White women primary "Affirmative action" gainers

[zarahan]

Once again, I emphasize QUALIFIED. No one was just given a job etc because of their skin color. They had to have the qualifications for the job etc.

^^Quite true, and I am glad you point this out. There is a lot
of bogus propaganda out there bout so called floods of "unqualified"
minorities "taking" white jobs. Now could it be that out of several
million job seekers, in thousands of job sites, somehow, somewhere
over multiple decades, someone unqualified got hired? Sure. You can always
find 1% or 2% of something, somewhere, sometime, with a sampling set of millions.
But is that the norm, or anything significant? NO.

ANd many polls consistently show most blacks opposed to "affirmative action"
quotas such has hiring someone simply because he or she is black. A lot
depends on the definitions pollsters use- but the classic staple of
white propaganda about vast "quotas" for blacks, not only is bogus
but most blacks themselves oppose such "quota" benefit merely because of
blackness. Where courts are making whole the actual victims of past discrimination,
just like they have done for white unionists- blacks support such "make whole" measures.
But as far as "quotas just cuz you black" most blacks have little sympathy with that.
One poll cited in the 1980s for example showed 77% of blacks opposed to
"affirmative action." (Discourse and Discrimination, 1988, edited by Geneva
Smitherman, Teun Adrianus van Dijk)


And as noted above "affirmative action" first appears as a process benefiting
WHITE people- specifically WHITE union workers who receive anti-discrimination
protections against employers who were doing them wrong in promotion and hiring
because of their union membership. Ironically, some of the most vicious opponents
of black progress have been white unionists. Many white people had no problem with
"affirmative action" when it was benefiting white people. "Problems" for such only
mysteriously arose when a black man showed up, looking for the same deal.

However, what has happened, is that companies have chosen to hire white women and advance them over minority groups. The reason is because women were also discriminated against due to sexism. So companies have found a way to keep colored people out while at the same time complying with affirmative action on the surface. They have choosen one descriminated group, white women, over the most historically discriminated group, black men. So while white women have been able to advance up the economic and professional ladder, black men are still lagging behind. Does that answer your question?

Indeed, and said white women are the biggest
beneficiaries of "affirmative action".

he answer is because people who have power are afraid of loosing power.They don't mind hiring the white woman because they realize that at the end of the day that white woman is bringing her pay check back home to the white man. But the Black man, or the Latino man? When your sense of self esteem is based on the illusion of being better than someone else, who are you now if everybody is equal? In their minds, they'd be nobody, so they have to protect that illusion.

It should also be noted that normal political spoils in normal democracy
is not "affirmative action" for black people. It is democracy and politics
as usual. If a black mayor for example awards his supporters with jobs
or contracts same as white politicians, that is not "affirmative action".
The black politician won the election fair and square. Now he gets a turn at bat.
It is normal American politics. But in some quarters there is loud,
hypocritical yelling bout "affirmative action quotas" because a black
politician is playing the normal political game. As far as whites, they
have long played the political spoils game- packing urban jurisdictions
with their families, friends, cronies and buddies- the Irish packing
the police and fire departments, Italians packing sanitation and public
works, etc etc.. It's only when a black man shows up then certain people have
a "problem" with the game.. Black folk aren't stupid. They can see right through
white hypocrisy on this score.


----------------------------------------------------------------------

WHat is sad is that there is a fair "White Grievance Industry" (WGI)out there,
from vicious neo-nazi types, to disappointed job seekers, to politicians playing
"race cards" (such as Jesse Helms classic "black hands" commercial), to whites
simply jealous or resentful of black success and seek to taint it with suggestions that
"affirmative action" is involved.

Unfortunately too often, some blacks have provided grist for the grievance mills
by lack of effort in education, self-discipline, family stability, etc and plain stupidity.
A white racist really has an easy workload these days. Blacks themselves play out
and provide tons of material for every negative stereotype there is- in living color
accessible via the Net, 24/7. All this plays into the WGIs hands. The worse enemy of black
folk in many respects is internal. External enemies will continue to capitalize on such
weaknesses.

[zarahan]

Lightweight enforcement of EEO laws shows alleged
"flood of minorities taking white jobs" is bogus propaganda

QUOTE:
"virtually all affirmative action [in employment] is voluntary since the government resources to enforce requirements or monitor further compliance have always been limited and are shrinking further. She estimates that currently there are only enough resources for each employer to be investigated only every thirty-eighty years."
(Hartmann 1996 Who has benefited from Affirmative Action in Emloyment" in Curry ed 1996, The Affirmative Action Debate.)

"By 1968, its [the EEOC's] complaint backlog exceeded 30,000. A decade later that number had grown to 150,000. In recent years, the EEOC received about 63,000 complaints annually, and has been able to bring suit in no more than 500 a year. Moreover, when suit is brought, cases, as a rule, take the better part of a decade or more to reach a legal resolution."

"Nevertheless, visitors to government contractors in 1995-94 who inquired about their compliance with affirmative action requirements found that 75 percent were in substantial noncompliance. In fact, since 1972 only 41 contractors have been debarred from the list of approved federal contractors out of the thousands whose performance was judged satisfactory. In addition, only four of those who have been debarred were larger corporations, and in these four cases, the debarment lasted less than three months. One study found that most agencies responsible for non-contruction contractors reviewed less than 20 percent of all federal contracts. One local office had two people monitoring 29,000 contracts."
--Cohen and Sterba (2003) Affirmative action and racial preference: a debate, pp190-207


EEOC enforcement long hampered by a massive backlog of cases and deliberate, systematic budget cuts designed to hamstring enforcement.


"Between 1981 and 1983, the budgets of the EEOC and the OFCCP (the Office of Federal Contract Compance Program) were respectively cut by 10 and 24 percent, their staffs by 12 and 34 percent, and travel funds for EEOC investigations were eliminated. During the Reagan era, affirmative action under the federal government's contract compliance program virtually ceased to exist."

--Cohen and Sterba (2003) Affirmative action and racial preference: a debate, pp190-207



"the EEOC’s backlog increased 35% from 54,970 in 2007 to 73,951 in 2008; the number of complaints increased nearly 20% from 79,896 in 2007 to 95,402 in 2008; nearly two-thirds of all complaints filed alleged gender or racial discrimination."
--National Law Journal, 12/14/2009, "EEOC will get $23 million to reduce 70,000-case backlog"

[zarahan]

A "truth" claimed in many quarters is that black progress is
due to "affirmative action" quotas. But this is bogus. Blacks were already
long advancing economically and educationally BEFORE any significant
"affirmative action."

--Long before Nixon's famous "Philadelphia Plan" to unfreeze the white
union stranglehold on certain jobs, blacks had already been advancing
in professional and technical occupations and in blue collar ones.

--Even before the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which clearly eschews any
"quotas" most blacks had ALREADY pulled themselves above the poverty line.

--In education black gains were advancing fast before any "quotas". The vast
expansion of black college graduates for example is not due to any "affirmative
action" given by white people but things like the GI Bill which helped raise ALL
boats. ANd this is despite the opposition of Jim Crow regimes to block
black veterans from getting GI Bill benefits, or diversion of the black
veterans to inferior schools.

--As early as 1969, single black women with at least a high school education
had surpassed white women in income- part of a LONG-STANDING TREND in place
well before any "affirmative action."

--The economic expansion of WW2 and the postwar economic expansion was much
more responsible for raising black income and job growth than any "affirmative
action" quotas supposedly "favoring" blacks.


AA in “politically correct” places like universities has in SOME cases
discriminated against a tiny number of individual whites. But the fact is that
blacks do not rely to any significant degree on AA quotas for access to higher education.

As already noted above, the GI Bill has been a much more significant factor
in opening up such access than “affirmative action.” In addition the alleged
numbers of blacks “swamping” white people are rather minor.

One study from 1982 to 1996, a "hot" period of AA before California's Prop 209
AA ban, found that black enrollments in college were a mere 9.7% and this climbed
to a "huge" 11.5% by 1996- a "massive" 1.5% increase that was comfortably outpaced
by Asians and even Hispanics. The same study found that contrary to propaganda claims,
black student enrollments at top-tier universities remained relatively flat- with
"affirmative use of race in this [top-level] sector" not making much impact in enrollments.
(Chang et al. 2000. Compelling Interest. Monograph: University of Stanford).

In short, the much derided "quotas for blacks" had little impact on black enrollment in higher
education overall- which remained flat. Again, the data shows that blacks do not depend
significantly on "quotas" for their college access.


--Yet another review (Gurin et al 2003. How does Racial/Ethnic Diversity Promote
Education? WJBS. 27:1) found that affirmative action exists primarily in highly
selective colleges that barely have more than 8-10% black students. Such campuses
are not where the vast majority, the OTHER 90-92% of black students attend. As far
as college access, affirmative action is a minor player for blacks. Yet to hear
the howling propaganda narrative, college campuses are swamped with "unqualified"
blacks "taking slots" from "deserving white students." This is simply not the case.
Again, keep in mind that all black attendees to the top tier schools do NOT need any
quota arrangements- although the barrage of white propaganda makes it seem so.
Bowen and Bok 2000 (The Shape of the River) for example, found that half the students
admitted to the colleges they studied would have been rejected under a race-neutral
admissions regime. But this means that half of the admitted blacks got their slots WITHOUT
any need of "quotas."


Courts have been continually narrowing so called "affirmative action" since
the 1978 Bakke case. There simply has been no massive "government oppression"
on white people to impose "quotas." To the contrary, from its earliest years
AA has always been controversial and white people have always kept it in a
straightjacket, even while spinning a barrage of cynically false propaganda
about AA's supposedly "unfair" impact

The continual narrowing of AA programs, seen in such Court cases as Grutter,
etc has been causing a drop in admissions of black students. One review example
(Gurin et al 2003) found that the liquidation or narrowing of AA due to court and
legislative actions did cause a drop in minority admissions at higher ranked schools.
At UCLA, an "unconscionable" 2.3 percent of freshman admission offers went to blacks.
Other elite campuses show the same trend: UC Berkeley 2.5% of admitted students are
black- UC San Diego- 1.8% of admittees were black. These are small potato numbers,
and again keep in mind that these students did not need AA to get in.

In short most blacks:
--do not need AA for college access in any significant way
--have not relied on AA for college access in any significant way
--it is mostly low minority proportion elite campuses that use significant "quotas"
--Most blacks do not attend such high end colleges
--Even under AA the actual numbers of blacks getting in under "quotas" was/is small potatoes
--AA has always been sharply limited by politics, courts and public opinion.
--The end of AA in many places has simply meant that it is the weaker candidates eliminated
--There has always been a clear percentage of strong black candidates that never needed any AA
--There is no flood of blacks "hurting" white people in higher education

[zarahan]

UPDATE:




Although all discriminated-against groups deserve
protection, The biggest gainers of the civil rights era has not
been blacks who did the marching and dying but white women.
Black gains in managerial/professional ranks in the initial decade
after 1964 were significant, but later stagnated, while white
women access previously white male jobs continually
QUOTE:
[FROM: --Donald Tomaskovic-Devey and Kevin Stainback.
2007. Discrimination and Desegregation: Equal Opportunity
Progress in U.S. Private Sector Workplaces since the Civil
Rights Act. Ann Amer Academ PolSci 609:49-84]


"Even more striking is the rapid increase in white women’s
access to managerial jobs after 1971. White women move from
being underrepresented in managerial jobs by 70 percent to
being underrepresented by only 12 percent at the turn of the
century. While they have not yet reached parity, white women
have made remarkable and consistent gains. Black males also
have made gains in private sector managerial employment,
although their advances are not as dramatic or consistent. Black
males were barely represented among managers in this EEOC
reporting sample in 1966, being underrepresented by 90 percent
relative to their employment in the sector. They made sustained
improvements through 1983, although they were still
substantially underrepresented at –54 percent of their general
labor market employment. No further progress was made
through the 1980s, but progress began again across the 1990s..


"What we have learned from documenting these basic trends is
that while almost all workplaces have incorporated women and
racial/ethnic minorities as employees, status segregation within
workplaces remains very high, white males continue to have
advantaged access to the best quality jobs, most racial progress
in EEO stalled after 1980, and white women seem to have
benefited the most from the struggles for EEO.."


White women have joined with white men in the workplace,
still leaving it mostly white.


Most striking is that white men and white women are found in
virtually all workplaces. In 1966, 11 percent of workplaces had
no white women employed in them, but this had fallen to 3
percent by the early 1970s and about 1 percent currently. These
patterns mean that even today when white men and women go
to work they will often be employed in workplaces where there
is not a single black male, black female, Hispanic male, Hispanic
female, Asian male, or Asian female coworker. One of these
groups will almost always be represented among their
coworkers, but one or more groups may be entirely absent.
While there has been clear progress in the desegregation of
American private sector workplaces, substantial racial
homogeneity remains common in many workplaces.


If we focus on the early civil rights periods, when uncertainty
was highest and most political pressure was focused on
discrimination against black men, we see the steepest decline in
workplace segregation between white and black men.
Black-white segregation among males dropped 7 points
between 1966 and 1973. Interestingly, segregation between
white men and white women also dropped substantially in this
early period, even as segregation between white men and
minority women barely changed at all in the immediate
post–Civil Rights Act period. ..




The real story of workplace "integration" is not the initial
fadeaway gains of blacks but the integration of white women
with white men in the workplace, with white women taking
over white male jobs as the biggest beneficiaries of equal
opportunity legislation.


"White women, however, showed rapid gains in access to white
male jobs during this early period as well... Much more striking
has been the rapidly declining workplace segregation between
white men and women. In 1966, white men and women were
nearly totally segregated at work, residing in separate and
typically unequal work. While white sex segregation remains
high today, it is now lower than white male–Asian male
segregation and almost as low as white male segregation from
other minority men. Researchers have routinely assumed that
sex segregation was higher than race segregation. This was
clearly true in 1966, but by the year 2002 it seems more
reasonable to say that the workplace barriers between white
men and white women are now equivalent to those between
white men and minority men. White women have clearly
benefited the most from the legal and institutional prohibitions
against workplace segregation.



We also have a set of remarkable findings about the segregation
patterns of white women. Across the entire post–Civil Rights
Act period, white women have been rapidly integrating
employment settings with white men, have slowly integrated
with minority men, and are increasingly segregated from
minority women... Overall, forty years after the law changed to
make workplace segregation illegal, it remains high. Most
whites work with other whites. Increasingly, white women
work with white men. The big success story of the equal rights
revolution in the private sector is the integration of white men
and women. Cross-race progress among men stalled in the
1980s and among women has worsened since the mid-1970s."

[FROM: --Donald Tomaskovic-Devey and Kevin Stainback.
2007. Discrimination and Desegregation: Equal Opportunity
Progress in U.S. Private Sector Workplaces since the Civil
Rights Act. Ann Amer Academ PolSci 609:49-84]

[zarahan]

QUICK SUMMARY:
egyptsearchreloaded.proboards.com/post/21857


1) Every credible study shows that The biggest beneficiary of "affirmative action" in the US are white women, and not only specific programs, but equal opportunity civil eights legislation as well.

HARD DATA:
egyptsearchreloaded.proboards.com/post/21848

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


2) Asians have suffered discrimination, and the reason often ignored or downplayed is that they suffer not because of other "minorities" but because whites use "affirmative action" under different guises and euphemisms, to keep out higher performing Asians. If college admissions were strictly by merit, Asians would have many more slots, displacing whites. But various "diversity" programs with extra scoring points for "civic involvement", "community service" etc are not primarily for the benefit of blacks, but to enable whites to push aside Asians. The most recent lawsuit filed by Asians against Harvard on this illustrates the point. Harvard was using a supplemental "likeability score" as part of the admission system, that, "somehow" all to conveniently, penalized Asians in favor of white people.
HARD DATA:
nilevalleypeoples.blogspot.com/2018/06/asiarate-lawsuit-against-harvard-shows.html

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


3)There is no AA "crisis" of blacks "swamping" universities with quota admissions. The share of black freshmen at elite schools is virtually unchanged since 1980 according to a detailed NY times study drawing on data available from the National Center for Education Statistics. Black students are just 6 percent of freshmen but 15 percent of college-age Americans. Thus for almost 40 years, even after rising black school performances and numbers of students attending college, the percentage of blacks overall has barely budged despite hysterical "black plague" claims. Other data back this up, showing the percentage of blacks in the prestigious Ivy League to weight in at a mere 7%.

Such statistics wax and wane over different surveys but the numbers hold roughly the same- higher one year, lower the next, an important detail to remember when confronted by cherry-picked years held up as gospel by assorted propagandists. It should also be noted that gains in the number of first-year Black students at some universities may be due to overall increases in the size of the first-year class and not necessarily due to a higher percentage of Black first-year students. Thus a higher percent of incoming black students in Year X may simply be a reflection of a bigger pool of students overall being admitted in that year, not "quotas." In fact, even with affirmative action, Blacks and Hispanics are more UNDERREPRESENTED at top colleges than 35 years ago.
HARD DATA:
www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/08/24/us/affirmative-action.html

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


4) Finally on top of the above, whites manipulate they system for their own benefit a third way- using "legacy" admissions to top universities. "Legacy" admits are special admission concession for the children of alumni or special deals with big donors. Most of these turn out to be white. Surprise! Legacy admits on some campuses make up some 15 to 30% of admissions. Such practices are based on the same kinds of manipulations used to keep out Jewish students in years past. Having blacks in the mix yields a two-fer: (a) the university gets credit for "diversity" and the blacks can be put out front as scapegoats and lightning rods to take the heat, while behind the scenes, procedures are quietly manipulated to hold back the real competition for whites- Asians. See Daniel Golden's "Price of Admission" (2006, 2017) expose on how such manipulations work, complete with all the relevant statistics. The Washington Post chose Golden's book as one of the best non-fiction books of the year in 2006, and The conservative Economist proclaimed that it deserves to become a classic.

HARD DATA:
Daniel Golden- The Price of Admissions 2006, 2017 (updated ed)
www.danlgolden.com