we attempting to correct (the draft?), and do you guys lump this type of affirmative action in with race/sex motivated programs?

[whyidie]

This comes from the federal labor law signs that are required to be posted at work, you know, the ones you never read. From the Affirmative Action poster:

Vietnam Era and Special Disabled Veterans:

38 USC 4212 of the Vietnam Era Veterans Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974 prhobits discrimination against and requires Affirmative Action to employ and advance in employment Vietnam Era Veterans and qualified special disabled vets.

So what exactly does this mean? Growing up in a military town I often heard people complain about losing out on job bids to someone who was a disabled veteran, but what if the disabled veteran is some kid who broke his collarbone in AIT as opposed to a guy who took some shrapnel in the leg at Grenada or pulled 2 tours in Nam? What are we repaying, what wrong are we attempting to correct (the draft?), and do you guys lump this type of affirmative action in with race/sex motivated programs?

What I like is the "qualified" bit. Unless the requirement for Affirmative Action calls for employing and advancing unqualified Veterans, in which case it wouldn't be so good.

[KukriKhan]

(a) The purposes of this chapter are--
(1) to encourage noncareer service in the uniformed services by
eliminating or minimizing the disadvantages to civilian careers and
employment which can result from such service;
(2) to minimize the disruption to the lives of persons
performing service in the uniformed services as well as to their
employers, their fellow employees, and their communities, by
providing for the prompt reemployment of such persons upon their
completion of such service; and
(3) to prohibit discrimination against persons because of their
service in the uniformed services.

(b) It is the sense of Congress that the Federal Government should
be a model employer in carrying out the provisions of this chapter.

That's the 1974 language used in the implementing document to add the Act to the US Code. Recall that in '74, we were transitioning from a draftee to a "volunteer" force. Many of the provisions have been changed (generally, expanding 'qualified' service)... as recently as 2003.

My understanding of the use of "Affirmative Action" in this law, is so the Human Resource guys could bundle their "how we comply" plan in one catch-all package, to show the Dept o/Labor guys "Here is how we don't discriminate against race, gender, religion, military service, etc. etc.".

But, I'm not sure I answered your question. Do you challenge veteran/disabled-veteran preference in hiring/contracting?