Home > Blogs > Post Content
|
|
Ebony's Jamilah Lemieux challenges the arguments of Abigail Fisher, a white candidate who says she was denied the right to attend the University of Texas, which insists she wouldn't have gotten in even without affirmative action. Despite having graduated from a good college and working in her desired industry in the city of her choosing, she is still resentful of having been denied admission to the University of Texas. And while many graduates carry on a degree of bitterness over not having attended their first-choice school, few go so far as to take their gripes to the United States Supreme Court. Abigail Fisher has done just that ... I also wonder where Fisher would stand if she were in a position where her gender posed a threat to her career trajectory, considering how greatly White women have benefited from affirmative action. Alas, such is the devil that is race and class privilege; those who benefit don't say "You know what? It's enough that I have been able to grow up safely, with a relative unlikelihood that I would ever be suspended or diagnosed with a learning disorder based on my race and gender. It is enough that I was able attend college surrounded by people who looked like me and have a great career in the middle of a job crisis. It is enough that I haven't been racially profiled while driving, shopping or performing some other mundane task. It is enough that I have been assaulted by a police officer for simply daring to venture outside of my neighborhood. My privileges are enough." No, most of these people don't even see themselves as privileged. They simply acknowledge that they have rights and freedoms that "all" people should have, yet many of them challenge efforts to extend this access to others, particularly if there is any chance that they may not have the same entitlements to which they have been accustomed; others don't even feel that all Americans deserve their level of access, and work diligently to keep it reserved to certain groups. Abigail Fisher's privilege is not enough. If there is any miniscule barrier that may be placed before her, such as racial quotas at a school that has stated that she would not have been
Posted By: DAVID JOHNSON
Thursday, October 11th 2012 at 5:36PM
You can also
click
here to view all posts by this author...
|
|
|
Affirmative action was first created from Executive Order 10925, which was signed by President John F. Kennedy on 6 March 1961 and required that government employers "not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, creed, color, or national origin" and "take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin".[13] On 24 September 1965, President Lyndon B. Johnson signed Executive Order 11246, thereby replacing Executive Order 10925 and affirming Federal Government's commitment "to promote the full realization of equal employment opportunity through a positive, continuing program in each executive department and agency".[1] It is notable that affirmative action was not extended to women until Executive Order 11375 amended Executive Order 11246 on 13 October 1967, expanding the definition to include "s*x." Presently, affirmative action expressed through Executive Order 11246 considers factors of "race, color, religion, s*x, or national origin." In the U.S., affirmative action's original purpose was to pressure institutions into compliance with the nondiscrimination mandate of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.[5] The Civil Rights Acts do not cover veterans, people with disabilities, or people over 40. These groups are protected from discrimination under different laws.[14] Affirmative action has been the subject of numerous court cases,[15] and has been questioned upon its constitutional legitimacy. In 2003, a Supreme Court decision (Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 US 244 – Supreme Court 2003) regarding affirmative action in higher education permitted educational institutions to consider race as a factor; a small plus factor, when admitting students, but ruled that strict point systems are unconstitutional.[16] Alternatively, some colleges use financial criteria to attract racial groups that have typically been under-represented and typically have lower living conditions. Some states such as California (California Civil Rights Initiative), Michigan (Michigan Civil Rights Initiative), and Washington (Initiative 200) have passed constitutional amendments banning affirmative action within their respective states. Conservative activists have alleged that colleges quietly use illegal quotas and have launched numerous lawsuits to stop them.[1
Friday, October 12th 2012 at 3:42AM
DAVID JOHNSON
|
|
|
In the United States, affirmative action refers to equal opportunity employment measures that Federal contractors and subcontractors are legally required to adopt. These measures are intended to prevent discrimination against employees or applicants for employment, on the basis of "color, religion, s*x, or national origin".[1][2] Examples of affirmative action offered by the United States Department of Labor include outreach campaigns, targeted recruitment, employee and management development, and employee support programs.[2]
The impetus towards affirmative action is to redress the disadvantages[3][4][5][6][7] associated with overt historical discrimination.[8] Further impetus is a desire to ensure public institutions, such as universities, hospitals and police forces, are more representative of the populations they serve.[9] Affirmative action is a subject of controversy. Some policies adopted as affirmative action, such as racial quotas or gender quotas for collegiate admission, have been criticized as a form of reverse discrimination, and such implementation of affirmative action has been ruled unconstitutional by the majority opinion of Gratz v. Bollinger. Affirmative action as a practice was upheld by the court's decision in Grutter v. Bollinger.[10
Friday, October 12th 2012 at 3:44AM
DAVID JOHNSON
|
 |
A-A has been so used and abused and changed until it it no longer worth the paper it is written on any more. (smile)
"I" will repeat have any of you ever seen the 'original' A-A????????????...
Thursday, April 10th 2014 at 6:47PM
ROBINSON IRMA
|
|
|
@David...remember me always saying there is an African-American version of our history and one that is not about us at all???
well here is the brand new A-A specifically for colleges...
I am a minority
I am the first in my family to go to college
I have had to relocate to the campus that I qualify to be at...remember it is all about protectint the next generation and by the next generation we will be needing a new one, but we are all ways ready. lol!!!(smile)
AND, DAVID TODAY THE DANGERS OF NOT BEING ABLE TO AFFORD COLLEGE IS MORE OF A THREAT THEN OUR SKIN COLOR THEREFORE THIS COMES WITH TUTION...
Thursday, April 10th 2014 at 6:47PM
ROBINSON IRMA
|
|
|
A-A WAS TO PROVIDE A LEG UP (EVEN PLAYING FIELD) FOR AFRICAN-AMERICANS THAT BEING PUT INTO CHATEL SLAVERY TOOK AWAY FROM THEM...what part of the 'equal employment' act play in this at all?????????????????????!!??(nup!!!)
Thursday, April 10th 2014 at 6:47PM
ROBINSON IRMA
|
|
|
...OOPS, SINCE IT WAS 'ORIGINALLY' MEANT FOR BLACKS ONLY(which is almost totally unknown by far too, too many peoples)...which I do admit is reverse discrmination if put up against BVBOE...and, why I keep saying it had to be changed to fit into the 21st century just as all of the laws related to our civil rights gained in the 60s...
or if things don't change along with its enviornment, it becomes extenct. (smile)
Thursday, April 10th 2014 at 6:47PM
ROBINSON IRMA
|
Blogs Home
|
|
|
