Affirmative action ban heads for ballot in 5 states

Posted March 8th, 2008 at 07:10 AM by B is for Business
in

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/07/affirmative.action/index.html

"Ward Connerly, who heads the American Civil Rights Coalition -- a nonprofit organization working to end racial and gender preferences -- and the main backer of the ballot initiatives, says the 37 word initiative would read: "The state shall not discriminate against or grant preferential treatment to any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education or public contracting.""

Maybe one day NOBODY shall discriminate against or grant preferential treatment to any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin for ANY REASON.

It was wrong then and it is wrong now.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Glock21's picture
On March 8th, 2008 at 12:22 PM, Glock21 said:

Would that also forbid State courts from ordering businesses and private organizations to implement affirmative action style policies to remedy discriminatory policies?  Or does it only apply to State hiring and such? 

 

--

Glock21 Op/Ed

B is for Business's picture
On March 8th, 2008 at 01:55 PM, B is for Business said:

"Would that also forbid State courts from ordering businesses and private organizations to implement affirmative action style policies to remedy discriminatory policies? Or does it only apply to State hiring and such?"

I'm not a lawyer, but the 37 word initiative appears to be limited to state employment, education, and contracting. If my assumptions are correct, only the state would be prohibited from fighting discrimination with discrimination.

On March 9th, 2008 at 09:45 AM, xian said:

I'm not saying this to be crass, but would states actually address existing discrimination at all should this go through?

Affirmative action is not a particularly good fix, but if you are a proponent for banning it without proposing a legitimate alternative, let's face it--you are a friend of racism. After all, anyone who can look at our society and say, "Affirmative action is the main challenge we face to equality" is either lying, unobservant or self-interested.

B is for Business's picture
On March 9th, 2008 at 10:55 AM, B is for Business said:

Arguing that one is a racist because they are against affirmative action is a classic example of the pot calling the kettle black.

A person with equal qualifications should have an equal opportunity at a state contract. A person with a need should have an equal opportunity to a remedy.

After all, anyone who can look at or society and say, "Affirmative action does not keep racism/sexism alive and strong" is either lying, unobservant, or self-interested.

I'll admit it is completely self-serving for me to live in a state where racism and sexism are not tolerated. Furthermore, it is completely self-serving for to live in a state where racism and sexism are not promoted.

I'm happy to see a change is being considered in some states.