This is commonly achieved through targeted recruitment programs, and in some cases by preferential treatment given to applicants from socio-politically disadvantaged groups.
Opponents of affirmative action policies argue that it is based on collectivism and merely another equal form of discrimination because it can result in qualified applicants being denied entry to higher education or employment because they belong to a particular social group (usually the historically socio-politically dominant group; typically majority races and men, regardless of social standing or financial need.)
Some opponents say that affirmative action devalues the accomplishments of people who are chosen because of the social group they belong to rather than their qualifications.
Affirmitive actions
- A retrograde step
- Black History Month
- The Anti-Racist Majority Comes of Age
- Affirmative Action in US Higher Education
- US history with some flavour
- In UK, Labour report backs all-black shortlists
- Outrage as Cameron pledges 'jobs for the girls'
- Electoral Reform Society: Pledge on Tory Women welcomed
- UK Hindus blame British for caste system
- Firms more profitable with women at the helm
- Jewish race row threatens school admissions
- See also
By Shamit Ghosh, eGov
monitor 25 February, 2008
A
Policy Dialogue Platform
Recently there has been some discussions about making some seats in House of Commons reserved for ethnic minorities. Shamit Ghosh from eGov monitor finds the suggestions dangerous, divisive and not fitting with the vision of a modern Britain.
Affirmative action or positive discrimination is illegal in Britain and rightly so. Yet, in the past of couple of weeks there have been calls for positive discrimination in politics based on skin colour in multicultural modern Britain. And, suddenly some members of the Labour party see the virtues of American style affirmative action and in the process implying that Obama phenomenon happened because of some positive discriminatory policies. That argument is offensive, patronising as well as utterly flawed.
While the United States has affirmative action – it is in the sphere of education, employment and business but not in politics. Obama did not become a Senator because of any ethnic minority only seat and neither did Hillary Clinton get elected because of any women only seat. America also has quite a few ethnic minority Governors and none of them got to that office because of some affirmative action programme. So implying that if we have positive discrimination we would suddenly get similar quality of leaders from the ethnic minority community, such as Obama or Jindal in the UK is probably not very accurate. The whole premise is wrong as it is undemocratic, divisive and at least to me, racist.
The key argument made by Mr. Vaz and supported by Mr. Clegg is that parliament does not represent the ethnic diversity of our country. Thus implying that basis of representation should be your skin colour or your gender. I disagree as much as I disagree with the Archbishop calling for Sharia law in the UK. I believe if we are to build a strong multi cultural cohesive Britain then we need to elect those people to our parliament who would most effectively represent the hopes, ideals and aspirations of their constituents. Bringing skin colour and ethnic identity in that equation is lowering the expectations from our leaders and harming our democracy.
Mr. Woolley, the author of the report commissioned by Harriet Harman, says we do not have the mechanisms to give black and ethnic minority candidates opportunities to contest elections. In a round about way, he suggests that constituency parties are ignoring rightful claims of interested and qualified candidates of ethnic origins. Well why don’t we follow the American example here and hold primaries in each constituency? Then any Black or Asian candidate who is interested in running for office could do so and make their case to the electorate of their party. What would the argument be then for having shortlists for only ethnic minority candidates? There would be no valid argument to support such a case. There would be a level playing field without lowering expectations from our elected representatives.
We need to have quality candidates irrespective of their race, colour, creed or religion. And, we could only draft those candidates in who want to pursue a political career and are willing to sacrifice themselves and their families to intense public and media scrutiny. We have a lot of successful; very well educated members of the ethnic minority who while politically conscious do not wish to participate in active politics. Similarly we have many white citizens whose only relation to politics is apathy.
All citizens including members of the ethnic minority communities should be encouraged to participate in politics but they should compete with everyone else when it comes to being chosen a candidate or being elected as an MP or councillor. There are many MPs from ethnic minority communities who have already achieved this and they have done it without any affirmative action. I believe politics is still the profession which has the ability to transform lives of more people than any other profession and people should not be able to reach these offices through a racial quota.
Aside from belittling our political process and thus reducing the quality of our democracy – affirmative action in terms of political positions would have disastrous impact on community cohesion in Britain. A positive discrimination law barring white candidates for political office in certain parts of our country would play into the hands of the BNP. Many voters vote for the BNP not because they are racist but because they feel that no one else is representing their views. And, adding a law like this to statute books would add fuel to that fire and do exactly the opposite to what Mr. Woolley expects it to do. Instead of curbing extremism it will be a catalyst for extremism. We surely don’t need more reasons to fuel extremism and divisiveness in our society anymore. It’s also a question of fairness which happened to be the quintessential British way. How could it be fair to bar the white school teacher or community worker who wishes to run for Council or Parliament so that a non-resident Oxbridge educated Asian lawyer could run in her place? It does not sound very fair to me.
Affirmative action by itself is not wrong but basing it on ethnic origin or race is definitely wrong. It would be equally flawed to have any legislated discrimination in our political process. If we are to enact any affirmative action legislation it should be on the basis of economic conditions and may be it should begin in the education sector.
Interestingly, private American Ivy league universities such as Harvard, MIT, Stanford, Yale etc still have a large part of their student population come from the American state school system. They also have recently taken steps to help these students from poorer backgrounds with tuition waivers and other institutional aid to ensure they are not barred from these elite institutions. The same cannot be said about the United Kingdom. Instead of looking at the parliament may be the political parties could look to find out ways on how we can ensure more students from the state system get their opportunity to study in our elite institutions. But first we need to ensure all our children get the best education possible so that they can succeed based on their talent and work and not be held hostage to their situation at birth be it race, religion or economic background.
lsureveille.com 3/3/08
February has always been my favorite month of the year. The second month is home to such events as Mardi Gras and the birthdays of Abraham Lincoln, Michael Jordan and most importantly - on the same day as Sir Altitude - myself.
February is also the dawning of the age of Aquarius, the home of Valentine's Day and the whole of Black History Month.
While I'm glad that Black History Month occurs the same month as my birthday, I'm sort of happy it's over.
Black History Month is only 32 years old. It began in 1976 - intentionally coinciding with America's bicentennial - as an extension of "Negro Achievement Week," originally honoring Frederick Douglass around his birthday.
The brainchild of the Omega Psi Phi fraternity, Negro Achievement Week was deemed insufficient by the Black Power Movement and the Association for the Study of Afro-American Life and History. This led the way to elongating the seven-day celebration into a month-long conversation with the country to shed light on achievements in black culture as well as improving race relations.
I used to think there wasn't any need for Black History Month or affirmative action. I knew about both topics and have been well educated on the subject. Quite wrongly, I believed anyone could work for any job they wanted. I thought it was wrong for someone to get a job above someone else purely for racial diversity to satisfy a quota. I then read an opinion column about affirmative action that forced me to change my viewpoint.
It seems more education on black history and affirmative action is direly needed.
Affirmative action has been falsely perceived as a temporary measure to ensure diversity and opportunity for underprivileged people.
In reality, affirmative action is a motion set in place to offset some of the atrocities our government and people have committed throughout the years. Many calamities for which slavery is responsible - such as the killing of smart, learned slaves or the breeding of stronger, more resilient slaves in the hopes of producing "super-slaves - have made their evidence known today.
As Chris Rock accurately and eloquently put it, "We can still see this today. Black people are 10 percent of the population, and we're 90 percent of the Final Four."
This is not a joking matter. The moratorium for who can benefit from whatever position will not leave the public domain slowly, and it shouldn't at all.
What I've realized can be put in very simple terms: the second we start undermining policies meant to counterbalance past bigotry or hatred we will be moving backward in our hopes of improving and eventually leveling race relations.
Still, I am put off somewhat by Black History Month. I used to think that because I got it, because I understood, I didn't need to hear about it anymore. I thought, wrongly, that all Americans deserved equal rights regardless of the tragedies of our past.
But it's precisely wrong, given the context of affirmative action. If I'm applying for a job, and a white person applies for the same job, and he's more qualified than me, he deserves the job. We should assume that Americans are given the freedom to work hard to attain their goals.
If the qualifications are equal, however, making race the only difference, it should be my job for the taking, as I have worked harder against incredible historical adversity, instead of him, born to privilege merely by virtue of being white.
The long and short of it is black people just aren't equal to white people yet. Because of our tragic history, the road to equality is not yet complete, but it is being paved because of great people - from Barack Obama to Bill Clinton.
America should have no room for intolerance. I see a world in the future where there is no longer a need for affirmative action or Black History Month. As you read this, three days into Women's History Month - no, I'm not making that up - think about the advantages you have, but don't think about those same advantages because of race.
To a certain extent, I'm in college because of my race. I've gotten certain privileges not afforded to white people. But I'm still here because I'm working for it, and I can't wait for the day when it isn't necessary to have a Black History Month.
After all, black history doesn't end on March 1st.
By Joe Sims 25 Feb 2008
In early July of 2007 the Supreme Court boldly struck down the legal underpinnings of Brown v. the Board of Education. In a five to four decision, the Republican majority on the court, overturned desegregation plans by school districts in Louisville, Kentucky and Seattle, Washington. The ruling was seen as a landmark victory by the neo-conservative right in their efforts to undo the civil rights achievements of the 1960s. Sharon Brown, lead lawyer for the right-wing Pacific Legal Foundation, remarked to the New York Times, “These are the most important decisions on the use of race since Brown v. Board of Education …With these decisions, an estimated 1,000 school districts around the country that are sending the wrong message about race to kids will have to stop.”
Just a year earlier, voters in Michigan and Nevada had opted to prohibit state universities from using race as criteria in admissions. Armed with the Supreme Court ruling and momentum generated by ballot initiatives, opponents of equality hoped to spark a new movement. Indeed with airways filled with the venomous hate speech of Don Imus, Paris Hilton, Michael Richards and more recently geneticist James Watson, racism seemed to gain a new standing in public and private discourse, to say nothing of official policy.
Significant though they may be, these referenda and judicial rulings now may only have been the last dying eddies of a spent and exhausted Republican wave. In the same mid-term elections, voters angered by the Iraq war, aghast at threats to privatize Social Security, and alarmed by the suppression of the African American vote in the presidential election two years earlier gave a sound thumping to Republican extremism. The electorate seems to have grown weary of the fear mongering, division and thinly-disguised hate displayed by an undistinguished and undeserving right-wing minority. The country was calling out for a change of course.
The depth and scope of this call is strikingly exemplified by the candidacies of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, the two Democratic front runners, a status that by itself speaks volumes to how much things have changed. Voting patterns in Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina suggest a new day is dawning in public perception and attitude. That such a shift in mass thought patterns could occur in the face of almost two decades of Republican rule is worthy of serious scrutiny. The ultra right's ideological assault accompanied by a political campaign aimed at undermining the gains of the civil rights period and the New Deal over this time period culminated with the economic and social impact of the Bush administration's sharply racist policies. Behind both the policies and the long-term campaign as source and inspiration lies a system of institutionalized racism, a system that operates within the framework of today’s monopoly capitalism.
Thus, in this first decade of the 21st century, the African American people are confronted by a complex and contradictory reality. Signs of clear progress conflict with an enduring legacy of segregation and unequal treatment; hope repeatedly confronts despair. Unequal pay, substandard education and housing, racist hiring practices, redlining by banks, a discriminatory criminal justice system all combine to create enormous systemic obstacles to achieving equality.
These challenges still exist and in fact in some respects have grown more severe. A study prepared by the Center for American Progress points to several systemic obstacles that have their source in the economics of racism. Median income, for example, has declined in the recent period: “African Americans' median income,” the study says, “declined by an average of 1.6 percent per year under the current administration. In 2006, African Americans' median income was $32,132, which is actually $2,603 lower than their median income of $34,735 (in 2006 dollars) in 2000.” This is substantially lower than for whites: “In 2006, their median income was $32,132, as compared to $52,432 for whites.”
Caution should be exercised when considering median income, as earnings by the two groups vary widely. Median income considers the earnings of all classes in a given population. White income, because it includes ruling class capital is therefore much higher than for African Americans, who have a much proportionally much smaller and less well-to-do elite. A more useful comparison would be between working-class whites and African Americans.
Unemployment rates also went up during the Bush years: “Unemployment levels for African Americans increased by an average of 0.2 percent each year under the current administration after declining in the 1990s” the study argues. “In 2007, the unemployment level of African Americans stood at a distressing 8.3 percent while white Americans hovered at 4.1 percent.”
Not surprisingly, poverty rates saw an increase in this same period:
More African Americans are in poverty under Bush. More African Americans were in poverty in 2006 than in 2000, just after we saw a vast improvement the 1990s. In 2006, 24.2 percent of African American individuals were in poverty. Compare this to 2000, when 22.5 percent were below the poverty line … Poverty among African Americans decreased substantially from 1992 to 2000, going from 33.4 percent to 22.5 percent.
Here again caution must be observed when reviewing poverty statistics, particularly the nine percent drop during a upswing in the economic cycle during the 1990s, much of which was due to single mothers moving from welfare to low-paying service jobs, taking them above the poverty line, but not by much. Most live precipitously near the poverty line, just a paycheck away from the brink.
Furthermore, these Black and Latina single mothers lost many of the gains in the recession of 2001. According to a study done two years ago, consideration also has to be given to the fact that the elimination of welfare and other transfer payments like food stamps, greatly affected income by almost completely offsetting gains made by employment. Thus greater employment reduced poverty by 3.3 points in the late 1990s, but less in transfer payments added back 1.6 points.
Access to healthcare also suffered under right-wing rule according to analysis by the Center for American Progress: “Under Bush, the percent of African Americans without health insurance has increased from 18.5 percent to 20.5 percent. In 2006, 7.9 million African Americans were not covered by health insurance.” The study points out again that during the 1990s there was a modest increase in the number of people insured, a gain dissolved in the aftermath of the 2001 recession and declining employment and wages since.
By many measures then, the plight of African Americans has worsened in the past several years. However, the picture is far more complicated and dire than so far described. Take the numbers of African Americans living in poverty quoted above, which suggest one-quarter live in such conditions. In actual fact the number is closer to one-half when those living in near poverty are included. In a report prepared by the Economics Commission of the CPUSA, Art Perlo writes that:
Nearly half the African American population lives in poverty or near poverty – below a minimum adequate income. More than 1 in 9 lives in deep poverty, literally on the margins of survival. One quarter of all people in poverty are Black. Poverty increased by 5.3 million from 2000 to 2005; 1.2 million (22 percent) of the increase was African Americans.
It should be pointed out that these figures are repeated for Latinos.
A glaring indictment of capitalism is that these figures while varying slightly have gone virtually unchanged for the past last 25 years. Statistics are faceless, but those living on the bottom half are mainly the elderly, children, single mothers and the working poor. They are largely without health care or access to descent housing. With low skill levels, many are unemployed and have no hope of permanent jobs. Here is huge waste of human talent and potential, a waste that is perpetuated from generation to generation with seemingly no hope of escape. Anti-poverty programs have not helped them, affirmative action programs, while important, largely elude; and the social safety net that once protected have been shredded in the name of “tough love” and self help.
As indicated above, Black unemployment stands at around eight percent. However the numbers vary from region to region and by city. Perlo indicates that “in 2003, only 50 percent of African Americans in New York City had jobs.” It also is affected by age with youth experiencing higher amounts: “In 2004, fewer than 39 percent of young Black men (aged 16-24) had jobs (vs. 59 percent and 60 percent for white and Hispanic.)"
The Economics Commission study points out that actual figures of the unemployed are much higher as those who have been pushed out of the labor market are not counted. Perlo’s estimate is the real unemployment rate is more like 17 percent. The Commission’s analysis also points to lack of steady employment, particularly among Black men. “By 2002, one of every four Black men in the US was idle all year long.” The figures for young women are 20 to 25 percent.
A prime source of African American inequality is the racist wage gap:
Black male earnings are 70 percent of white ($17,000 less); for women its 83 percent or ($6,000 less). This wage differential is the basis of a racist social division of labor that is the foundation of modern inequality. The difference paid Black labor is the source of extra or super-profits, an amassing of capital that runs in the billions of dollars. It has many origins including lack of unions, education, regional disparities in pay, occupational and age differentials. Thus wages are most equal where unions and federal wage standards obtain; where they do not, last hired first fired remains a standard practice. It is estimated that one-third of all employed African Americans work in the public sector which is without doubt a major contributing factor to whatever economic gains and stability that has been achieved.
African Americans experience both overt and systemic reasons forms of discrimination. In 1999 there were over 2 million instances of the former for minorities and women according to Perlo’s study. Systemic reasons attributed by the study include, lack of personal networks, job locations away from urban centers, outsourcing, de-unionization, criminal records (one in four Black men) and education.
Yet another form of systemic discrimination in the Economics Commission’s view is the imposition of a “ghetto tax,” a five to ten percent extra cost paid in Black and Brown communities for goods and services, including groceries, loans, rent and insurance. A glaring example of this tax is in purchasing cars and homes:
• African American car owners with identical cars and driving records pay more for car insurance and car taxes – between $400 and $1,000 more per year in some states.
• Low-income families pay an average of two percentage points more for car loans. This can easily add $35 to monthly payments. They pay one percentage point more for home mortgages – adding at least $100/month
• African Americans buying cars (and presumably shopping for mortgages, houses, and other major items) are targeted with higher prices or inferior products.
Another important measure of equality status is homeownership. The Center for American Progress, stressed the relative losses experienced in recent years because of ruling class profiting and governmental neglect under Bush:
The increase in African American homeownership has been slower under Bush than the 1990s. The homeownership rate for whites increased three times faster than the homeownership rate for African Americans between 2000 and 2006. This trend is in part because African Americans have actually seen their rate decline since 2004. Compare this to the 1990s, when African Americans' homeownership rate increased by an average annual growth rate of 0.8 percent from 1994 to 2000.
Even with some increase in homeownership the rate were still far less for African Americans, not surprising given the patterns of economic racism discussed above. Perlo states that “Homeownership rates for 2003 were 48 percent for Blacks vs. 75 percent for whites. Median home equity was $64,000 for white homeowners, $35,000 for Black homeowners. Among families with similar credit ratings, Blacks and Hispanics are 30 percent more likely than whites to be charged the highest interest for sub prime mortgages.”
The subprime mortgages crisis is sure to affect minorities more severely than others. At a recent conference held in New York by the Fiscal Policy Institute, James Parrot documented how Black and Latino new home buyers in New York were pushed to take out such loans even when they could have afforded the normal loans. Only 25 percent of sub primers are not in foreclosure. The foreclosure rate is expected to go to 40 percent this year. ?
It is in the structure of the economy then, jobs, housing patterns, unemployment, the “ghetto tax” to name a few, that institutionalized racism manifests itself. A new civil rights, movement aimed at addressing continuing discrimination must in the first place address itself to radical reforms aimed at rooting out the ingrained structural foundation of racist practice.
The demand for reparations was the popular form this economic demand took, particularly at the turn of the century, and received a wide hearing, until the tragedy of September 11th, when it was pushed off the historical stage by Bush’s war on terror. While not receiving wide support outside of the African American community, the attention reparations received by the mass media pointed to a growing recognition that the economics of racism must be addressed. A major question however is whether such redress will take working-class or petty-bourgeois forms.
It may have been that some sections of the ruling elite were intrigued by the idea of settling the historic dispute regarding the unpaid and underpaid labor of slavery and beyond with a cash payment. However, more broadly resonating was the concept of social grant that would introduce a massive outlay of capital for scholarships, housing, health care, schools and infrastructure, special measures that would provide a foundation for real equality. This coupled with an elimination of wage gap and full employment measures for the poorest half of the African American community would go a long way to making good on the broken promises of the past. It is unlikely however, that such measures will be addressed on their own, separate from wider social movements for peace and justice.
More feasible would be to address these special measures within the context of a broader struggle of other minorities, workers and women against the big monopolies and the profiteers of the coming economic crisis, of which these demands must be a central part. Are such reforms possible? Is there a basis for building such a movement? Recent election cycles along with shifts in public sentiment suggest the answer is yes.
Indeed, surveys of public opinion in recent years point to a steady swing away from overtly racist attitudes. Already in 1954 at the time of Brown v. Board a simple majority of Americans supported the court’s decision to do away with de jure segregation. As Jeffrey Rosen wrote in the New York Times reflecting on the significance of the Michigan affirmative action vote, “When Brown was decided, 54 percent of the country supported the result.”
Attitudes today particularly with regard to affirmative action betray a similarly mixed response, however, there is a steady drift towards non-racist and anti-racist consciousness. This tendency is present on a number of issues including marriage, affirmative action, integration efforts and opinion about race itself.
In a USA Today /Gallup poll taken in August and September of 2007, for example, respondents approved of marriage between whites and Blacks, 79 percent to 15 percent. In 1983 only 43 percent approved, with 50 percent answering in the negative. In 1968, the year of Dr. King’s assassination, 20 percent supported the right to marry, but 73 percent did not. In 1958 four years after legal segregation was declared unconstitutional 97 percent were opposed to “mixed” marriages.
Seemingly flying in the face of these trends is support by wide margins for the Supreme Court’s July decision with 73 percent agreeing that “an individual’s race should not be considered in admissions for schools.” However the wording of the Quinnipiac University question doubtlessly contributed to the response. Thus, when ABCNews/Washington Post poll asked more specifically “the Supreme Court recently restricted how local school boards can use race to assign children to schools. Some argue this is a significant setback for efforts to diversify public schools, others say race should not be used in school assignments. On balance, do you approve or disapprove of this decision?” 56 percent disapproved of the court vote, with 40 percent approving.
When in a Newsweek poll taken around the same time whites were asked: “Do you approve or disapprove of last week’s Supreme Court decision to limit the use of race for school integration plans? Thirty five percent approved with 29 percent answering in the negative. When all respondents were factored in 36 percent did not agree with Supreme Court, with 32 percent concurring. Similar results are to be found in attitudes on racial insensitivity with over half having heard racist remarks and felt offended, while approximately one-third did not.
A half century of struggle has not been without results. The concept that all people share a common humanity has gained a strong foothold. Clearly, the civil rights movements, the King and Cesar Chávez holiday struggles, along with desegregation and affirmative action efforts have positively influenced mass consciousness about race. This must be seen as a major ideological victory.While many racial prejudices and practices abound, a majority oppose racism as they understand it. Taken together it is evident that the Communist Party’s assessment in the late 1980s that an anti-racist majority was forming was percipient.
The concept of an anti-racist majority when first advanced was hotly disputed, with opponents warning against it as potentially disarming and overly optimistic, an understandable response in light of the Reagan and Gingrich counter-revolutions of the period. With the smell of the Baake, Weber and other anti-affirmative action assaults in the air, coupled with Willie Horton-like political campaigns and the beginnings of an attack on welfare and other entitlements, the concept that the mass base for racist ideology was shrinking rather than expanding, was difficult to digest. An additional factor in left thinking at the time was the influence of the “labor aristocracy” thesis, the concept that white male workers had privileged status in relation to rest of the working class, a privilege resting on material benefits from racism.
It may be that the “white privilege” theorists of today are the ideological descendants of the labor aristocracy advocates of the 1960s and 1970s. However, likely or unlikely, the gnarled hands of white workers pushing the button for Barack Obama in Iowa, New Hampshire and Nevada are a call for uniting class and democratic interests for hope in a common future. It has to be said that African American voters in their overwhelming majority in election after election have made such appeals. This new reciprocity will surely be taken note of and heeded.
Hope and new forms of unity are emerging in the great struggles of today. That and more will be required to defeat the Republican right in November, an achievement that progress in the struggle for African American equality depends. Anti-racist sentiment must be translated into anti-racist action. At the center of such action must be deep going radical reforms to eliminate economic racial inequality. Capitalism has proved itself inadequate to the task. More, capitalism itself breeds and profits from such inequality.
But this is all the more reason that pointed demands to address the economics of racism must be forward with the demand for immediate implementation. Dr. King explained almost a half century ago, why we can’t wait. Today’s struggle for full economic and political equality now will produce tomorrow's answer.
rac.org 28 Feb 2008
Rabbi David Saperstein of the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism today wrote to the leadership of the United States House of Representatives confirming the Reform Jewish Movement's commitment to "affirmative action policies which have proven to be significant and successful vehicles for achieving equal opportunity for women and people of color."
The letter strongly urged the House to reject the Riggs amendment to the Higher Education Authorization Act. Which would prohibit colleges and universities from using affirmative action in college admissions if they receive federal funds, including Pell Grants.
The full text of the letter follows:
Dear Representative:
On behalf of the Union of American Hebrew Congregations and the Central Conference of American Rabbis, representing 1.5 million Reform Jews, 1800 Reform Rabbis, and 875 Reform congregations nationwide, I urge you to oppose efforts to eliminate all affirmative action programs in higher education when the Higher Education Authorization Act is considered this week.
As Jews deeply committed to the prophetic imperatives of our tradition, we are dedicated to working for policies that will help realize our dream of justice and equality for all the people of our nation. In accordance with our historic commitment to these ideals, the Reform Jewish Movement supports those affirmative action policies which have proven to be significant and successful vehicles for achieving equal opportunity for women and people of color.
The so-called "Anti-Discrimination in College Admissions Amendment of 1998," sponsored by Representative Frank Riggs (R-CA) will have detrimental effects on national college admissions. California Proposition 209 is a fitting example of the harmful effects of this measure. In the year after the University of California Board of Regents approved a measure similar to that proposed by representative Riggs prohibiting all affirmative action/equal opportunity measures in college admissions, the number of African Americans admitted to UCLA Law School dropped by 80% and at U.C. Berkeley Law School by 81%. With the passage of Proposition 209, Stanford University Law School had the same number of African American students as the University of Mississippi in 1963 -- one.
There is substantial evidence affirmative action programs have made a crucial difference for countless qualified individuals whose talents may not have surfaced without the opportunity provided by such programs. Discrimination and inequities continue to exist, and as a result, women and people of color continue to lag behind by many educational measures. In an era when America's competitive advantage lies in its ability to leverage the diversity of its people, a diverse, educated nation is a stronger nation economically and otherwise.
The promise of equality is not sufficient if there are obstacles that make the reality of equality impossible. Affirmative action efforts ensure that opportunities are available for all who merit them. Therefore, I urge you to oppose the Riggs amendment. Its passage would set back the clock on civil rights, turning a willfully blind eye to inequality.
Sincerely,
Rabbi David Saperstein, Director
By DAN BARKER Feb 27, 2008
Civil
rights speaker shows kids how it was
Wiggins High School social studies students had a living experience with history Monday as Vern Howard led them through some of the pivotal events of the civil rights era.
This was not just a lecture celebrating Black History Month. In a couple of lessons students re-enacted moments when women were taken from a bus for not giving their seats to a white person, including the important time when Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat, triggering the Montgomery Bus Boycott that lasted for 367 days.
Some students took the roles of authorities, others the roles of the women and civil rights activists to play out the drama of the modern civil rights movement.
These were informed teens. When one student took the part of Parks, the student said nothing when confronted by the bus driver and police except to acknowledge that police could take Parks away, knowing that was exactly what Parks did.
They also had little trouble naming significant events and people in the civil rights efforts: Martin Luther King Jr., the March on Washington, D.C., lunchroom sit-ins, fighting for voting rights and the role of Malcolm X.
Howard has served as the operations supervisor for the City and County of Denver for more than 13 years, which has meant hosting events such as visits by President George H. W. Bush, President Bill Clinton, President George W. Bush, Vice President Al Gore, the Emperor of Japan, the Pope, the King of Kenya, the presidents of Gouda and Mozambique and the mayor of Nairobi, Kenya.
He serves as the chairman of the Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Colorado Holiday Commission Statewide Special Event and Marade (a memorial and parade) and is the immediate past president of Blacks in Government.
Howard has also worked with the King family, recently talking with Martin Luther King III about how his father was killed.
The days and years leading up to the shooting of King were fraught with peril. Not only were there events like Bloody Sunday, when police attacked marchers on a bridge as they headed to Selma, Ala., but the King family frequently received threatening telephone calls and received an average of 55 threatening letters a day from 1955 to ’58, Howard told the students.
When his family was almost killed in a bombing at his home, King’s vision of nonviolent action came together.
“We will love our white brothers and sisters, and kill them with kindness,” Howard quoted.
In the days before cell phones and faxes, organization often meant going door-to-door, going to churches, clubs, pool halls and grocery stores to get the word out that there would be no violence when marches were staged or when a boycott was planned, he said.
Howard also talked about how John F. Kennedy asked for the support of blacks, but did not quickly meet his promises for civil rights once elected president. That led to more than 250,000 people showing up at one of the 1963 marches on Washington, D.C., where King gave his “I Have a Dream” speech.
However, black leaders were stunned when Kennedy was killed, thinking, “We’re in trouble now,” Howard said.
But there was no president before or after who did more for civil rights than Lyndon B. Johnson. Johnson’s father had been a foe of the Ku Klux Klan and Johnson knew the real life plight of blacks.
Howard had the kids re-enact the time Johnson’s secretary borrowed his brand-new Chrysler Imperial to drive to see her mother across several states. She was stopped by state troopers in a couple of states, who cursed her and crumpled up a letter from Johnson, complete with presidential seal, which said she had permission to drive the car, and threw the letter at her.
When Johnson found out about her trials, he called the governors of three states and told them to either escort her through on the way back or he would have the U.S. Army escort her, Howard said.
Howard spoke to another class about the history and work of affirmative action, which is no longer in effect.
Originally, affirmative action was designed to make sure people of color and women had access to government contracts, because they were not receiving a fair share of contracts to provide goods and services, he said.
“I was one who did not believe in affirmative action (until one contract meeting),” Howard said.
At that meeting to review contracts for an irrigation project, people picked up various contracts to look through, but would glance at one of the contracts without picking it up, he said.
That contract had a complete plan for the project, with every part in place. The other contracts had only parts of the project planned. Members of the committee suggested using parts of one contract and parts of another to make a complete plan, Howard said.
He asked them why they did not pick up the other contract. No one would answer, he said.
Could it be because of the photo of a woman at the front of the proposal? Or was it because it was a black woman, Howard asked.
The woman’s contract was approved. She came in 30 days early and 20 percent under budget on the project, he said.
That was when he learned that if someone is not represented at the tables where decisions are made they are left out. That was when he learned affirmative action could be a good thing, Howard said.
Finally, affirmative action was extended to private business when it became clear that there was a cost to society when people were not hired, he said.
However, such a measure would never have been needed if there were more employers like Henry Ford. When Ford started his automobile factories, he was the first to hire black engineers and he paid black line workers the same as white line workers, even though the whites protested, Howard said.
Affirmative action spread to housing because of the discrimination that kept blacks out of certain areas and that is still a problem, he said.
For instance, a man earning a six-figure income with good credit, a AAA business rating and more than enough money to buy a home was rejected for a loan, and the bank later admitted it was because he was black, Howard said.
“This was four years ago,” Howard said.
There was some objection by the Wiggins students over the unfairness and “reverse discrimination” which seemed to happen with affirmative action, particularly over whether or not a person had the right to hire a relative for a family business.
Howard said he understood the concern — although he said they should not call it reverse discrimination, because any discrimination is just discrimination.
However, the choices the government saw were finding a way for people to get work, paying for welfare or watching people turn to crime, he said.
Affirmative action was not without its price in the erosion of the black family.
Businesses learned they could meet quotas easiest by hiring black women, thus meeting both the goals to hire more women and to hire more blacks, Howard said.
That had the unexpected result of making it harder for black men to find work. A black man would sit at home unemployed and his wife would call hem “a worthless bum” who was just taking up space as another mouth to feed, he said.
Sometimes this led to black men turning to “hustling” to bring in money, Howard said.
At the same time, welfare would not allow women and children to receive aid if a man was still in the household, which meant it was better for men to leave the home, he said.
Another aspect of affirmative action that bothered the Wiggins students was the perception that minorities had a better chance of receiving educational scholarships.
Actually, although certain colleges may have their own quotas, affirmative action on campuses never really happened, Howard said.
What did happen is that organizations supporting women, blacks and Latinos went out and raised funds for specific private scholarships, because some universities were not allowing students in unless they had a great deal of money, which these people did not, he said.
Nonetheless, there are still “truckloads” of other types of scholarships for other students, Howard said.
On Tuesday, Wiggins High School social studies teacher Linda Midcap was scheduled to attend a 50th anniversary luncheon celebration of the Little Rock Nine, the nine black teens who defied death threats and hostile demonstrators to attend a previously all-white high school.
Wiggins has connections to the celebration and the Little Rock Nine.
Midcap’s aunt had attended school with one of the girls and they both visited WHS in 1995, she said.
Channel 9 newscaster Bazi Kanani, a WHS graduate, will be the master of ceremonies at the luncheon in Denver, Midcap said.
Aaron Graff, another WHS graduate, will be the chauffeur for the Little Rock Nine’s Minnijean Brown for the day. Graff came back from Georgetown University for the event, she said.
Gaby Hinsliff, Feb10 2008
White candidates should be barred from standing for Parliament in up to eight constituencies in order to get more black and Asian MPs elected, says a controversial report commissioned by Labour's deputy leader, Harriet Harman.
Positive discrimination is illegal in the UK, but the report concludes that, without a change in the law allowing parties to impose all-black shortlists, it would take more than 75 years for Britain's ethnic make-up to be fairly reflected at Westminster.
The findings come amid questions over Britain's failure to develop a home-grown equivalent of Barack Obama, the black presidential hopeful. Although there have been three black cabinet ministers since 1997 - Paul Boateng and Valerie Amos, both of whom have since moved on, and Baroness Scotland, the Attorney General - no politician of the stature of Obama, US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice or her predecessor, Colin Powell, has emerged.
Harman is understood to be still considering the report's findings in detail, but has expressed personal support for a change.
Simon Woolley of Operation Black Vote and the author of the review, said talented candidates were not 'getting past go' at the moment. 'The change in the law is not a sledgehammer to crack a nut; it's not forcing parties to use all-black shortlists,' he said. 'But unless we take positive action measures we are not going to have a representative democracy for more than 75 years. It's not that we don't have Obamas, but we don't have the mechanisms for them to see the light of day.'
His report is understood to conclude that all-black shortlists would be needed for two decades, after which talented candidates could be expected to make it on their own. It identifies 100 constituencies with large ethnic minority communities as prime targets for shortlists, but concludes that positive discrimination would be needed in only four to eight of those seats for four elections in a row to ensure that the proportion of ethnic minority MPs matches the proportion in the population.
Woolley's findings are likely to be controversial, with any proposal to change the law risking a rough ride in the Commons. Last week, former minister Keith Vaz introduced a backbench bill proposing all-black shortlists, which was instantly condemned by Tory backbencher Philip Davies as 'politically correct' and divisive.
However, Vaz is lobbying Harman for the measure to be included in a bill on equality issues later this year - meaning it could be on the statute book by 2009. 'She is the person who has a huge history of supporting these issues,' he added.
Woolley said that a change in the law could help the Tories by putting David Cameron's A-List - a pool of candidates, many of them women or from ethnic minorities, singled out for the fast track to the irritation of some white men - on a firm legal footing.
His report was commissioned by Harman last autumn to examine the merits of positive discrimination. Only 2 per cent of MPs are black or Asian, compared with more than 7 per cent of the general population.
By JAMES CHAPMAN 3 March
2008
Aspiration:
David Cameron says women could hold of a third of jobs in his first
government
David Cameron was facing a backlash from sections of his own party last night after suggesting that a third of jobs in his first government would go to women.
Party sources confirmed he felt it a realistic "aspiration" that one in three ministers would be women by the end of the first parliament of a Tory government.
But MPs on the Right of the party warned that such positive discrimination to alter the face of the Conservatives would result in talented male MPs being leapfrogged by less able and barely-tested women.
If the party wins a majority at the next election, it will get at least 55 women into Parliament.
Potentially, that would leave just two women MPs competing for each of 36 frontbench posts - and almost four men scrapping over each remaining job.
Party supporters' website Conservative-Home said the idea was "more politically correct than anything ever proposed" by Labour, while Ann Winterton, Tory MP for Congleton, said it was "patronising".
She added: "I regret that David Cameron feels it necessary to play the numbers game rather than providing a Cabinet of talented people who can best serve the country, irrespective of gender."
We'll lock away 100,000 in jail and make criminals compensate victims, vows Cameron
Former Home Office minister Ann Widdecombe said she would have been "grossly insulted" to be given a frontbench job on such grounds, adding: "I just don't see how you can say what proportion of your government will be male or female, over or under 40, or ginger or blonde."
Patronising: Ann Widdecombe says she would have been 'grossly insulted' to have been given a job in such grounds
But Justine Greening, the youngest female Tory MP, supported the plan, saying: "I'm sure David Cameron won't be willing to compromise on the quality of the people he appoints."
With only 17 female MPs to choose from, Mr Cameron has promoted seven to his 30-strong Shadow Cabinet.
Positive discrimination in favour of women is illegal, but employment regulations do not apply to government appointments in the Prime Minister's gift.
Mr Cameron also outlined plans to reform parliamentary constituencies to make them the same size if he wins power.
On average, Tory constituencies contain more voters than Labour ones, meaning that Labour can win a majority of seats even if the Tories win more votes.
Electoral Reform
Society: Pledge on Tory Women welcomed:
Cameron urged to follow logic of own conclusions and embrace reform
Cameron urged to follow logic of own conclusions and embrace reform
politics.co.uk 4 Mar 2008
The Electoral Reform Society has welcomed David Cameron’s recognition that we need more women in our national parliament.
The Society, a part of the 2008: Women and the Vote campaign, is currently engaged in research to see just how many women are likely to reach the House of Commons at the next general election.
The Society’s Chief Executive Ken Richie said:
“It is laudable to see a party leader recognising a most obvious deficiency in their own party. All major parties at some time must face up to the lack of women in their own ranks and do something to overcome the problem. And it takes courage to admit that the 17 women and 180 men on the Conservative benches reflect neither the nation nor the party’s supporters at large.
“But almost 90 years after the first woman sat on the green benches, and a Conservative woman at that, we need more than just quotas.
“At the weekend David Cameron told his party that we needed "a new politics that will start to repair the political breakdown in our country." Today he tells the Guardian that he believed we had a “broken political system.
“Isn’t it time that Mr Cameron recognised the logic of his own conclusions and turned on our winner takes all political system that has penalised both women and his own party for so long? International experience shows that, with systems of proportional representation, not just are more women elected but parliaments reflect the diversity of society in all sorts of other ways.”
“If the Conservatives really are the party of personal choice shouldn’t they recognize that it is high time to bring genuine competition back into government? Westminster, like local government needs multi-member seat proportional representation to allow the Conservatives to run a balanced ticket and ensure that both more women and minorities were elected to Parliament.”
The 2008:Women and the Vote campaign website is available here: womenandthevote.com
PR systems have on average 10% more women representatives than FPTP. More details of biases against the Conservatives in Westminster elections are chronicled in the Society’s The Conservatives and the Electoral System
Conservative Viscountess Nancy Astor, was the first women elected to actually sit in the Commons in 1919. The Sinn Féin and Fianna Fáil politician Countess Markiewicz, while the first women elected, never took her seat.
ndtv.com Feb 15, 2008
A Hindu organisation in the UK on Friday blamed the British for the caste system in India, saying the ''current adulteration'' of the varnashram system is a result of ''generations of British colonial bureaucracy''.
''It was the British who single-handedly formulated the caste schedules that remain in place today,'' Raj Pandit Sharma, a member of the Hindu Council UK's (HCUK) Executive, said in a report on 'Caste Discrimination'.
The HCUK said it came out with the report to prevent the spread of ''misinformation about Hinduism'' by ''anti-caste propagandists''.
Sharma said the evils manifest in the current form of the caste system could not be ascribed to the Hindu faith. ''The current adulteration of the Hindu varnashram system is a direct result of generations of British colonial bureaucracy,'' he claimed.
The report included quotations from Hindu scripture in support of the concept of egalitarianism and cites many sacred texts - respected by people of all castes - that were written by ''Dalits,'' or ''outcastes'', in an attempt to prove that in Hinduism, caste was never intended to be hereditary.
The report also highlighted the ''hypocrisy'' of those who would criticise caste in India while ignoring Britain's own social divisions. ''There are now record levels of homeless people in the UK, who are analogous with the outcastes of Indian society,'' Sharma said. He also questioned comparing caste system with apartheid.
''This comparison is as ridiculous as it is untrue, especially given the fact these barbaric systems were born under the shadow of slavery or indentured labour, based on the colour of one's skin, and actually conceived and perpetrated by Europeans, not Hindus.'' ''It is no joke to have to ward off concerted misinformation campaigns from UK parliamentarians who really ought to know better,'' Anil Bhanot, HCUK General Secretary, said in his Foreword to the document.
He said he has gone through the difficult process in the hope that it would alert the wider British public to the prejudicial tactics carried out by ''anti-caste propagandists''.
Banot said ''Today, we are putting the record straight. We are also naming and shaming those who spread misinformation about Hinduism and its relationship to caste in an ill-disguised attempt to vilify the Hindu people and cause division within our community.''
The result of several months research by Sharma, the report lifts the lid on rarely-heard Hindu perspectives on a subject assumed by most non-Hindus to be always a gross form of unjust discrimination, an alleged feature of Hinduism so maligned it justifies attempts by Christians to convert Hindus in the UK, in India and elsewhere, the report said.
The report acknowledged and condemned the fact that abuse of varnashram continues in India, despite an official ban on caste discrimination and the introduction of positive discrimination policies to emancipate lower castes, in particular Dalits, or 'untouchables'.
But it questions the existence of caste discrimination in the UK, saying no one should be ''fooled'' by groups making allegations of such discrimination who are seeking government legislation and funds to tackle this ''supposed problem''.
The detailed report challenges assumptions about caste and the claims made by organisations such as CasteWatch UK and the Dalit Solidarity Network UK, concluding that contrary to their assertions and popular belief, caste, as described in the Hindu scriptures, is not determined by birth.
by Aled Blake, Mar 5 2008
Companies with women at their helm are often more profitable than those without, a leading business academic has said.
Paul Thomas, director of DNA Wales and divisional head of leadership at the University of Glamorgan, said companies with the highest percentage of women among their top officers have a return on equity 35% higher than those with the fewest high-level women.
It comes as International Women’s Day is held on Saturday, which looks to promote the role of women in society.
The number of women executive directors of FTSE 100 companies, although rising, stands at 17 women compared to almost 400 men at executive levels.
Mr Thomas said, “The basis of our teachings on leadership is focused on Complexity Theory, which considers that humans are unpredictable but complex, and hence our businesses will always reflect these characteristics.“While a masculine type of leadership will focus on command and control, the feminine way of leading adopts a more interactive and supportive approach based on communication, connectivity and trust, between staff.“While women are still, in many cases, struggling to attain the highest levels of leadership in business it’s interesting to note that on average, companies with the highest percentage of women among their top officers have a return on equity 35% higher than those with the fewest high-level women.
“Perhaps then we should ask the question, is leadership non-gender specific, or is it that we are so used to the masculine form of leadership that we don’t recognise the difference?”
Business women say they are seeing a change to a less male-oriented world in Wales.
Zara Cottle, a director with Cardiff-based public relations firm Equinox, said, “I started my career in London where I worked for eight years and I found women in the top jobs as often as men.“Moving to Wales, I think that it is still a slightly more male dominated scene with the number of male owners of PR agencies outweighing the number of women but I predict this will change within the next five to 10 years.”
Jennifer Stewart, Heritage Lottery Fund manager for Wales, previously held the post of head of archaeology at Bristol City Museum, and was the first UK female head of documentation at the National Museum of Wales. She described her current post to be her “dream job” and said, “I don’t believe the heritage sector has a definite glass ceiling. In all my job successes I have been appointed by men, over and above male applicants.
“I believe this has been due to my track record, skills and enthusiasm. And the Heritage Lottery Fund is a case in point, with a female chair of the board, a female director, and the majority of the senior and middle management posts filled by females.“Despite this rosy picture, the heritage sector is still part of a wider world of work where sexism, racism and other forms of discrimination exist and we all need to do our bit to stamp this out. Are things changing though? – Yes, I believe they are.
“In terms of my management style I consider it to be non-gender specific, it’s just about getting on with the job.”
Caroline Sims, sales and marketing director for Park Plaza Hotel, said sales and marketing in hotels tends to be dominated by women.
She said, “I manage an all-female team, but you aren’t given any credits for being a woman, just credit for getting the job done.”
Jo Lydon, pro vice-chancellor (academic services) at the University of Glamorgan, argued that differences do exist between men and women in their leadership styles.She said, “Having worked in management teams which were predominantly male, and usually where I have been the only woman, I think there are differences in approach. Men appear to be more concerned with status and symbols than women.“In terms of my own leadership style I think it is more influenced by my principles and ethos than by my gender. I am passionate about higher education and the role it plays in society. This influences my leadership style.
“My own career development path has not been harder or more difficult because of my gender. However, from my experience I’ve also found that the adage, for promotion or appointment, a man has to be good whereas a woman has to be very good, is still often true.”
By James Kirkup, 05/03/2008
The parents of a 13-year-old girl are to bring a landmark court case that could force religious schools to water down their admissions policies.
The Jewish Free School, a leading Orthodox Jewish school, is facing claims that it racially discriminated against parents when it rejected their daughter.
The court case centres on the criteria the school applies when assessing applicant parents' religious credentials.
David and Kate Lightman have been in dispute with the school for four years after it rejected their daughter. The rejection was based on the fact that Mrs Lightman was not born Jewish, but converted to the faith in the 1980s. Such conversions are not recognised by some British Jews, and the school's interpretation of Jewish law has been backed by the Chief Rabbi.
The Lightmans' application to the High Court for a judicial review of their case alleges that the school racially discriminated against them and their daughter. The school insists that its admissions policy is based on religion, not race, and therefore it did not breach race discrimination laws.
Philip Hunter, the Chief Schools Adjudicator, who oversees admissions disputes, has refused to overturn the decision against the Lightmans.
He has accepted that the school is acting in accordance with Jewish law.
However, the adjudicator ordered the school to alter some parts of its admissions code, removing rules that could give priority to children with a Jewish father or grandparent under some circumstances.
The Lightmans have been backed by secular groups. Brent Council, a nearby local authority, has also called for the JFS to change its admissions code.Today's hearing is expected to last until Thursday.
School leaders and religious experts will be watching the case keenly, as some believe a victory for the Lightmans could set a precedent with implications for religious schools across the country.
The British Humanist Association, which wants faith and education to be kept separate, believes the case could call into question the policies followed by many of the thousands of state schools that base their admissions wholly or in part on the religious background of an applicant family.
See also
The Truth about Diversity: Shaming Whites
'This white person thinks I can't do the job ...'
Race and democracy
Patriarchy and male stereotypes
David Cameron and what could be
Racial equality in Britain? Don’ t make me laugh
Slavery - an overview
If Balls wants better schools, he must scrap faith selection
Readers please email comments
to: editorial AT
martinfrost.ws including full name