Useful quotes/stats/history etc.

FYI: this is alllll from the fat 36 page article

Some main points:
affirmative action is only a quick fix
Most advocates of Affirmative action propose simultaneous reform of K-12 education
Republicans are scared to oppose aa because of losing minority voter turnout
Whites are not losing jobs to african americans, whites and African americans are losing jobs to the asian subcontinent”
“The global economy makes it more difficult to have a convenient domestic scapegoat for lost jobs.”

“In CA, 36 percent of all high school students in 2001 had taken all the courses required for admission to the state university system, according to a study by the civil rights project at Harvard university. Among black students, only 26 percent had taken the prerequisites and only 24 percent of Hispanics. Meanwhile, 41 percent of white and 54 percent of Asians had taken the nexessary courses.” 22

Efforts at ensuring racial and ethnic diversity in higher education would have been better aimed at improving k-12 schools across the country.

“At the k 12 level you could argue that affirmative action has led to stagnation, theres very little forward movement, vey little closing of the black-white gap of the past 20 years” Richard sander professor of law at UCLA law school

“We have a whole range of students with different abilities. All of the weak students are not minority students; all of the strong students are not white students” James E. Coleman professor at Duke University Law School

The civil rights revolution of the 1950s and '60s forced a new look at the policies that had locked one set of Americans out of most higher-education institutions and higher-paying jobs.

As early as 1962, the Congress of Racial Equality (CORE), one of the most active civil-rights organizations, advocated hiring practices that would make up for discrimination against black applicants. "We are approaching employers with the proposition that they have effectively excluded Negroes from their work force a long time, and they now have a responsibility and obligation to make up for their past sins," the organization said in a statement from its New York headquarters. Footnote 25

Facing CORE-organized boycotts, a handful of companies in New York, Denver, Detroit, Seattle and Baltimore changed their hiring procedures to favor black applicants.

In July 1964, President Lyndon B. Johnson pushed Congress to pass the landmark Civil Rights Act, which had been championed by President John F. Kennedy since his 1960 presidential election campaign.

The law's Title VII, which prohibits racial, religious or sexual discrimination in hiring, said judges enforcing the law could order "such Previous affirmative action as may be appropriate" to correct violations.

itle VII didn't specify what kind of Previous Hitaffirmative actionNext Hit could be decreed. But racial preferences were openly discussed in the political arena as a tool to equalize opportunities. Official working definitions of Previous Hitaffirmative actionNext Hit didn't emerge until the end of the 1960s, under President Richard M. Nixon.

In 1969, the administration approved the "Philadelphia Plan," which set numerical goals for black and other minority employment on federally financed construction jobs. One year later, the plan was expanded to cover all businesses with 50 or more employees and federal contracts of at least $50,000. The contracts were to set hiring goals and timetables designed to match up a firm's minority representation with the workforce demographics in its area. The specified minorities were: "Negro, Oriental, American Indian and Spanish Surnamed Americans." Footnote 27

The sudden change in the workplace environment prompted a wave of lawsuits. In the lead, a legal challenge by 13 black electric utility workers in North Carolina led to one of the most influential U.S. Supreme Court decisions on Previous Hitaffirmative actionNext Hit, the 1971 Griggs v. Duke Power Co. case. Footnote 28

In a unanimous decision, the high court concluded that an aptitude test that was a condition of promotion for the workers violated the Civil Rights Act. Duke Power may not have intended the test to weed out black applicants, Chief Justice Warren E. Burger wrote in the decision. But, he added, "Congress directed the thrust of the Act to the consequences of employment practices, not simply the motivation." Footnote 29

If the point of the Civil Rights Act was to ensure that the consequences of institutions' decisions yielded balanced workforces, then goals and timetables to lead to that outcome were consistent with the law as well. In other words, eliminating racial discrimination could mean paying attention to race in hiring and promotions.

That effort would produce a term that captured the frustration and anger among white males who were competing with minority-group members for jobs, promotions or school admissions: "reverse discrimination."

The issue went national with a challenge by Allan Bakke, a white, medical school applicant, to the University of California. He'd been rejected two years in a row while minority-group members — for whom 16 slots in the 100-member class had been set aside — were admitted with lower qualifying scores.

After the case reached the Supreme Court, the justices in a 5-4 decision in 1978 ordered Bakke admitted and prohibited the use of racial quotas. But they allowed race to be considered along with other criteria. Representing the University of California was former Solicitor General Archibald Cox, the Watergate special prosecutor who was fired on orders of President Nixon in 1973. Cox's granddaughter, Melissa Hart, helps lead the opposition to an anti-Previous affirmative action ballot initiative in Colorado. Footnote 30

In 1979 and 1980, the court upheld worker training and public contracting policies that included so-called set-asides for minority-group employees or minority-owned companies. But in the latter case, the deciding opinion specified that only companies that actually had suffered discrimination would be eligible for those contracts. Footnote 31

Divisions within the Supreme Court reflected growing tensions in the country as a whole. A number of white people saw Previous affirmative action as injuring the educational and career advancement of people who hadn't themselves caused the historical crimes that gave rise to Previous affirmative action.

Hey this is Emily. This is what I have written out for what I am going to say.

(the black is my harm and the blue is my barrier)

As Megan mentioned before me, affirmative action does great harm to those of us that work hard and truly do achieve and deserve a spot at universities, but what I want to point out is that it does harm to the minorities, the very people that it seeks to help, by discrediting their achievements, giving them a fraudulent and stigma-ed reputation among others, and damaging their self esteem as students and achievers. In all the irony of affirmative action, we are harming everyone involved. As we have said before, affirmative action policies were started out of the civil rights movement of the 1950s as a temporary attempt to give back some of the many opportunities that had been unrightfully taken away from African Americans and other minorities. It is, in a sense a form of pity. Black journalist and media consultant, Deroy Murdoch explains it by saying that, “The underlying philosophy behind affirmative action is the notion that blacks and Hispanics aren’t smart and aren’t prepared. We must help these little brown people, and the blacks. That’s where affirmative action programs come from.” And if this is how we all see affirmative action, then this is how we see the people who supposedly benefit from affirmative action, as insignificant, unintelligent, incapable, “poor minority people”. Is that right? Is that how this program is supposed to be affecting blacks, Hispanics, and Native Americans? I don’t think so. And it is a fact that many people see affirmative action this way, including those minorties that the programs focus on.

Through the eyes of University of California Regent, and African American, Ward Connerly, growing up was a constant humiliation of segregation and unfair treatment. He is standing in line at the drinking fountain, standing beneath the enormous and ominous sign stating “Coloreds Only”. And this is what he is forced to face every day of his life, just because of the color of his skin. Connerly, now compares his position being labeled and “affirmative action businessman” claiming that it is almost has bad because it keeps him from being judged on the quality of his work.

Just try to imagine how having this constant stigma floating over your head would make you feel about your own abilities. Affirmative action is demeaning and only serves to perpetuate the stereotype that minorities are less able than other students to succeed. They are tired of being presumed as defective and having to wear that badge that says “I am here because you all feel bad for me and don’t think I could get here on my own.” Personally, I see affirmative action as racism in and of itself.

So the question is, how could we possibly rationalize keeping affirmative action policies in place? Well, unfortunately, the original goals to promote equal opportunity are not the actual goals of affirmative action any longer. Today, it is just another way for a college to look good. Have you ever noticed that on every, and I mean every college brochure, one of the first qualities listed about the school is its “diversity”? This is the sole reason colleges use affirmative action now, to be able to say, we are diverse and welcome all! It is all just a front used to make schools look good and a way to keep from being accused of being racist, when in fact racism is exactly what is going on here. Over the decades and decades of using affirmative action, little has even been accomplished in the area of diversifying our universities and colleges. (need statistic here) So why keep pushing what’s not working. Isn’t it the definition of insanity to keep trying the same thing over and over and expect different results? 

First three harms and the barrier-Megan

Hey everyone, this is a bit of what i have for my part of the 1st harm and barrier.

please let me know any of your suggestions for change ASAP! or just let me know in our next meeting.

Thanks:)
Megan



Megan Doughty
Comm 207
Persuasive speech

Against Affirmative Action

Layout of what I am going to sayJ

HARMS

· Now that you know a little bit about affirmative action, I am going to talk to you about how affirmative action harms college admissions.
· Now we are all college students, and that is why it is important to address this controversial issue.
· Affirmative Action is a current, nationwide problem that places costly burdens on student populations.
· The civil rights act of 1964 authorized courts to take affirmative action, which was to uproot racial discrimination. That objective was, and remains morally right. But the difference between affirmative action and race preference is plainly distinguishable.
· Carl Cohen, a philosophy teacher at the University of Michigan declares that “Giving preference by race is wrong and unjust; when done by an agency of the state it is unlawful and a violation of our constitution.
· There was a past case in 1973, when a white student applicant, Allan Bakke, was denied admittance to the university of California medical school due to the schools unfair admission programs. Justice Powell of the case so eloquently states that “The guarantee of equal protection” which is guaranteed in the constitution “cannot mean one thing when applied to a white person and something else when applied to a person of another color.”
· Another harm that comes about is how students are not credited for all of their hard work.
· For example: a student who works hard for 4 years to earn a 4.0 grade point average could be denied admissions to Berkely or UCLA in favor of someone with a 3.0 merely because that University wants racial diversity.
· And thirdly not only does affirmative action enhance racial preference, and discredits students merit, but creates an environment of tension amongst different ethnic groups.

BARRIERS

· In the 1960’s when affirmative action played a key role in helping minorities get ahead, America desperately needed it to start the end of racial discrimination.
· That was more than 50 years ago, and our country has changed dramatically, we are more diverse than ever before.
· Affirmative action had good intentions in the begining, but now, instead of reaching our goal affirmative has proven to be counterproductive in these recent times. And is slowing down our countries strive for racial equality.

This is the video that I was thinking would be good if we wanted to use a video for the 2nd solution and cut it down to like the middle part when he is talking about taking into account disadvantaged white people as well. It is unfortunate that the sound is so off but this is the only video of this interview i am finding.

-Emily

Hey group members here is what we discussed when we met today (Wednesday).

Andrew, here are some ideas that we are coming up for you to use as solutions.

1. Ending affirmative action-giving minorities more opportunities like scholarships to be able to earn there way into the schools. Alex says, "give them a ladder to climb rather then just putting them in an elevator and pushing a button"

2. Changing affirmative action from being based on race to being based on socioeconomic status. (people, regardless of their race, from poorer communities are given more opportunity)

Joanna, Also, we were thinking that it might balance things out more if we gave the second counter argument to Joanna instead of Alex because he is already doing the intro and one of the counter arguments. Does this sound ok?

Hey guys its Andrew here is my post...

Specific Purpose: To persuade our audience that the drawbacks of affirmative action outweigh the benefits.

Central Idea: Affirmative Action is good in its intentions, but the way that is carried out is unfair and actually created discrimination

I. Introduction

a. (Attention Getter): Affirmative action is used to fill quotas in college admissions, instead of accepting the credible applicants. Under affirmative action someone is enrolled based on there race rather than there scholastic merit

b. (Thesis Statement): Affirmative action takes race and gender into account, by attempting to promote equal opportunity.

c. (Justification): Affirmative action, unfairly promotes minorities based on there race, rather than actually work ethic. We are all affected by it in school and in the work place.

d. (Speaker Credibility): Through research that our group has done, we have found that Affirmative action is used unfairly in college admissions and in the workplace. To promote equal opportunity, while not being based on scholastic or workplace merit, but more on filling racial or gender quotas.

e. (Preview of Main Points):

i. Affirmative may seem good on paper, but it has many flaws when it is put into practice. We will discuss these flaws.

ii. Next we will present how Affirmative action begins to discredit those of equal opportunity who worked hard to achieve success. Because so may see that there success was only derived by affirmative action policies.

iii. Finally, we will have arguments and solutions to the problems based on these issues

Hey guys. Its Emily. Here is my intro. I can't figure out how to get it so that its a link and you can download it so I will just copy and paste the whole thing right here. If anyone figures out how to do that let me know.

Specific Purpose: To persuade our audience that affirmative action is an unfair method of promoting equal opportunity.

Central Idea: The intention of affirmative action to ensure equal opportunity for minorities actually puts limitations on opportunity for others who may be more deserving.

I.       Introduction

a.    (Attention Getter): Every year as new college students apply for admission to universities all across the country, more than just their individual academic achievements and merit are considered. Is it fair that someone who did not work as hard and is not as deserving should get your place at your ideal university just because the school needs to fill its racial quotas?

b.    (Thesis Statement): Affirmative action policies aim to promote equal opportunity, but actually ends up hurting everyone involved by unfairly leaving out more deserving individuals and by discrediting the actual achievements of minorities.

c.     (Justification): Affirmative action is an issue that affects the lives of every single person in this room. Whether it be at school or in the work place, we are all being evaluated on our racial background rather than our work ethic.

d.    (Speaker Credibility): Our group has done extensive research in the area of affirmative action in college admissions and have found an overwhelming amount of information supporting our position that the policy is unfair and an unsuitable method of ensuring equal opportunity.

e.     (Preview of Main Points):

                                              i.     We will begin by pointing out the issues that affirmative action causes by counting out those who are most worthy because of their achievements.

                                            ii.      Then, we will continue by discussing how affirmative action negatively affects those that it is aiming to protect by discrediting their achievements.

                                          iii.     Finally, we will bring forth some arguments and alternative solutions to these problems.