Filed under: politics, race relations | Tags: affirmative action, politics, race relations, racial inequality, racial justice, reverse discrimination, super tuesday for equal rights, ward connerly
Battleground states determining Affirmative Action's Future
By: Kasey Henricks
Posted: 7/23/08
The following is part one of a three-part editorial series discussing affirmative action in the context of the upcoming election. Part one discusses the current dilemma facing affirmative action. Part two presents a general overview of the current state of U.S. race relations (to be posted 7/30). And part three provides suggestions and solutions in walking towards racial justice and equality (to be posted 8/6).
Currently, there’s an assault against affirmative action. The American Civil Rights Institute (ACRI), a partisan interest group, is working in Colorado, Arizona, and Nebraska to promote the so-called Civil Rights Initiative (www.acri.org), which will be on the ballot this November. Essentially, this initiative seeks to dismantle affirmative action, end supposed racial preferences and eliminate “reverse discrimination.” Similar initiatives have passed in California, Washington, and most recently Michigan. Given their voting records, Colorado, Arizona, and Nebraska will likely follow in this trend. With this growing momentum, it’s just a matter of time until the initiative reaches other states like Tennessee.
Affirmative action – what is it exactly? For many, it’s a term commonly used and argued for or against, but rarely is affirmative action ever clearly defined. This lack of clear definition convolutes public discourse on the issue, because meanings matter. For any constructive dialogue about affirmative action to occur, those who engage in this dialogue must understand what exactly is meant when a person says affirmative action.
In essence, affirmative action is a set of policies serving as antidiscrimination law. It applies broadly and stretches far beyond race to address areas including gender, age and religion. However, this upcoming election deals primarily with the racial aspect of affirmative action. For this article, I will narrow my definition as such.
Affirmative action is a race-conscious effort to open access and opportunity to minorities in areas of employment and education. In no way is affirmative action ideal, but it is a policy that addresses past and present racial discrimination. Now that affirmative action has been defined, let’s revisit ACRI’s original argument.
Affirmative action is a form of racial preference and reverse discrimination offering unfair advantages to minorities. The ACRI President, Ward Connerly, has likened affirmative action to a form of slavery for those who benefit from the policy. “If we carefully examine the definition of slavery, we find its most important characteristics – ‘dependency’ and ‘under the domination of another’ – present in affirmative action,” Connerly said.
The American Civil Rights Institute President, Ward Connerly
In essence, the ACRI and Connerly argue affirmative action harms both beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries.
Now, an argument is only as strong as the evidence that backs it up. One can reasonably assume that if an argument against affirmative action is made based the promotion of racial preference and reverse discrimination, then plenty evidence would be made available to support this position. However, the ACRI has provided no such evidence.
In fact, the overwhelming amount of evidence I will offer in part two of the three-part series disproves this anti-affirmative action argument and demonstrates the continuing significance of race.
To view affirmative action as a policy of preferring one group over another is misleading and overly simplistic; rather, a more accurate view is that it’s a policy providing racial access and opportunity where there is little to none. In addition, the proposition for ending affirmative action ignores racial inequality and ongoing discrimination. Furthermore, it’s important to keep in mind affirmative action is not pro-discrimination law, it is antidiscrimination law.
Eliminating affirmative action would remove significant educational and economic opportunities for minorities, worsening their already grossly unequal standing. Sociologist George Lipsitz comments, “Ending affirmative action cuts off avenues of upward mobility that have proven of great importance to aggrieved communities.”
Although affirmative action is not an ideal policy, it’s an anti-discrimination law that’s needed in our country. A “no” to affirmative action is a “no” to racial justice. In closing, I’d like to leave you with the words of Ronald Reagan, who as governor of California was an adamant defender of affirmative action:
“Time and experience have shown that laws and edicts of nondiscrimination are not enough. Justice demands that each and every citizen consciously adopt and accentuate a real and personal commitment to affirmative action, so as to make equal opportunity a reality.”
© Copyright 2008 The All State
By: Kasey Henricks
Posted: 7/23/08
In many aspects, democrats and republicans act more as allies than political competitors. After all, when power is centralized it’s in each party’s best interest to defend against outside intruders who could potentially shift the balance of power. A two-party system guarantees the self-preservation of both the Democratic and Republican Parties.
These methods of self-preservation and maintaining monopolized power are not exclusive to politics. One example is the oil industry. The number of American oil companies can practically be counted on one hand: ExxonMobil, ConocoPhillips, Chevron, Shell, etc. Another example is the American media. A handful of corporations, like Viacom, Disney, Time Warner, News Corp, and General Electric to name a few, have essentially monopolized the channels in which Americans receive their information. These two examples demonstrate when ownership is concentrated in the hands of a few competition does not exist; control does.
When competition is scarce, it’s in the best interest of those who hold power to collaborate. In terms of American politics, “democrans” and “republicats” have carved themselves such a niche it’s likely some form of revolution will have to occur for real social change to occur. This niche is like an air-tight, foolproof security system, ensuring American political power to remain in the hands of one or the other.
Why is a two-party political system so successful? Partly, because anytime a third party enters the picture the democrats and republicans squash it like a bug. Democratic and Republican Party platforms have changed and adapted with time to ensure their longevity. These changing platforms have historically expanded and contracted to swallow up third party issues. As a result, the Democratic and Republican Party also absorb third party voters. This is no new idea.
In the 1896 election, Democratic presidential candidate William J. Bryan promoted the free-silver platform to sway support from the Populist Movement. Also, in 1916, the Republican Party selected moderate Supreme Court Justice Charles Evans as its presidential candidate to sway support from republican-turned-progressive Theodore Roosevelt and the Progressive Party. In modern times, these trends remain the same.
In 2000, Ralph Nadar ran for president on the platform to break big business’ control over government. Recently, Democratic candidate Barack Obama attempted to appeal to Nadar voters by taking a similar stance. In early June, Obama announced neither he nor the Democratic National Committee would accept lobbyist money. But it should be noted Obama denied public campaign financing shortly after. Furthermore, Obama has persistently stressed a direct, grassroots approach to government. This stance reflects the long-standing views of the Green Party platform and Green Party candidate Cynthia McKinney.
The Republican Party also uses such tactics. In 2000, George W. Bush promoted a platform of limited government and vowed to downsize once he became president. This was also the stance of the Libertarian platform and Libertarian candidate Harry Browne. However, it was the Bush Administration’s broad-sweeping, federally mandated No Child Left Behind Act that increased government size and power. In addition, the creation of the Department of Homeland Security continued the same line of expansion.
Current Republican candidate John McCain also promotes reduced government. Specifically, he promotes a laissez-faire, or hands-off, approach to economic issues. While McCain, like most other republicans, promotes this stance, his actions indicate inconsistencies. For example, McCain voted against ending corporate welfare for companies outsourcing American jobs in March, 2005. The hands-off approach McCain verbally supports is also the long-standing platform of the Libertarian Party and Libertarian candidate Bob Barr.
The ability for political parties to change their platforms is part of the beauty of American politics. As new problems arise new solutions are needed. The adaptive nature of the Democratic and Republican Parties places them in a position where they remain relevant and in touch with contemporary and arising concerns. However, a two-party system ensures political power remains concentrated between two entities.
A government cannot reflect its people’s values when only two choices are provided. This is an illusion of choice – the equivalent to asking: “What values should be reflected in government?” Choose “A” or “B.”
However, it’s important to remember many sets of eyes are better than only two.
© Copyright 2008 The All State
