RateItAll: The Opinion Network

I suppose others way of saying it are "supportive of the Equal Protection Clause" or "against race and gender based discrimination". You will find a minority of GOP members, however, who do suppport AA.

I'd like to echo louie's comment about Flick01's post - it's a real piece of work, and would be hard to beat. While affirmative action undoubtedly was well intentioned, and may have served a useful purpose in its early days, I think it has now become an ingrained program that is in many ways counterproductive. My first recollection of affirmative action (it was called Equal Employment Opportunity - EEO) was when I was in the Army, during a Pentagon tour in the 1970s, during the infancy of political correctness To be fair to the military, they really did take the lead in breaking down a lot of societal barriers, mostly for the good as far as I'm concerned, although in typical military fashion the methods may have been flawed at times. Anyway, I was mandated to attend an EEO class, so off I went to the class. The first thing that struck me was that all of the instructors and EEO staff were black. I asked the sergeant instructing the class why that was so, and got some kind of cockamamie answer about blacks being best qualified to teach the subject - maybe so, but inasmuch as the class dealt with EEO for women, Hispanics, and Native Americans as well as blacks, I wasn't overly convinced. The thrust was EEO for minorities, so I then asked the good sergeant why I, as an ethnic Italian, couldn't be considered part of a minority group inasmuch as at the time roughly 10% of the population in the US was black, and a similar 10% were of Italian ethnic stock. The answer was, well, it was different, because different criteria were used to determine who or what was a minority (like, yeah, women are a minority- I believe that statistically speaking there are more women than men in the US, but I could be wrong). So, we sparred a bit on the ethnic part, and of course, I got nowhere, fighting the party line. Then we got to a segment on equality for wome, the official position at the time being that women were absolutely the equal of men in every respect. Of course, I challenged that when it came to physical abilities, but was told that we were not to consider even physical abilities or attributes as different. A couple of the other male officers duly supported the party line and told me that they saw absolutely no difference between males and females. I couldn't resist, so I asked them if they knew Susan, a female lieutenant who had a set of legs and a backside that wouldn't quit. Of course, they knew her, so I told them that if Susan and I were walking down one of the Pentagon corridors together and any guys were walking behind us, if they weren't looking at Susan's swing rather than my backside (OK, I used the a word), we were all in trouble. Naturally, I was accused of being crude, but I neverheless made my point. OK, once again I'm prattling on here, but the overall point is that EEO, or affirmative action, or quotas, or whatever they want to call it, has lots of drawbacks to it. If we applied the proportional representation to everything we do in this country, we'd probably have to reassign lots of Jewish doctors and lawyers to mowing lawns, and we'd have to find a new line of work (if what they do can really be called work) for an awful lot of black sports figures. Funny how no one worries about areas in which minorities are overrepresented. Imbalances occur all the time, through no one's particular fault or design. Back in the 1920s and 30s (and I guess into the fifties as well), Italians were overrepresented in the crime world, but that was a given - no one lobbied for more Irish or Polish gangsters, but neither did the Italians whine about not having equal opportunities in other fields. Something tells me I'd better quit now before I make even more of a fool of myself on this subject.

I know a lot of republicans that are for affirmative action and a lot of democrats who are against it. This is not a lithmus test issue.

I think the conservative position against Affirmative Action is a reasonable extension of the conservative principle of a small, unintrusive government. Once you have the government trying to decide how many of a certain race should be employed where, it is reasonable to think that this government may be overreaching. This argument rings hollow however, when the federal government is overreaching in practically every area - as GWB's is. If a government is not going to show any discipline in meddling in other aspects of society, it probably needs to come up with a good reason why it's not going to apply it's meddling skills on behalf of disadvantaged minorities. Clearly a belief in a small, unintrusive government is not the reason in this case.

Amen Flick01, Amen.

I guess you could say against the continuation of Affirmative Action.Affirmative Action was originally necessary to level the playing field after the racial injustices of the past, but now it has run its course, boardering on reverse discrimination.As I have said many times before there are enough civil laws on the books to protect the rights of minorities.So,yes,against Affirmative Action,but not retroactive.You could throw in racial quotas and college preferences as well.Update:I don't normally do this, but man what an outstanding post by Flick.Maybe one of the tops I have ever seen on RIA, very well said man.

In the early 1970s a man who I will call Bill was the general manager of a large Chevrolet dealership in Pennsylvania. One day a civil rights advocacy group showed up and asked for a meeting. It seems that they had spent some time walking through the repair shop, parts department, and showroom to see how many minority workers were employed. They sat down with Bill and told him that based on the demographics of the area, (because X number of minorities live in the neighborhood) he needed to have a total of 36 minorities working in his dealership. This angered Bill who has always been a just and fair man. He stood up and said in a loud voice (so that the office staff could hear) Thirty six minorities? Is that all? Great......that means that I can fire 15 of them because I have 51 minorities working for me. You didn't bother to check the body shop, or shipping and receiving did you? No, you just come in here, look through the shop and showroom, decide that I am racist and then you have the nerve to come in here and tell me how to run my business. I hire people, not colors and I've got news for you.....If I was able to find only 35 minorities who could do the job that is all you would see in here. If you insisted that I need 36 then I would suggest that you fill out a job application. Now get the hell out of my dealership or you're gonna find 15 minorities who are looking for a job because of you and your stupid organization. Needless to say the civil rights advocates left before they caused someone to be fired. (Bill wasn't the kind of guy who would actually do that) When one hears the phrase Against Affirmative Action when applied to Conservatism those who have fallen prey to left wing propoganda take it to mean that Conservatives are racists and are looking to keep people oppressed, even though it was Democrats who in the 1950s and 1960s opposed civil rights legislation. (Strom Thurmond was a Democrat when he was a segregationist and George Wallace was a Democrat when he stood in the school house door. They both changed parties when they abandoned their racism) This is no longer 1965 and affirmative action has proven itself a failure. For the small percentage of minorities that it has helped it has fostered bad feelings with minorities who choose to make it on their own without assistance and also among whites who in some cases have been discriminated against because of their skin color. Then you have people like Jesse Jackson who see racism even where none exists. The majority of people in this country have the attitude of my friend Bill. If a person can do the job, if he or she is qualified, then get to work because I don't care what color your skin is. But affirmative action and poverty pimps like Jackson give the cause of civil rights a bloody nose. White folks who were not raised as racists now have their guard up and it has become a game of every man for himself to try to defeat or avoid the affirmative action system. It also takes away some of the punch that should be present when cases of genuine racism appear. Folks who would normally come down on the offender with full force now view those situations with a cynical eye due to the unfairness and lopsided application of affirmative action. Be the best that you can be and if you are qualified, you will get the same consideration as anyone else. If you are discriminated against because of your skin color then lets fight it together but don't force me to consider you because you happen to be born with a certain amount of skin pigmentation. Conservatives believe in the ability of the individual to be the best that he or she can be and affirmative action is now a relic from another time and in some cases it works to the detriment of the people that it was originally designed to help.