Post by zarahan on Feb 13, 2012 11:13:32 GMT -5
www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=15&t=006150
Women are a protected class under Civil Rights laws and
most women in the US are white women- hence they are the primary
beneficiaries of "Affirmative action" policies established under
said civil rights laws.
Applicable legislation includes the Equal Pay Act of 1963 & Civil Rights Act of 1964
which establish women a a protected class.
Affirmative Action primarily benefits white women says
conservative female author
"I regard affirmative action as pernicious — a system that had
wonderful ideals when it started but was almost immediately
abused for the benefit of white middle-class women. And the
number one sign of it is in the universities. The elite schools
were destroyed by affirmative action for women, not for
blacks."
--Author/lecturer Prof. Camille Paglia
If as some authors hold AA benefits mostly white women,
white guys also benefit from that extra pay and perks brought
home by their white wives under AA
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Authors below argue that affirmative action primarily
benefits white women, not blacks or men.
battlinbog.blog-city.com/why_affirmative_action_is_failing_blacks.htm
WHY WORKPLACE AFFIRMATIVE ACTION HAS FAILED BLACK FAMILIES- 2003
"Affirmative action” means positive steps taken to increase the
representation of women and minorities in areas of
employment, education, and business from which they have
been historically excluded. —Stanford Encyclopedia of
Philosophy
"In recent years, the affirmative action debate has focused on
government-sponsored affirmative action and university
admissions, leaving corporate affirmative action relatively
unexamined." --Christopher M. Leporini
To pay-equity feminists and the mainstream media, this
perspective on affirmative action may be the most threatening
of all perspectives on any topic. Hence it will be the most
ignored by them.
Black Americans have at least one good reason to persist in
demanding affirmative action: their wages, which ought to be
the true reflection of affirmative action's success -- where the
rubber meets the road -- continue to gain poorly on whites’.
Between 1985 and 2000, blacks’ median wage advanced on
whites’ by a mere 1.2 percent. Why? Because although
“affirmative action programs are often described in the press as
being based on ‘racial preference,’” says Dr. Manning Marable,
Director of the Institute for Research in African-American
Studies, Columbia University, New York City, “the
overwhelming majority of those who are the chief beneficiaries
of affirmative action are white women.”
Dr. Marable is hardly the only person aware of this fact. In the
2006 book Legalizing Misandry: From Public Shame to
Systemic Discrimination Against Men, the authors write,
"Although polls have shown considerable American support for
affirmative action, those who advocate equality of opportunity
(even in a modified form) have criticized it for...conferring
greater benefits on white women than blacks of either sex, for
whom affirmative action was originally designed."
Citing a statistic representative of many employers up and
down the country, a March 1998 press release from the State of
Washington’s Office of the Governor informs: “Of Washington
state workers who have benefited directly from affirmative
action, 60 percent are white women….”
Thanks to the myriad mandated affirmative-action programs at
public institutions and at employers doing business with or
receiving funds from the federal government, and thanks to the
voluntary affirmative-action programs of private-sector
employers, white women have done quite well. Compare their
wage gain from 1985 to 2000 to other groups'. White men's
median wage rose 60 percent, black men's 65 percent, and
black women's 70 percent: white women came well out on top
with a 78 percent gain. White women's big leap contributed
greatly to blacks’ paltry gain on whites.
Feminists in particular strongly support white women’s
inclusion in affirmative action. The Gloria Steinemites believe
white women experience an oppression similar to blacks'.
White women's oppression, say these feminists, stems
primarily from the fact that white women have been excluded,
like blacks, from “white men’s” jobs.
But unlike blacks, says Warren Farrell, author of Why Men
Earn More (read about the book and watch a Real Video of
Farrell with audience participation), “Women are the only
‘oppressed’ group…to be born into the middle class and upper
class as frequently as the ‘oppressor.’”
Moreover, white women generally have been able to find a
well-paid husband roughly to the same degree that white men
have been able to find a well-paid job. Via marriage, birth, and
inheritance, white women have benefited from white men’s
jobs as much as white men themselves. When they divorce,
they receive, on average, more child support and alimony than
blacks. (The term alimony may provoke cynical laughter
among the black women whoEditor & Publisher consider
alimony a privilege reserved for white women.) Recognizing
women’s economic well-being, an Editor & Publisher front
page in 1996 touted: “Who controls most of the wealth in the
nation? Women.” The headline was not, of course, talking
about black women. Says PBS's "To the Contrary" : "Women
actually control 51.3% of percent wealth in the United States."
Women also control, according to American Demographic,
consumer spending by a wide margin in nearly every consumer
category.
"I regard affirmative action as pernicious — a system that had
wonderful ideals when it started but was almost immediately
abused for the benefit of white middle-class women. And the
number one sign of it is in the universities. The elite schools
were destroyed by affirmative action for women, not for
blacks."
--Author/lecturer Prof. Camille Paglia
White female "double dip" gains under affirmative action. Income gains
are shared with spouses or boyfriends, and even if some men are displaced
by AA in one place, other men may benefit in others
Linking white women to affirmative-action goals, right or
wrong, has yielded a great irony in an unintended consequence.
Just as most white men share their income and assets with
white women, most white women reciprocate with white men.
More to the point, they share with them their affirmative action
gains. This means, possibly, that by virtue of the huge number
of white women assisted by affirmative action, white men are
the program’s second biggest beneficiaries, despite however
often they as individuals may suffer “reverse” discrimination.
For every white man hurt by affirmative action, another might
be obliquely aided. Perhaps even many of those who are hurt
are partially or fully compensated — "under the table," some
blacks could argue — when affirmative action rewards their
wives.
That white men profit via this roundabout fashion is no secret.
“Affirmative action has enabled wives and daughters and
mothers and girlfriends to compete in the workplace,” said
Ralph G. Neas, former executive director of the Leadership
Conference on Civil Rights, “and that has helped entire
families, including white males in those families.” Corretta
Scott King, speaking at a Washington County university on
Martin Luther King Day, didn’t explicitly say affirmative
action helps white men, but implied as much when she said,
“So affirmative action benefits all families.” [Why a program
to help all families?!]
"Between 1974 and 2004, white and black men in their 30s
experienced a decline in income, with the largest decline
among black men. However, median family incomes for both
racial groups increased, because of large increases in women’s
incomes. Income growth was particularly high for white
women. The lack of income growth for black men combined
with low marriage rates in the black population has had a
negative impact on trends in family income for black families."
-Economic Mobility Project
Thus, a program that was conceived to help the oppressed
appears to help the “oppressors” about as much. Who knows, it
may lend a hand to more middle- and upper-class white
families than to poor black ones, since a beneficiary’s
economic status isn’t a qualifying factor. How many times, I
wonder, has the wife or daughter of a well-paid white man been
boosted by affirmative action into a well-paid job herself -- a
job that might otherwise have gone to a poor but qualified
black American? This perversion of justice may occur often,
and it would at least partly explain why, despite the strides of
many individual blacks, blacks as a group have economically
progressed so little on whites. And at a appalling 1.2 percent
progression every 1.5 decades, black households won’t reach
wage parity with whites' for at least 200 years.
Which group has affirmative action benefitted the least? Black
men. Which group was originally intended to be the sole
beneficiary of affirmative action? Black men. Shhh! Don't talk
about this!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PSAT and SAT modified college admission tests so white girls
primarily would score higher, and reduce the number of men
-------------
College Board Revises Test to Improve Chances for Girls. 1996. Karen W. Arenson 10/2/1996 NY Times
www.nytimes.com/1996/10/02/us/college-board-revises-test-to-improve-chances-for-girls.html?pagewanted=print&src=pm
-----------------
Resolving a complaint that girls lose out to boys unfairly in the awarding
of the prestigious National Merit Scholarships, the College Board has
agreed to modify its Preliminary Scholastic Assessment Test, the main
determinant in awarding the scholarships, the Federal Department of
Education announced yesterday.
In the agreement, reached with the department's Office of Civil Rights, t
he College Board said that beginning in 1997, it would add a multiple-choice
test on writing to the P.S.A.T. exam, which is taken by juniors. One version
of the test taken by seniors, the Scholastic Assessment Test, already
contains a similar section on writing.
Donald M. Stewart, president of the College Board, which oversees
both tests, said the board expected that the addition of the additional
test was likely to give girls higher scores since girls ''tend to do better
than boys'' on that type of test.
----------------------------------------------------------------
^^Fisher was shrewdly selected- presenting a quiet, white, "girl next door" figure. Per one commentator:
"http://www.theroot.com/articles/politics/2013/06/fisher_affirmative_action_case_key_facts_and_opinions.html
Attorney Edward Blum operated as a matchmaker of sorts when he selected Fisher as the plaintiff in this case, Katherine Guthrie wrote in a blog post for MSNBC. "He wanted a white applicant whose test scores and GPA surpassed some of the criteria applied to nonwhite applicants. He also had some less concrete criteria; he wanted someone with patience, willing to wait out the long process of litigation, as well as someone he thought he could work with over a long period of time." Not only did Fisher have the numbers Blum wanted, Guthrie wrote, but Blum had also known her family since before she was born.
--------------------------
In the well publicized Fisher case, a white woman sued because she said she was denied admission because slots went to blacks. Turns out that even if there were no blacks, she still would not have gotten in.
Even if she were given extra points due to HER race, she still won;t have gotten in either. As the article writer notes below, 5, that's a grand total of FIVE minority (Black and Latino) students who got in with lower grades that Fisher were singled out and bashed as "undeserving." But there were also 42 WHITE students who ALSO got in with LOWER grades than Fisher. They however received little demonization compared to the five "undeserving" coloreds. Fisher sued on the basis of the five minority students though, not her fellow whites who had LOWER scores than her. And Fisher failed to meet the Texas standards of graduating in the top 10 percent of her class for university admission- going an alternative application route. Applicants who, like Fisher, fail to graduate in the top 10% of their high schools, have a further opportunity to gain admission to the University by scoring highly in a process which evaluates their talents, leadership qualities, family circumstances and race. In short, Fisher herself sought admission under a process that among other actors, takes race into account. What happened to the pristine white "merit" we have been told about?
QUOTE:
"As for Fisher, there is ample evidence that she just wasn’t qualified to get into the University of Texas. After all, her grades weren’t that great, and the year she applied for the university, admissions there were actually more competitive than Harvard’s. In its court filings, the university has pointed out that even if Fisher received a point for race, she still wouldn’t have met the threshold for admissions. Yes, it is true that in the same year, the University of Texas made exceptions and admitted some students with lower grades and test scores than Fisher. Five of those students were black or Latino. Forty-two were white."
--Sally Kohn 2013. Time Mag Affirmative Action Has Helped White Women More Than Anyone
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Social security setup benefits primarily white women at the
expense of blacks says conservative author
Says historian/economist Thomas Sowell,
"[Social Security] is not a racial policy...but economists who
have studied it have long described it as a system that transfers
money from black men to white women, given the different life
expectancies of these two groups.”
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other "minorities" quickly piggy-backed on a program
ostensibly set up to help blacks including white women who
are not a numerical "minority.
QUOTE:
"As in other countries, however, these policies spread far
beyond the initial beneficiaries. Blacks are just 12 percent of
the American population, but affirmative action programs have
expanded over the years to include not only other racial or
ethnic groups, but also women, so that such policies now apply
to a substantial majority of the American population... the top
20 percent of black income earners had their income share
rising at about the same rate as that of their white counterparts,
while the bottom 20 percent of black income earners had their
income share fall at more than double the rate of the bottom 20
percent of white income earners. In short, the affirmative action
era in the United States saw the more fortunate blacks benefit
while the least fortunate lost ground in terms of their share of
incomes. Neither the gains nor the losses can be arbitrarily
attributed to affirmative action but neither can affirmative
action claim to have advanced lower-income blacks when in
fact those fell behind."
Thomas Sowell, 2004. Affirmative Action Around the World, pp 95-187
Sowell holds that immigrants classified as "minorities",
suffering no past discrimination in the United States are
benefitting well from Affirmative Action. The Fanjul family
from Cuba for example, with a fortune exceeding $500 million
- received contract set asides for minority businesses. European
businessmen from Portugal received the bulk of the money
paid to "minority owned construction firms" between 1886 and
1990n in Washington D.C. Asian businessmen immigrating to
the United States had also received preferential access to
government contracts.
Sowell also argues that while blacks are the claimed
beneficiaries of a program primarily intended to benefit blacks,
a huge majority of "minority and female owned" businesses are
in fact owned by groups ''other'' than blacks, including Asians,
Hispanics and women. In addition the vast majority of
"minority" firms appeared to gain little from government
set-asides. in Cincinnati for example, 682 minority forms
appeared on the city's approved list but 13% of these
companies received 62% of preferential access and 83% of the
money. Nationally, a miniscule one-fourth of one percent of
minority-owned enterprises are certified to receive preferences
under the Small Business Administration, but even within this
tiny number, 2% of the firms received 40% of the money.<ref>
Thomas Sowell, 2004. Affirmative Action Around the World, pp
115-147</ref>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The expansion of government saw increased hiring in the public
sector since the 1950s, when Jim Crow practices prevailed for blacks
in much of the United States. These increases are an already established
pattern long before the Civil Rights Movement. As regards Affirmative
Action, some scholarly studies find biggest gains of Affirmative Action
go to white women
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Enforcement of affirmative action regs is weak and patchy
contradicting claims of alleged "race police" intimidating
employers into hiring hordes of "blacks." QUOTE:
"Enforcement of affirmative action regulations has been sketchy.
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is limited to responding
to discrimination complaints while the Office of Federal Contract
Compliance, the main government agency concerned with affirmative
action in the workplace as the overseer for federal contractors is
understaffed to the point where it would take decades for it to
investigate each contractor workplace once. Out of the employers
in checked in 1994-1995, 75 percent were in substantial noncompliance."
--Joyce Jacobsen, The Economics of Gender (2007)
Alleged "calamity" affecting white males "swamped" by
black AA quotas is bogus, according to detailed US Dept of
Labor survey of reverse discrimination cases. Most cases
brought by white complainers lacked merit, courts ruled.
FROM NY TIMES ARTICLE- CITING US DEPT OF
LABOR STUDIES
Reverse-discrimination claims fell into two categories:
individual decisions in which a white man asserted that he
would have been hired for a job had he been black or female,
and cases that claimed programs or plans unfairly favored
women and minorities.
“Many of the cases were the result of a disappointed applicant
failing to examine his or her own qualifications,” Mr.
Blumrosen wrote, “and erroneously assuming that when a
woman or minority got the job, it was because of race or sex,
not qualifications.
Affirmative action has caused very few claims of reverse
discrimination by white people, according to a draft of a report
prepared by the Labor Department. The author says his findings
poke holes in the theory that affirmative-action programs
unfairly benefit minorities at the expense of white workers.
The report, prepared by a law professor at Rutgers University,
Alfred W. Blumrosen, found fewer than 100
reverse-discrimination cases among more than 3,000
discrimination opinions by Federal district and appeals courts
from 1990 to 1994.
A "high proportion" of the reverse-discrimination claims lacked
merit, the review found. Reverse discrimination was
established in six cases, and the courts provided appropriate
relief in those cases, it said.
"This research suggests that the problem of 'reverse
discrimination' is not widespread; and that where it exists, the
courts have given relief," Mr. Blumrosen wrote. "Nothing in
these cases would justify dismantling the existing structure of
equal employment opportunity programs."
Reverse-discrimination claims fell into two categories:
individual decisions in which a white man asserted that he
would have been hired for a job had he been black or female,
and cases that claimed programs or plans unfairly favored
women and minorities.
"Many of the cases were the result of a disappointed applicant
failing to examine his or her own qualifications," Mr.
Blumrosen wrote, "and erroneously assuming that when a
woman or minority got the job, it was because of race or sex,
not qualifications."
www.nytimes.com/1995/03/31/us/reverse-discrimination-complaints-rare-labor-study-reports.html
(Blumrosen, A. (1996: pp 5-6) US Department of Labor:
Discrimination COmplaints Review (1990-1994))
Other detailed studies BY SCHOLARS show very little
reverse discrimnation against whites in employment, exposing
the bogus propaganda spun by racist "biodiversity" proponents.
Most discrimination complaints brought by white men actually
involve sex, not race discrimintion, and the main opponent of
the white men in said complaints was WHITE women.
"Reverse discrimination is rate both in absolute terms and
relative to conventional discrimination. The most direct
evidence for this conclusion comes from employment-audit
studies. On every measured outcome, African-American men
were much more likely than white men to experience
discrimination, and Latinos were more likely than
non-Hispanic men to experience discrimination (Heckman and
Siegelman 1993, p. 218) Statistics on the numbers and
outcomes of complaints of employment discrimination also
suggest that reverse discriination is rare. According to national
surverys, relatively few whites have experienced reverse
discrimination. Only 5 to 12 percent of whites beleive that their
race has cost them a job or promotion, compared to 36 percent
of African AMericans... Alfred Blumrosen's (1996, pp. 5-6)
exhaustive review of discrimination complaints filed with the
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission offers additional
evidence that reverse discrimination is rare...
[of cases] two percent were by white men
charging sex, race or national origin discrimination
(three-quarters of these charged sex discriminatin) and 1.8
percent were by whote women charging race discrimination
(Blumrosen p. 5)"
--Tracy E. Ore - 2005. The social construction of difference and
inequality p. 390
Other detailed studies show trivial to almost no "reverse
discrimination" against whites in employment. These studies
note that reverse discrimination has occurred, but its prevalence
is rare
QUOTE:
"Barbara Reskin 1998) also acknowledges that some white
men are hurt. In the four-page section n reverse discrimination,
she discusses studies showing that few EEOC cases involving
charges of dsicrimination filed by white men (Blumrosen 1995,
1996) and the few federal appeals court cases involving
discrimination where white men are the plaintiffs (Burstein,
1991; She concludes, "Although rare, reverse discrimination
does occur."
--Fred Pincus 2010. Reverse discrimination: dismantling the
myth
Women are a protected class under Civil Rights laws and
most women in the US are white women- hence they are the primary
beneficiaries of "Affirmative action" policies established under
said civil rights laws.
Applicable legislation includes the Equal Pay Act of 1963 & Civil Rights Act of 1964
which establish women a a protected class.
Affirmative Action primarily benefits white women says
conservative female author
"I regard affirmative action as pernicious — a system that had
wonderful ideals when it started but was almost immediately
abused for the benefit of white middle-class women. And the
number one sign of it is in the universities. The elite schools
were destroyed by affirmative action for women, not for
blacks."
--Author/lecturer Prof. Camille Paglia
If as some authors hold AA benefits mostly white women,
white guys also benefit from that extra pay and perks brought
home by their white wives under AA
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Authors below argue that affirmative action primarily
benefits white women, not blacks or men.
battlinbog.blog-city.com/why_affirmative_action_is_failing_blacks.htm
WHY WORKPLACE AFFIRMATIVE ACTION HAS FAILED BLACK FAMILIES- 2003
"Affirmative action” means positive steps taken to increase the
representation of women and minorities in areas of
employment, education, and business from which they have
been historically excluded. —Stanford Encyclopedia of
Philosophy
"In recent years, the affirmative action debate has focused on
government-sponsored affirmative action and university
admissions, leaving corporate affirmative action relatively
unexamined." --Christopher M. Leporini
To pay-equity feminists and the mainstream media, this
perspective on affirmative action may be the most threatening
of all perspectives on any topic. Hence it will be the most
ignored by them.
Black Americans have at least one good reason to persist in
demanding affirmative action: their wages, which ought to be
the true reflection of affirmative action's success -- where the
rubber meets the road -- continue to gain poorly on whites’.
Between 1985 and 2000, blacks’ median wage advanced on
whites’ by a mere 1.2 percent. Why? Because although
“affirmative action programs are often described in the press as
being based on ‘racial preference,’” says Dr. Manning Marable,
Director of the Institute for Research in African-American
Studies, Columbia University, New York City, “the
overwhelming majority of those who are the chief beneficiaries
of affirmative action are white women.”
Dr. Marable is hardly the only person aware of this fact. In the
2006 book Legalizing Misandry: From Public Shame to
Systemic Discrimination Against Men, the authors write,
"Although polls have shown considerable American support for
affirmative action, those who advocate equality of opportunity
(even in a modified form) have criticized it for...conferring
greater benefits on white women than blacks of either sex, for
whom affirmative action was originally designed."
Citing a statistic representative of many employers up and
down the country, a March 1998 press release from the State of
Washington’s Office of the Governor informs: “Of Washington
state workers who have benefited directly from affirmative
action, 60 percent are white women….”
Thanks to the myriad mandated affirmative-action programs at
public institutions and at employers doing business with or
receiving funds from the federal government, and thanks to the
voluntary affirmative-action programs of private-sector
employers, white women have done quite well. Compare their
wage gain from 1985 to 2000 to other groups'. White men's
median wage rose 60 percent, black men's 65 percent, and
black women's 70 percent: white women came well out on top
with a 78 percent gain. White women's big leap contributed
greatly to blacks’ paltry gain on whites.
Feminists in particular strongly support white women’s
inclusion in affirmative action. The Gloria Steinemites believe
white women experience an oppression similar to blacks'.
White women's oppression, say these feminists, stems
primarily from the fact that white women have been excluded,
like blacks, from “white men’s” jobs.
But unlike blacks, says Warren Farrell, author of Why Men
Earn More (read about the book and watch a Real Video of
Farrell with audience participation), “Women are the only
‘oppressed’ group…to be born into the middle class and upper
class as frequently as the ‘oppressor.’”
Moreover, white women generally have been able to find a
well-paid husband roughly to the same degree that white men
have been able to find a well-paid job. Via marriage, birth, and
inheritance, white women have benefited from white men’s
jobs as much as white men themselves. When they divorce,
they receive, on average, more child support and alimony than
blacks. (The term alimony may provoke cynical laughter
among the black women whoEditor & Publisher consider
alimony a privilege reserved for white women.) Recognizing
women’s economic well-being, an Editor & Publisher front
page in 1996 touted: “Who controls most of the wealth in the
nation? Women.” The headline was not, of course, talking
about black women. Says PBS's "To the Contrary" : "Women
actually control 51.3% of percent wealth in the United States."
Women also control, according to American Demographic,
consumer spending by a wide margin in nearly every consumer
category.
"I regard affirmative action as pernicious — a system that had
wonderful ideals when it started but was almost immediately
abused for the benefit of white middle-class women. And the
number one sign of it is in the universities. The elite schools
were destroyed by affirmative action for women, not for
blacks."
--Author/lecturer Prof. Camille Paglia
White female "double dip" gains under affirmative action. Income gains
are shared with spouses or boyfriends, and even if some men are displaced
by AA in one place, other men may benefit in others
Linking white women to affirmative-action goals, right or
wrong, has yielded a great irony in an unintended consequence.
Just as most white men share their income and assets with
white women, most white women reciprocate with white men.
More to the point, they share with them their affirmative action
gains. This means, possibly, that by virtue of the huge number
of white women assisted by affirmative action, white men are
the program’s second biggest beneficiaries, despite however
often they as individuals may suffer “reverse” discrimination.
For every white man hurt by affirmative action, another might
be obliquely aided. Perhaps even many of those who are hurt
are partially or fully compensated — "under the table," some
blacks could argue — when affirmative action rewards their
wives.
That white men profit via this roundabout fashion is no secret.
“Affirmative action has enabled wives and daughters and
mothers and girlfriends to compete in the workplace,” said
Ralph G. Neas, former executive director of the Leadership
Conference on Civil Rights, “and that has helped entire
families, including white males in those families.” Corretta
Scott King, speaking at a Washington County university on
Martin Luther King Day, didn’t explicitly say affirmative
action helps white men, but implied as much when she said,
“So affirmative action benefits all families.” [Why a program
to help all families?!]
"Between 1974 and 2004, white and black men in their 30s
experienced a decline in income, with the largest decline
among black men. However, median family incomes for both
racial groups increased, because of large increases in women’s
incomes. Income growth was particularly high for white
women. The lack of income growth for black men combined
with low marriage rates in the black population has had a
negative impact on trends in family income for black families."
-Economic Mobility Project
Thus, a program that was conceived to help the oppressed
appears to help the “oppressors” about as much. Who knows, it
may lend a hand to more middle- and upper-class white
families than to poor black ones, since a beneficiary’s
economic status isn’t a qualifying factor. How many times, I
wonder, has the wife or daughter of a well-paid white man been
boosted by affirmative action into a well-paid job herself -- a
job that might otherwise have gone to a poor but qualified
black American? This perversion of justice may occur often,
and it would at least partly explain why, despite the strides of
many individual blacks, blacks as a group have economically
progressed so little on whites. And at a appalling 1.2 percent
progression every 1.5 decades, black households won’t reach
wage parity with whites' for at least 200 years.
Which group has affirmative action benefitted the least? Black
men. Which group was originally intended to be the sole
beneficiary of affirmative action? Black men. Shhh! Don't talk
about this!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PSAT and SAT modified college admission tests so white girls
primarily would score higher, and reduce the number of men
-------------
College Board Revises Test to Improve Chances for Girls. 1996. Karen W. Arenson 10/2/1996 NY Times
www.nytimes.com/1996/10/02/us/college-board-revises-test-to-improve-chances-for-girls.html?pagewanted=print&src=pm
-----------------
Resolving a complaint that girls lose out to boys unfairly in the awarding
of the prestigious National Merit Scholarships, the College Board has
agreed to modify its Preliminary Scholastic Assessment Test, the main
determinant in awarding the scholarships, the Federal Department of
Education announced yesterday.
In the agreement, reached with the department's Office of Civil Rights, t
he College Board said that beginning in 1997, it would add a multiple-choice
test on writing to the P.S.A.T. exam, which is taken by juniors. One version
of the test taken by seniors, the Scholastic Assessment Test, already
contains a similar section on writing.
Donald M. Stewart, president of the College Board, which oversees
both tests, said the board expected that the addition of the additional
test was likely to give girls higher scores since girls ''tend to do better
than boys'' on that type of test.
----------------------------------------------------------------
^^Fisher was shrewdly selected- presenting a quiet, white, "girl next door" figure. Per one commentator:
"http://www.theroot.com/articles/politics/2013/06/fisher_affirmative_action_case_key_facts_and_opinions.html
Attorney Edward Blum operated as a matchmaker of sorts when he selected Fisher as the plaintiff in this case, Katherine Guthrie wrote in a blog post for MSNBC. "He wanted a white applicant whose test scores and GPA surpassed some of the criteria applied to nonwhite applicants. He also had some less concrete criteria; he wanted someone with patience, willing to wait out the long process of litigation, as well as someone he thought he could work with over a long period of time." Not only did Fisher have the numbers Blum wanted, Guthrie wrote, but Blum had also known her family since before she was born.
--------------------------
In the well publicized Fisher case, a white woman sued because she said she was denied admission because slots went to blacks. Turns out that even if there were no blacks, she still would not have gotten in.
Even if she were given extra points due to HER race, she still won;t have gotten in either. As the article writer notes below, 5, that's a grand total of FIVE minority (Black and Latino) students who got in with lower grades that Fisher were singled out and bashed as "undeserving." But there were also 42 WHITE students who ALSO got in with LOWER grades than Fisher. They however received little demonization compared to the five "undeserving" coloreds. Fisher sued on the basis of the five minority students though, not her fellow whites who had LOWER scores than her. And Fisher failed to meet the Texas standards of graduating in the top 10 percent of her class for university admission- going an alternative application route. Applicants who, like Fisher, fail to graduate in the top 10% of their high schools, have a further opportunity to gain admission to the University by scoring highly in a process which evaluates their talents, leadership qualities, family circumstances and race. In short, Fisher herself sought admission under a process that among other actors, takes race into account. What happened to the pristine white "merit" we have been told about?
QUOTE:
"As for Fisher, there is ample evidence that she just wasn’t qualified to get into the University of Texas. After all, her grades weren’t that great, and the year she applied for the university, admissions there were actually more competitive than Harvard’s. In its court filings, the university has pointed out that even if Fisher received a point for race, she still wouldn’t have met the threshold for admissions. Yes, it is true that in the same year, the University of Texas made exceptions and admitted some students with lower grades and test scores than Fisher. Five of those students were black or Latino. Forty-two were white."
--Sally Kohn 2013. Time Mag Affirmative Action Has Helped White Women More Than Anyone
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Social security setup benefits primarily white women at the
expense of blacks says conservative author
Says historian/economist Thomas Sowell,
"[Social Security] is not a racial policy...but economists who
have studied it have long described it as a system that transfers
money from black men to white women, given the different life
expectancies of these two groups.”
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other "minorities" quickly piggy-backed on a program
ostensibly set up to help blacks including white women who
are not a numerical "minority.
QUOTE:
"As in other countries, however, these policies spread far
beyond the initial beneficiaries. Blacks are just 12 percent of
the American population, but affirmative action programs have
expanded over the years to include not only other racial or
ethnic groups, but also women, so that such policies now apply
to a substantial majority of the American population... the top
20 percent of black income earners had their income share
rising at about the same rate as that of their white counterparts,
while the bottom 20 percent of black income earners had their
income share fall at more than double the rate of the bottom 20
percent of white income earners. In short, the affirmative action
era in the United States saw the more fortunate blacks benefit
while the least fortunate lost ground in terms of their share of
incomes. Neither the gains nor the losses can be arbitrarily
attributed to affirmative action but neither can affirmative
action claim to have advanced lower-income blacks when in
fact those fell behind."
Thomas Sowell, 2004. Affirmative Action Around the World, pp 95-187
Sowell holds that immigrants classified as "minorities",
suffering no past discrimination in the United States are
benefitting well from Affirmative Action. The Fanjul family
from Cuba for example, with a fortune exceeding $500 million
- received contract set asides for minority businesses. European
businessmen from Portugal received the bulk of the money
paid to "minority owned construction firms" between 1886 and
1990n in Washington D.C. Asian businessmen immigrating to
the United States had also received preferential access to
government contracts.
Sowell also argues that while blacks are the claimed
beneficiaries of a program primarily intended to benefit blacks,
a huge majority of "minority and female owned" businesses are
in fact owned by groups ''other'' than blacks, including Asians,
Hispanics and women. In addition the vast majority of
"minority" firms appeared to gain little from government
set-asides. in Cincinnati for example, 682 minority forms
appeared on the city's approved list but 13% of these
companies received 62% of preferential access and 83% of the
money. Nationally, a miniscule one-fourth of one percent of
minority-owned enterprises are certified to receive preferences
under the Small Business Administration, but even within this
tiny number, 2% of the firms received 40% of the money.<ref>
Thomas Sowell, 2004. Affirmative Action Around the World, pp
115-147</ref>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The expansion of government saw increased hiring in the public
sector since the 1950s, when Jim Crow practices prevailed for blacks
in much of the United States. These increases are an already established
pattern long before the Civil Rights Movement. As regards Affirmative
Action, some scholarly studies find biggest gains of Affirmative Action
go to white women
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Enforcement of affirmative action regs is weak and patchy
contradicting claims of alleged "race police" intimidating
employers into hiring hordes of "blacks." QUOTE:
"Enforcement of affirmative action regulations has been sketchy.
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is limited to responding
to discrimination complaints while the Office of Federal Contract
Compliance, the main government agency concerned with affirmative
action in the workplace as the overseer for federal contractors is
understaffed to the point where it would take decades for it to
investigate each contractor workplace once. Out of the employers
in checked in 1994-1995, 75 percent were in substantial noncompliance."
--Joyce Jacobsen, The Economics of Gender (2007)
Alleged "calamity" affecting white males "swamped" by
black AA quotas is bogus, according to detailed US Dept of
Labor survey of reverse discrimination cases. Most cases
brought by white complainers lacked merit, courts ruled.
FROM NY TIMES ARTICLE- CITING US DEPT OF
LABOR STUDIES
Reverse-discrimination claims fell into two categories:
individual decisions in which a white man asserted that he
would have been hired for a job had he been black or female,
and cases that claimed programs or plans unfairly favored
women and minorities.
“Many of the cases were the result of a disappointed applicant
failing to examine his or her own qualifications,” Mr.
Blumrosen wrote, “and erroneously assuming that when a
woman or minority got the job, it was because of race or sex,
not qualifications.
Affirmative action has caused very few claims of reverse
discrimination by white people, according to a draft of a report
prepared by the Labor Department. The author says his findings
poke holes in the theory that affirmative-action programs
unfairly benefit minorities at the expense of white workers.
The report, prepared by a law professor at Rutgers University,
Alfred W. Blumrosen, found fewer than 100
reverse-discrimination cases among more than 3,000
discrimination opinions by Federal district and appeals courts
from 1990 to 1994.
A "high proportion" of the reverse-discrimination claims lacked
merit, the review found. Reverse discrimination was
established in six cases, and the courts provided appropriate
relief in those cases, it said.
"This research suggests that the problem of 'reverse
discrimination' is not widespread; and that where it exists, the
courts have given relief," Mr. Blumrosen wrote. "Nothing in
these cases would justify dismantling the existing structure of
equal employment opportunity programs."
Reverse-discrimination claims fell into two categories:
individual decisions in which a white man asserted that he
would have been hired for a job had he been black or female,
and cases that claimed programs or plans unfairly favored
women and minorities.
"Many of the cases were the result of a disappointed applicant
failing to examine his or her own qualifications," Mr.
Blumrosen wrote, "and erroneously assuming that when a
woman or minority got the job, it was because of race or sex,
not qualifications."
www.nytimes.com/1995/03/31/us/reverse-discrimination-complaints-rare-labor-study-reports.html
(Blumrosen, A. (1996: pp 5-6) US Department of Labor:
Discrimination COmplaints Review (1990-1994))
Other detailed studies BY SCHOLARS show very little
reverse discrimnation against whites in employment, exposing
the bogus propaganda spun by racist "biodiversity" proponents.
Most discrimination complaints brought by white men actually
involve sex, not race discrimintion, and the main opponent of
the white men in said complaints was WHITE women.
"Reverse discrimination is rate both in absolute terms and
relative to conventional discrimination. The most direct
evidence for this conclusion comes from employment-audit
studies. On every measured outcome, African-American men
were much more likely than white men to experience
discrimination, and Latinos were more likely than
non-Hispanic men to experience discrimination (Heckman and
Siegelman 1993, p. 218) Statistics on the numbers and
outcomes of complaints of employment discrimination also
suggest that reverse discriination is rare. According to national
surverys, relatively few whites have experienced reverse
discrimination. Only 5 to 12 percent of whites beleive that their
race has cost them a job or promotion, compared to 36 percent
of African AMericans... Alfred Blumrosen's (1996, pp. 5-6)
exhaustive review of discrimination complaints filed with the
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission offers additional
evidence that reverse discrimination is rare...
[of cases] two percent were by white men
charging sex, race or national origin discrimination
(three-quarters of these charged sex discriminatin) and 1.8
percent were by whote women charging race discrimination
(Blumrosen p. 5)"
--Tracy E. Ore - 2005. The social construction of difference and
inequality p. 390
Other detailed studies show trivial to almost no "reverse
discrimination" against whites in employment. These studies
note that reverse discrimination has occurred, but its prevalence
is rare
QUOTE:
"Barbara Reskin 1998) also acknowledges that some white
men are hurt. In the four-page section n reverse discrimination,
she discusses studies showing that few EEOC cases involving
charges of dsicrimination filed by white men (Blumrosen 1995,
1996) and the few federal appeals court cases involving
discrimination where white men are the plaintiffs (Burstein,
1991; She concludes, "Although rare, reverse discrimination
does occur."
--Fred Pincus 2010. Reverse discrimination: dismantling the
myth
