WHY ARE WE IN THE BLACK COMMUNITY OUR OWN WORST ENEMY???AFFIRMATIVE ACTION AND RAP SHOULD HAVE

She's Not Even Lying, I'm copying the whole thing now Sista for further studies, and we can take it a piece part by part. There are a few of us who are still in the action building field. Did you say RAP! I can see that. I wonder if anyone else can! Keep on preaching!

HISTORY OF AFFIRMATIVE ACTION

Affirmative action has its roots in the civil rights movement. In March of 1961, President John F. Kennedy signed Executive Order 10925, which established the President's Commission on Equal Employment Opportunity. The order stated that contractors doing business with the government "will take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and employees are treated during their employment, without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin." The order did not advocate preferential treatment of affected groups but rather sought to eliminate discrimination in the traditional sense.

The legal status of affirmative action was solidified by the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This landmark legislation prohibited discrimination in voting, public education and accommodations, and employment in firms with more than fifteen employees. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act offered a similar understanding of affirmative action as Executive Order 10925, stating that the act was not designed "to grant preferential treatment to any group because of race, color, religion, s*x, or national origin." The act's sponsors, Senators Joseph Clark and Clifford Case, emphasized this non-preferential interpretation of affirmative action when they wrote: "There is no requirement in Title VII that an employer maintain a racial balance in his workforce. On the contrary, any deliberate attempt to maintain a racial balance, whatever such a balance may be, would involve a violation of Title VII, because maintaining such a balance would require an employer to hire or refuse to hire on the basis of race."

The Civil Rights Act did not provide criminal penalties for employers that discriminated, nor did the civil remedies established by the act include compensation for pain and suffering or punitive damages. Rather, the act sought to establish a conciliation process by which victims would be restored to the situation they would have had in the absence of discrimination. To carry out the conciliation process, the act created a new federal agency as a branch of the U.S. Department of Labor, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). The EEOC acts as a facilitator between plaintiffs and private employers and also pressures violating employers to provide compensation, whether in the form of back pay or restitution. The EEOC also provides legal support for plaintiffs should the plaintiffs pursue their grievances in court.

Two important issues were contested in the wake of the Civil Rights Act of 1964: whether unintentional or structural discrimination constituted violation of the principle of equal opportunity; and the extent to which preferential treatment should be given to affected groups. These issues came to the forefront during the Johnson administration. In a 1965 commencement speech, President Johnson argued that equality of opportunity required more than simply ending discrimination. Rather, he argued for a more active interpretation of affirmative action that would assure "equality as a result."

In 1966, the U.S. Department of Labor began collecting employment records with breakdowns by race in order to evaluate hiring practices, overturning earlier policies of the Eisenhower and Kennedy administrations. In 1968, the Office of Federal Contract Compliance issued regulations which required, for the first time, that specific targets be set by which the effects of affirmative action programs could be evaluated. The regulations stated that "the contractor's program shall provide in detail for specific steps to guarantee equal employment opportunity keyed to the problems and needs of minority groups, including, when there are deficiencies, the development of specific goals and timetables for the prompt achievement of full and equal employment opportunity." It was in these regulations and analogous measures by the EEOC that the debate over affirmative action quotas had its origins.

Goals and timetables were established by the U.S. Department of Labor using "utilization analysis," which statistically compared the proportion of employed women and minorities in a firm with the proportion of women and minorities in the regional workforce, deriving a measure of what the department called "disparate impact." In the absence of discrimination, it was assumed that these proportions would and should be roughly equal. Since these regulations focused on results and not intent, the structural nature of discrimination was officially recognized. In addition, these regulations provided an official and measurable basis for the preferential treatment of affected groups.

In the landmark Griggs v. Duke Power Co. case of 1971, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled against Duke's requirement of high school diplomas or IQ tests for those applying for unskilled jobs. The decision held that "Title VII forbids not only practices adopted with a discriminatory motive, but also practices which, though adopted without discriminatory intent, have a discriminatory effect on minorities and women." The ruling provided a legal foundation for cases of "disparate impact," asserting that employers may not use job requirements that adversely affect women and minorities unless required by what it termed "business necessity." (For example, in the case of serious health or safety threats to co-workers or customers.)

The EEOC was strengthened by the Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972, which enabled the Commission to file class action suits. Under the Carter administration, the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection established the "four-fifths rule." This rule was significant in that it provided an explicit benchmark to determine disparate impact, which had been left vague in earlier U.S. Department of Labor regulations. The four-fifths rule held that firms contracting with the federal government should not be allowed to hire any race, s*x, or ethnic group at a rate below four-fifths that of any other group.

Another significant Supreme Court ruling on affirmative action came in a 1978 case, Regents of the University of California v. Bakke. Under the University of California at Davis's admission policies, 16 of 100 places were set aside for minority applicants. Allan Bakke was a white applicant who was denied enrollment to Davis's medical school, even though his test scores were higher than the minority students who were admitted. Casting the deciding vote, Justice Lewis Powell held that Bakke should be admitted to the program since Davis's policies constituted a rigid quota, but that, nonetheless, Davis could continue to favor minorities in its admission practices and that it had a "compelling state interest" to attain a diversified educational environment.

The tide favoring affirmative action began to turn in the 1980s during the Reagan and Bush administrations. In his 1980 campaign, Reagan stated, "We must not allow the noble concept of equal opportunity to be distorted into federal guidelines or quotas which require race, ethnicity, or s*x—rather than ability and qualifica-tions—to be the principal factor in hiring or education." Through court appointments, hiring and firing decisions, and budget cuts, the Reagan administration sought to end affirmative action as it had evolved since the Johnson administration. Between 1981 and 1983, the budget of the EEOC was cut by 10 percent and the staff by 12 percent. The Office of Federal Contract Compliance was hit harder yet, with budget cuts of 24 percent and staff cuts of 34 percent during these same years.

Two important Supreme Court rulings in the late-1980s also acted to substantially weaken affirmative action. The 1988 case, Watson v. Fort Worth Bank and Trust overturned the landmark 1971 case, Griggs v. Duke Power Co., shifting the burden of proof in employment discrimination cases from employers to plaintiffs. In the 1989 case Wards Cove Packing Company v. Antonio, the Court ruled that a plaintiff could not simply show disparate impact to prove discrimination, but must demonstrate that a specific employment practice created the existing disparity.

"I" WILL ALSO ASK ONE MORE TIME...

HAVE YOU EVER READ THE ORIGINAL AFFIRMATIVE ACTION LAW?

i PROMISE YOU IF YOU EVER READ IT YOU WILL FULLY UNDERSTAND WHY WE ARE CALLED LAZY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! tHAT PAPER WAS WRITTEN TO REALLY GET US U-P WHERE WE WERE SUPPOSE TO BE...I WILL TELL YOU RIGHT NOW WHEN i TELL YOU I FULL HOW THE AVERAGE A-A WERE TOO LAZY OR WAS IT JUST WAITING FOR SOMEONE TO COME AND l-e-a-d us to make life better for us in all tings in America............TO EVEN TAKE THE FEDERAL, STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT UP ON TH EPROGRAM (nup)

THAT WAS A POWERFUL PEICE OF PAPER...AND IT SEEM SINCE WE DID NOT WANT TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THIS ALL ONLY FOR MINORITYS...THE WHITE FEMALE GLADLY PUT IT TO USE AS IT WAS MEANT TO BE...NOTICE THEN AS CEO, BIGBUSNISSOWNERE, NEWS ANCORS...YES COULD HAVE NEVER HAPPENED IF NOT FOR a_a.....

it was only for minoritys and anything they asked for was thirs as the federal government had by law had to provided the resourdes needed!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!...if you like eventually I will reveal what we did to make sure Affirmative -Action would never ever work in our favor...

I am willing to bet no one is willing to even take a look at the original AA just complain about it not knowing what the hell you are talking about...well this is the way the powers taht be likes it.....IT WORKS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!(nup!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)

AND EVEN WORST WE ONLY SEE AFFERMATIVE ACTION IS RELATIONSHIP TO SCHOOL...BRAINWASHINGS WORK.........WORK TOO GOOD ESPECIALLY WHEN ONE TOROWS IN WELL IT IS BAD BECAUSE WE WERE SLAVES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

ACTUALLY THE SAME WAY IT WORKS THAT OUR PRESIDENT IS AN ILLEGAL ALIEN IS THE SAME PROCESS USED ON THE BLACK PANTHERS...MOST OF US STILL BELIEVE THEY WENT TO PRISON BECAUSE THEY BROKE A LAW...THE ONLY LAW THEY BROKE WAS DEMANDING WE GOT AFRICAN-AMERICAN HISTORY GET TAUGHT NOW UNTAUGHT THE OLD EUROPEN WAY ESPECIALLY THAT SLAVES COULD NOT READ OR WRITE WHEN THEY HAD THOUSANDS AND THOUSANDS OF PAPER, DIARY, POEMS PLAYS, ECT WRITTEN BY SLAVES...EVEN HOW A SLAVE INVENTED THE COTTON GIN.....AND OUNCTLESS THINGS DURING SLAVEERY(NUP)

Yep, because there is our Black history community version of this and the Fox cable newsnetwork and CNN's version of this..(smile)

@ANITA, THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR BEING THE 'LEADEER YOU HAVE BEEN WAITING FOR" (SMILE)

CAN CAYONE SAY...UNITY AFRICAN AND AFRICAN-AMERICAN- CENTER IS OUR SURVIVAL TOOL THAT WE ARE ALLOWING TO BE TAUGHT OUT OF US. (NUP)

...REVERSE DISCRIMINATION IS ANOTHER THING WE HAVE BEEN TAUGHT TO ACCEPT...AND THIS CASE WAS BASED ON THE CASE STRAIGHT OUT OF THE CONSERVATIVE UNSEGRAGATED CAMPUS THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA AT DAVIS, CA...(that is until please read my profile page.lol)

THAt case was created by Baca and the aUCD dministration which pitteted THE WHITE MALE COMPLAINTANT of an age that they would not even have accepted this white male into medical schoo there, l because of his age and his low point average grades.They pitted him against a Black female from Stanford university to get into medical school...she was teh right age and had greater GPA grade point s to have gotten her into medical school at UCD if not for it being Conservative and segragated!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

fox not CNN's BIAHisoory will ever tell you this but you can learn about it and please do it fast because these kinds of study departments are trying to get banned from our educational systems...

SEE THE STATE OF ARIZONA FOR FARTHER PROOFS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! N...U...P) (SMILE)

...for any who were not here when the history of Rap was talked about...I will do this later. (smile)

...sorry BAKKE...and, "I" will repeat we are the ones who must lead the charges against us.example the Black man(can't think of his name right now who led teh charge to get AA made illegal in my state can not even get the republican party to return a phone call...he is at the state fair each year and cannot get any sales of his books or anythng else sold to Black or Whites...CAN YOU SAY O.J. SIMPSON...CAN YOU SAY OPRAH...(SMILE)

YES IF THE STATE OF CA. COULD UNDUE MAKING AA ILLEGAL THEY WOULD DO SO...THEY ARE BEGGING MINORITIES TO COME IN WITH LOWER THAN AVERAGE GRADWS SO THEY CAN GET THE FUNDS...PLUS THEY CAN NO LONGER HOLD SEATS FOR THE RICH'S CHILDREN TO BE ABLE TO ENTER...OH, AND THE ORIENTALS HAVE RISEN THE GPA AVERAGE SO BAD UNTIL THE MAJORITY CAN NOT EVEN GET INOT MANY UNIVERSITIES OR REMAIN THERE AS BEFORE WITH LOW GRADES...

"I" CHANT (PRAY) THAT WE WILL SOON BE INTERESTED IN POSTING THE ACTUAL GRADUATIONS OF OUR PEOPLES FROM OUR OUT LOOK NOT THEIRS AS IT IS POSITIVE THE HIGHER LEVEL DEGREES WE NOW GET. (NUP)