Case Could End Affirmation Action

[QueEx]

<font size="4"><center>High Court to Rule on Affirmative Action - Again
New Case Could Overturn Brown v. Board of Education</font size></center>

Black Press USA
May 6, 2007

WASHINGTON (NNPA) – The decision in a U. S. Supreme Court case that could weaken or overturn the favorable ruling for affirmative action in the University of Michigan Law School case three years ago and Brown v. Board of Education in 1954, will likely be announced in coming weeks.

Civil rights advocates are bracing for the worse.

“I think that it will unsettle plans by conscientious school districts, surveyors and educators,” says Harvard University law professor Charles Ogletree, who was in the courtroom to hear the arguments last fall.

“There was little enthusiasm among the majority of the justices to support a voluntary integration plan that both Louisville, Kentucky and Seattle, Wash. had devised to protect the interest of children.”

Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District and Meredith v. Jefferson County Board of Education (Kentucky), could end voluntary programs that use race in order to maintain racial integration in public schools.

If it happens, activists, scholars and civil rights experts say they would turn to the Democratically-controlled Congress to enact legislation that could offset the roll back.

“Blacks have the power right now to help determine the agenda of the U. S. Congress. We’ve never had that power before,” says the Rev. Jesse Jackson Sr. He was referring to Black influence in the Democratic Party and the escalated level of Congressional Black Caucus power in Congress.

Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.) now chairs the House Judiciary Committee, which could push for passage of measures to compensate for blows to affirmative action.

Says Jackson, “We were completely locked out of power... Now, our point of view matters because we can alter legislation.”

http://www.blackpressusa.com/News/Article.asp?SID=3&Title=Hot+Stories&NewsID=13062

 

[QueEx]

<font size="4">Jesse Jackson:

“Blacks have the power right now to help determine the agenda of the U. S. Congress. We’ve never had that power before, referring to Black influence in the Democratic Party and the escalated level of Congressional Black Caucus power in Congress.​

</font size>

 

[VegasGuy]

I said it before and I'll say it again, we slept on the issues of affirmative action for years and that the plans laid out back then might not work today. But we continued to listen to those who no longer do shit who continue to promote AA like it could sustain us indefinately. Like no power on earth could ever out-right remove it.

Well, guess again.

Looks like it might just happen and that might not be a bad thing.

Now we can get about the long overdue business of crafting a new law.

-VG

 

[QueEx]

A new law for what? A new and different kind of A/A? If the trend continues, its whole notion of A/A that could be completely done away with. In that context, what kind of new law are you talking about? What would the 'new law' be aimed at accomplishing? And, how would it do it ?

QueEx

 

[Fuckallyall]

I have been against AA for years, and it's time has come and gone, IMO. It was always nothing but a quota system, and it is now often corrosive to the cause of equality.

 

[Havoc]

I have been against AA for years, and it's time has come and gone, IMO. It was always nothing but a quota system, and it is now often corrosive to the cause of equality.

Have you always been against it? Even against the form that remains in India? Why? Do you not think that the effects of slavery/institutionalized slavery can be felt to this very day? What would you offer instead?

 

[Fuckallyall]

Have you always been against it? Even against the form that remains in India? Why? Do you not think that the effects of slavery/institutionalized slavery can be felt to this very day? What would you offer instead?

Good questions. The ones who "broke" things are no longer here. Many of those broken are no longer here. The system that did these injustices have changed and are still changing. Not that they are perfect, but that is an impossible standard to hold anything or anybody to.

The reasons I am against AA are several, and I have been opposed to it as long as I have been a responsible adult. First, I do not believe that the opposite of injustice is to treat others uinjustly. And that is what you MUST do in order to give some one an advantage. Two, AA can have the effect of cheating those who meritouriously earned thier achievement, by confusing them with an AA recipient. Three, aren't we supposed to be against racially based hiring ?

Solution - how about being just. We seem to be able to do that more than many people give credit for.

 

[QueEx]

Good questions.

The ones who "broke" things are no longer here. Many of those broken are no longer here. The system that did these injustices have changed and are still changing. Not that they are perfect, but that is an impossible standard to hold anything or anybody to.

First, I do not believe that the opposite of injustice is to treat others uinjustly. And that is what you MUST do in order to give some one an advantage.

Maybe this is a rhetorical question, but, doesn't that mean we should throw out the entire tort system? In other words, if the wrongdoer dies, his estate and those who take from the wrongdoer's estate, his heirs, which benefitted from the wrong, should be able to retain that benefit and not have to make recompense?

I thought the opposite of injustice is suppose to be justice? - not more injustice.

Two, AA can have the effect of cheating those who meritouriously earned thier achievement, by confusing them with an AA recipient.

If we are not "N"s and should not be upset at the being called a "N" (borrowing your reasoning for the "Just Say No" thread), why should one who achieved without any assistance feel lesser when he knows how he achieved whatever he achieved? Either we care what white folks think, or, we don't, no?

Does assistance through affirmative action mean the recipient simply got something he didn't deserve; or, might it mean that the recipient got a "Fair Chance at the Opportunity" because of A/A when othewise he wouldn't have had a fair opportunity? - A difference between mere quota and leveling the playing field.

Three, aren't we supposed to be against racially based hiring ?

When the world becomes perfect? If society doesn't follow race-neutral practices, what do those do who are harmed by such practices.


---------------------------
PLEASE NOTE: My questions were not meant to be sarcastic, an attack or merely argumentative to be argumentative. I'm seeking serious thought/response because the world isn't perfect, institutionalized racism has not disappeared, and we still operate on an uneven playing field.

ON THE OTHER HAND: Maybe we should just abandon the idea of A/A altogether. Maybe white folk, who dominate access to finances, etc., in this country, will just treat us fairly without any further urging. But, what would be our remedy if they don't?

QueEx

 

[VegasGuy]

Patience QueEx..patience.

But I love the way you use the tort system to make your points about keeping AA just the way it is. Here is another thing, it is still speculation that this is the case that ends AA. How are the judges receiving the arguments, really?

-VG

 

[JUju2005]

I support AA 100%. We had and still have an involuntary handicap in this western civilization.

 

[QueEx]

Patience QueEx..patience.

I ain't rushing.

But I love the way you use the tort system to make your points about keeping AA just the way it is.

I wasn't arguing to keep it the way it is; I'm trying to create a little debate on whether its still needed and, if not, why not. But, whats wrong with my argument? - is the notion of compensatory damages wrong when it comes to Black people and right with everybody else? Why should we not be compensated (and I'm not arguing here for reparations) when clearly thats the rule of law?

Here is another thing, it is still speculation that this is the case that ends AA. How are the judges receiving the arguments, really?

-VG

I don't know that this is the case to end A/A or severely cripple the idea or not. I do know that we are about to see the results of Bush's agenda-appointments to the Supreme Court. Many people don't seem to understand whats in the balance with Supreme Court appointments. If Bush's right-wing appointments to the Supreme Court do what they are expected to do: some people are about to find out why its important to get off their asses and VOTE.

Extremism, left or right, is never a good thing.

QueEx

 

[VegasGuy]

I ain't rushing.


I wasn't arguing to keep it the way it is; I'm trying to create a little debate on whether its still needed and, if not, why not. But, whats wrong with my argument? - is the notion of compensatory damages wrong when it comes to Black people and right with everybody else? Why should we not be compensated (and I'm not arguing here for reparations) when clearly thats the rule of law?


I don't know that this is the case to end A/A or severely cripple the idea or not. I do know that we are about to see the results of Bush's agenda-appointments to the Supreme Court. Many people don't seem to understand whats in the balance with Supreme Court appointments. If Bush's right-wing appointments to the Supreme Court do what they are expected to do: some people are about to find out why its important to get off their asses and VOTE.

Extremism, left or right, is never a good thing.

QueEx

Too late for that QueEx. We are forced fed the bullshit tabloid issues to debate amongst ourselves while the players pretend to have all the answers to everything. And why shouldn't they? They frame the damn debate. They continue to tell you what the questions are and or should be. And those are the ONLY questions they are likely to get.

What I would like to know, why the fuck doesn't the congress FIX this issue of identity theft? That seems a pretty damn big deal for all of us but not one damn word about it from any of them, right or left. They only want to discuss the war, like that's the only issue. If those elected officials had simply read the damn documentof what Bush wanted to do, maybe there wouldn't be a war now since almost all of them voted to give Bush the authority to wage war in Iraq.

But I digress.

As far as AA is conserned, the parts that open school doors to higher learning is a complete farce. Black students are able to compete for those open seats just like anyone else. Schools with bright students will attract the best teachers and that is how (school) boats get raised. Not by us pushing doors open to schools that basically mock what education is.

-VG

 

[QueEx]

As far as AA is conserned, the parts that open school doors to higher learning is a complete farce. Black students are able to compete for those open seats just like anyone else. Schools with bright students will attract the best teachers and that is how (school) boats get raised. Not by us pushing doors open to schools that basically mock what education is.

-VG

So, in other words, if left alone, school administrators will do the right thing. They will simply review transcripts and any entrance exam scores and select the best and the brightest based on those criteria, without any reference whatsoever to other personal data. And, you're saying, despite historical systemic discrimination, we won't suffer under your colorblind proposal ???

QueEx

 

[Fuckallyall]

Maybe this is a rhetorical question, but, doesn't that mean we should throw out the entire tort system? In other words, if the wrongdoer dies, his estate and those who take from the wrongdoer's estate, his heirs, which benefitted from the wrong, should be able to retain that benefit and not have to make recompense?

I thought the opposite of injustice is suppose to be justice? - not more injustice.


If we are not "N"s and should not be upset at the being called a "N" (borrowing your reasoning for the "Just Say No" thread), why should one who achieved without any assistance feel lesser when he knows how he achieved whatever he achieved? Either we care what white folks think, or, we don't, no?

Does assistance through affirmative action mean the recipient simply got something he didn't deserve; or, might it mean that the recipient got a "Fair Chance at the Opportunity" because of A/A when othewise he wouldn't have had a fair opportunity? - A difference between mere quota and leveling the playing field.


When the world becomes perfect? If society doesn't follow race-neutral practices, what do those do who are harmed by such practices.


---------------------------
PLEASE NOTE: My questions were not meant to be sarcastic, an attack or merely argumentative to be argumentative. I'm seeking serious thought/response because the world isn't perfect, institutionalized racism has not disappeared, and we still operate on an uneven playing field.

ON THE OTHER HAND: Maybe we should just abandon the idea of A/A altogether. Maybe white folk, who dominate access to finances, etc., in this country, will just treat us fairly without any further urging. But, what would be our remedy if they don't?

QueEx

Que,
First, I take your responses and questions as just those, and even if they were argumentative, that's fine too. A vital society NEEDS passion.

First, using the tort argument, there has not been any block to pressing tort claims. AA can actually have that effect by admitting to "constructive" behavior.

Second, with AA present, there is a greater likelyhood of indictment of the qualifications of a recipient of AA because they DID have an advantage based on non-competitive criteria. And how is saying "you must hire percentage X" of blacks giving anyone a "fair " opportunity. It smacks of trying to guarantee equal outcomes, not equal opportunity.

 

[QueEx]

First, using the tort argument, there has not been any block to pressing tort claims.

Sure, there are some legal remedies where discrimination is discovered; but I was trying to use the tort analogy in the A/A context. That is, even though neither the perpetrators or the victims of "slavery era" discrimination are alive today, the descendants of those who received the benefit of systemic discrimination are and the descendants of the victims are still alive. However, no one is asking that the benefittees pay anything from their pockets, but I would argue that society as a whole owes a duty to correct and remedy ills committed by society, albeit long ago, to the extent that the harm caused still has an affect present day.

And, let me make this perfectly clear: I am not advocating some strict "Quota" system for anything. However, assuming that we can compete in most any area there is, I cannot see why, naturally, we are at the same time under represented in most occupational areas, sports and entertainment being the exception.

If all things were equal, I wouldn't have the argument above. We see plainly, however, that we are not represented 'proportionally' across the employment spectrum. Is that because the system is fair and we just don't get the job; or, like other beings, is it because like-kind tend to look out for like-kind? If so, I can understand why the kind unlike us tends to overlook us. Now, when somebody can show me how I am wrong, then I'll look at this differently. In the meantime, I think "Remedial Measures" should remain in play.

AA can actually have that effect by admitting to "constructive" behavior.

I'm not sure what you mean here.

Second, with AA present, there is a greater likelyhood of indictment of the qualifications of a recipient of AA because they DID have an advantage based on non-competitive criteria.

How does anyone know whether one is the recipient or not???

For example, the contract specifications in a Request for Proposals ("RFP") require the contractor to be able to lay "X" type brick and be able to construct "X" type facade. Contract "W" and contractor "B" both have the requisite skill/experience. In most cases, where the person hiring is "W", the "W" contractor gets the job - every damn day. I'm not guessing at this; its what I see; this ain't rocket science. Now, what is wrong with requiring that the Employer or entity doing the contracting, <u>especially where public money is involved</u>, seek to employ "B" contractors in some percentage, provided "B" contractors have the requisite requirements ???

When the opponents of A/A can answer that one for me; I'll STFU.

Opponents of A/A (hold on, White people who oppose A/A) will make the pseudo-egalitarian argument everyday that no one should be sought out over the next person. That shit sounds really .... Egalitarian. As we should all know by now, that is plainly and simply A nice, kind and sweet-sounding way to argue out of A/A but who would argue, IN OUR PRESENT WORLD, like-kind will tend to look out for .... like-kind ... and we are not their-kind.

And how is saying "you must hire percentage X" of blacks giving anyone a "fair " opportunity. It smacks of trying to guarantee equal outcomes, not equal opportunity.

My brother, what you just said is hardly the way A/A works or is designed, in most instances, to work. Here is an example of a piece of legislation, that I had a large hand in drafting, with A/A provisions:

Appointments to city positions to fairly reflect make-up of total community; participation in contracts by socially and economically disadvantaged individuals; capital improvements to be based on need and fairly and equitably made.

(a) Within 30 days of taking office, the officials of the city government shall adopt an ordinance to provide that all appointments made by the mayor or council to positions in city government, boards, commissions, agencies, authorities or any other organization or entity of the city or to any positions to which said officials make appointments, shall fairly and equitably reflect the make-up of the total community with due consideration given to all demographic characteristics of the population.

(b) Within 30 days of taking office, the officials of the city government shall adopt an ordinance to provide that all contracts or agreements entered into by the city or any entity thereof for any service of any kind, whether by bid or otherwise, including but not limited to, professional services and bond issues, shall make every reasonable effort to require that the contractor, firm, or company to which any contract is awarded, must have at least 15 percent participation by socially and economically disadvantaged individuals or the city shall make every reasonable effort to insure that at least 15 percent of the total value of all such contracts and agreements described above shall be awarded to qualified contractors or professionals who are socially and economically disadvantaged.

(c) Within 30 days of taking office, the officials of the city government shall adopt an ordinance to require that all capital improvements and repairs made in the city shall be made on the basis of need and shall, as nearly as practicable, be fairly and equitably made in all districts of the city.​

What is obnoxious about this state statute ??? Sectons a, B and c are each A/A provisions.

QueEx

P.S.

Please pardon my long windedness.

 

[Fuckallyall]

First, sorry I took so long to respond. I forgot to flag this post.

Second, you were not long winded, but descriptive. I appreciate a well thought out arguement.

Now, onto the fun. A/A must, in it's function, become a quota system, or be eliminated. I say this because since you cannot legislate morality or personal opinion without becoming the though police, you must quantify what you want out of a hiring system. Now, if you say that all candidates must have scored a 1500 on thier SAT, that is not A/A, but basic fairness. However if you say that out of the candidates you hire, you MUST hire at least 12% who are non white, how is that anything but a quota?

Shit, I gotta run. I got two more points left, but I'll holla those in a minute. Peace.

 

[Zero]

Educational AA could be reformed, but there are just too many employers out there that would hire NO minorities of ANY strips if they didn't have to. And as far as government contracts go, many white companies have already bypassed AA by using black proxies and frontmen to bid on contracts, take away AA and I doubt you would see ANY contracts going to minority owned business in many areas of the country. I think, if left up to their own devices, a complete dismantling of AA (moreso the fear of reprisal by having such laws on the books) would open the door to a lot of blatant hiring and contract discrimination.

Like Q said, it's all about human nature and I don't think people will "do the right thing" if left to their own devices. Some maliciously, others subconsiously, but the end result would be disasterous.

 

[QueEx]

<font size="5"><center>Ted Shaw to Step Down From NAACP LDF</font size>
</center>

Theodore "Ted" Shaw, Left, then Associated
Director-Counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense fund,
with Keynote speaker Johnnie L. Cochran, Jr., and
Elaine R. Jones, Director-Counsel, at LDF's 1999 Civil
Rights Training Institute



Black Press USA
by Hazel Trice Edney
NNPA Washington Correspondent

WASHINGTON (NNPA) – Four years ago, Ted Shaw, now president and director-counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, was on top of his game. He was standing before the U. S. Supreme Court, celebrating the reaffirmation of affirmative action and preparing to lead the LDF that helped to champion the case.

Last week, in an NNPA interview, he was still the same determined civil rights warrior. But, he appeared pensive, almost solemn as he fiddled with the empty wrapper from the crackers he’d just crumbled over his clam chowder. It was a moment indicative of a man reflecting on the last 25 years of his life.

“I’m not saying I’m old, but I’m saying I’ve been at the Legal Defense Fund for a long time. That’s a long time in any institution,” he told the NNPA News Service in an exclusive interview. “And the reason that I think that it’s important - at least for me - and I think it’s important for people not to stay in these positions for too long is that change is growth for individuals and institutions.”

With that explanation and the fact that he has a family, including a wife, a 14-year-old daughter and 20-year-old son that needs more of his focus, time and attention, Ted Shaw, 53, has told NNPA that he has resigned from the LDF, effective Feb. 1, 2008.

The decision has been a long time coming. In a May 15 resignation letter submitted to the NAACP LDF, he writes, “I have served in various capacities at the institution since 1982, during all but three of the last twenty-five years…Compelled by professional and personal reasons, I have concluded that it is time for me to make this change.”

The letter continues, “Few organizations have had a more profound impact on changing America for the better than LDF…In the months to come, I pledge to work with you and other members of the board of the Legal Defense Fund to ensure a smooth transition to my successor, who I am sure will continue the pursuit of racial and social justice so resolutely championed by LDF’s previous leaders.” He calls the organization “one of our nation’s great institutions.”

Shaw took the helm of the LDF only three years ago, succeeding Elaine Jones, who had served for 32 years. He serves as LDF’s fifth head, having risen from the position of staff attorney in 1982 to associate director-counsel before being selected to lead the organization formed in 1940 by then lawyer Thurgood Marshall to legally challenge racist public policies.

Shaw’s legacy – still in the making – has been his vigorous battle against opponents of affirmative action. He represented African-American and Latino students in the University of Michigan cases in which the Supreme court upheld limited use of race in college admissions. The June 23, 2003, ruling in that case was deemed the court’s most important affirmative action decision since 1978’s “University of California v. Bakke which allowed race as a “plus” factor in admissions.

In one of Shaw’s first speeches as LDF president, he predicted that even after the Supreme Court’s decision, affirmative action would continue to come under attack.

“There’s another storm brewing,” he said after assuming the helm May 1, 2004. “We’re going to fight on every front.”

The storm is here.

Shaw prepares to leave the organization just as the U. S. Supreme Court is about to announce its decision in two landmark public schools cases that could have the affect of overturning the desegregation mandates set forth in the May 17, 1954, ruling in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas, argued by the LDF. Those cases are Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District and Meredith v. Jefferson County Board of Education (Kentucky).

He also prepares to leave as right wing activist Ward Connerly aims to overturn affirmative action laws in every state possible by using referenda.

Shaw predicts that the future of civil rights is that America will continue to avoid its racial and economic inequities even in the face of incidents that illuminate stark racial divisions, such as the “O. J. moment”, “the Katrina moment” and “the Imus moment,” he says.

“Denial has always been there and continues to be there...I think that we’re going to have to use all the tools and weapons that we have at our disposal,” he says. “What I want more than anything else is a movement which addresses continuing racial and growing economic inequality.”

But, while vowing to continue fighting vigorously for justice, Shaw, in a rare personal interview in a Washington, D.C. restaurant, says civil rights is not all that’s on his mind these days.

“This whole issue of whether the civil rights struggle is relevant now or whether what we have to deal with is what I call our internal demons is an issue that I have a lot more to say about than what I’ve said,” says Shaw.
He listed a number of options for his future, including writing and becoming a law school professor. But, mostly he spoke of his family, including his wife, Halona, and his two children by a previous marriage, Winston, 20, and Zora, 14.

“I love to read, I like to write. I don’t get the time to write as much as I would like, the time to exercise, to spend time to spend with family and friends,” he says.

The interview took place the day after the death of Yolanda King, the eldest daughter of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., which he says underscored his decision.
“It’s like Yokey passing away last night, you think, you assume you’re going to have more time,” he says, calling King by a nick-name used among friends. “That was so unexpected and sudden, but we all know that our bodies betray us sooner or later so you’ve got to be conscience of immortality and use life well. I can’t assume that I’m going to have all the time for my friends and family and with all the other things that I want to do with my life unless I make that happen.”

The day after submitting his resignation to the LDF board, Shaw says some board members had encouraged him to stay and some had accepted the resignation.

“I’d say that they’ve reacted graciously although I haven’t gotten all their reactions yet,” he says.

But, he says, his decision is final:

“I’m in full stride right now. This is a good time to make a transition and do something else. I can still have another job or two, which I’m fully engaged as opposed to a sun setting job. I think that’s important for me.”

He put it more succinctly in his letter: “While our nation has made great progress, that work continues. I will remain committed to advancing the legacy of LDF’s visionaries in my future endeavors.”

http://www.blackpressusa.com/News/Article.asp?SID=3&Title=Hot+Stories&NewsID=13234

 

[QueEx]

<font size="4">Theodore "Ted" Shaw

Biography</font size>

Theodore M. Shaw is Director-Counsel and President of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. (LDF), the nation's premier civil rights law firm. On May 1, 2004, Shaw became the fifth person to lead the organization in its 64-year history.

Shaw joined LDF in 1982. He directed LDF's education docket and litigated school desegregation, capital punishment, and other civil rights cases throughout the country. In 1987, he established LDF's Western Regional Office in Los Angeles, and served as its Western Regional Counsel. In 1990, he left LDF to join the faculty of the University of Michigan Law School, where he taught constitutional law, civil procedure, and civil rights. In 1993, on a leave of absence from Michigan, he rejoined LDF as Associate Director-Counsel.

Shaw was lead counsel in a coalition that represented African-American and Latino student-intervenors in the University of Michigan undergraduate affirmative action admissions case. In 2003, the U.S. Supreme Court heard that case, along with one challenging the use of affirmative action at the University of Michigan Law School. The Court ruled in favor of diversity as a compelling state interest.

Shaw graduated from Wesleyan University with honors and from the Columbia University School of Law, where he was a Charles Evans Hughes Fellow. Upon graduation, Shaw worked as a trial attorney in the Civil Rights Division of the United States Department of Justice from 1979 until 1982 in Washington, D.C. He litigated civil rights cases throughout the country at the trial and appellate levels, and in the U.S. Supreme Court. Shaw resigned from the Justice Department in protest of the Reagan Administration's civil rights policies.

Shaw has testified before Congress and before state legislatures on numerous occasions. He has been a frequent guest on television and radio programs, and has published numerous newspaper, magazine and law review articles. He also has traveled and lectured extensively on civil rights and human rights in Europe, South Africa, South America, and Japan. He currently serves on the Legal Advisory Network of the European Roma Rights Council, based in Budapest, Hungary.

The National Bar Association Young Lawyers Division recently presented Shaw with the A. Leon Higginbotham, Jr. Memorial Award. He also received the Lawrence A. Wein Prize for Social Justice from Columbia University. Further, he was awarded the Baldwin Medal, the highest honor given by the Wesleyan University alumni body, for extraordinary service to the University and the public interest. He served on the Wesleyan Board of Trustees for 15 years, and was Senior Vice Chair of the Board when he retired from the board in June 2003.

Shaw is a member of the bar in New York and in California, and is admitted to practice before the U.S. District Courts for the Central and Northern Districts of California, the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, Ninth, Tenth and Eleventh Circuits, and the United States Supreme Court. He is an adjunct professor of law at Columbia Law School, and the second appointee to the Phyllis Beck Chair at Temple Law School, which he held during the 2003 spring semester. He was the second recipient of the Haywood Burns Chair in Civil Rights at CUNY School of Law, which he held for the 1997-1998 academic year.

http://www.naacpldf.org/content.aspx?article=47

 

[QueEx]

<font size="5"><center>‘Serial’ Education Plan Needed for Blacks</font size></cenTer>


Black Press USA
by George E. Curry
NNPA Columnist

Virginia, Alabama, Maryland, North Carolina and other states are making serial apologies these days, expressing remorse for past participation in the trans-Atlantic slave trade. As I have said before, while these actions are a good first step, they do not go far enough. The doctrine of White supremacy did not end with slavery.

Federal- and state-sanctioned racism continued in the form of Jim Crow Laws and flawed public policies until the mid-1960s. Therefore, any credible apology must, as the Alabama measure did, extend to the “aftereffects” of slavery and acknowledge that “the vestiges of slavery are ever before African-American citizens.”

Virtually everyone agrees that education provides the best escape from poverty. Inasmuch as Whites strongly oppose reparations – at least, for African-Americans – other corrective actions must be taken into consideration.

Surprisingly, an approach used to include Native Americans in higher education might provide a model.

The University of Maine and other state universities provide Native Americans with free tuition, mandatory fees and room and board. In order to qualify for the scholarship, applicants’ names must appear on the current tribal census of the Passamaquoddy Nation, the Penobscot Nation, the Houlton Band of Maliseet or the Aroostook Brand of Micmac. If direct descendants of one of those groups live in Maine for a year, they, too, are eligible for the tuition waiver.

The University of Minnesota operates a similar program called the Ethel Curry American Indian Scholarship. According to the university’s Web Site: “Students who are at least one-fourth American Indian and who present written documentation of tribal enrollment and blood quantum and demonstrate involvement in American Indian culture and community may be considered for this scholarship,” renewable up to four years.

Surprisingly, the Right-wing zealots have not challenged programs for Native Americans the way they have bullied universities into scrapping any program that smacks of race sensitivity. Of course, Native Americans deserve special consideration because they were truly the original Americans. Once, “discovered,” however, they were systematically killed or herded onto Indian reservations.

African-Americans also have a unique history. We were brought here from West African against our will. Though we were brought here to do the work of White farmers, we were called lazy. Subsequent abuse and exploitation has been thoroughly documented.

Yet, affirmative action, a conservative program designed to help African-Americans and other disadvantaged groups, is under withering attack. It’s under attack even though the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the legality of affirmative action in a case involving the University of Michigan Law School.

Another innovative approach to expanding higher education opportunities places an emphasis on class instead of race.

A recent New York Times story noted, “Concerned that the barriers to elite institutions are being increasingly drawn along class lines, and wanting to maintain some role as engines of social mobility, about two dozen schools – Amherst, Harvard, Princeton, Stanford, the University of Virginia, Williams the University of North Carolina, among them – have pushed in the past few years to diverse economically.”

The institutions are replacing loans with grants, ending early admission programs that favor the affluent and make admission decisions, based in part, on family income, parents; education and occupations.

Of course, class is easier to sell than race. It allows Americans to avoid looking in the mirror. Still, race needs to be confronted directly. As former U.S. Senator Bill Bradley (D-N.J.) observed, slavery was America’s original sin and racism remains its unresolved dilemma.

Before cops fired rounds of bullets into an unarmed Black immigrant in New York, police didn’t check the balance in his checking account. When Blacks are pulled over for essentially driving While Black, no one had examined the suspect’s investment portfolio. And when an African-Americans are followed in the department stores, the clerks don’t know how much cash a Black man or woman is carrying.

Let’s be clear: Blacks are discriminated against because they are Black. Therefore any remedy, educational or otherwise, must take that realization into account. If discrimination was race-based, then remedies should be race-sensitive and race-conscious.

None of this is an excuse for not doing more for ourselves. The Native American scholarships at the University of Minnesota were made possible by a $1 million grant from Ethel Curry (no relation). She was a secretary at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota for nearly 40 years. Her investments in the Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co. (3M), then an upstart company, made her a wealthy woman and she left some of that wealth to the university for Native Americans.

In cases where Blacks have limited resources, just leaving a portion of one’s life insurance to, say, a historically Black college, could do wonders for that institution.

George E. Curry, former editor-in-chief of Emerge magazine and the NNPA News Service, is a keynote speaker, moderator, and media coach. He can be reached at george@georgecurry.com or through his Web site, www.georgecurry.com.

http://www.blackpressusa.com/Op-Ed/speaker.asp?SID=16&NewsID=13333

 

[QueEx]

<font size="5"><center>Supreme Court to Rule on Racial Issue</font size>
<font size="4">The new lineup of Supreme Court justices
has meant a decisive shift to the right</font size></center>

(AP Photo/Haraz N. Ghanbari, File)
A demonstrator holds up a sign in
front of the Supreme Court in
Washington as the court heard
arguments on lawsuits by parents
in Louisville and Seattle who are
challenging policies that use race
to help determine where children
go to school in the Dec. 4, 2006
file photo. Nearly seven months have
gone by since the Supreme Court
heard arguments about public school
integration plans. A decision, it seems,
finally is at hand. The schools cases are
the biggest unresolved issue among the
court's eight remaining cases

ABC News
WASHINGTON Jun 28, 2007

The Supreme Court is expected to issue rulings Thursday, including one about the use of race to assign students to public schools.

Thursday's session, which is to begin at 10 a.m. EDT, will likely be the justices' last until October.

]http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=3324867

 

[QueEx]

<font size="5"><center>Supreme Court Rejects School Race Plans</font size></center>

San Francisco Chronicle
By MARK SHERMAN,
Associated Press Writer
Thursday, June 28, 2007

(06-28) 07:53 PDT WASHINGTON (AP) --

The Supreme Court on Thursday rejected school diversity plans that take account of students' race in two major public school districts but left the door open for using race in limited circumstances.


The decision in cases affecting schools in Louisville, Ky., and Seattle could imperil similar plans in hundreds of districts nationwide, and it further restricts how public school systems may attain racial diversity.


The court split, 5-4, with Chief Justice John Roberts announcing the court's judgment. The court's four liberal justices dissented.


The districts "failed to show that they considered methods other than explicit racial classifications to achieve their stated goals," Roberts said.


Yet Justice Anthony Kennedy would not go as far as the other four conservative justices, saying in a concurring opinion that race may be a component of school plans designed to achieve diversity.


To the extent that Roberts' opinion could be interpreted to foreclose the use of race in any circumstance, Kennedy said, "I disagree with that reasoning."


He agreed with Roberts that the plans in Louisville and Seattle violated constitutional guarantees of equal protection.


Justice Stephen Breyer, in a dissent joined by the other liberals on the court, said Roberts' opinion undermined the promise of integrated schools that the court laid out 53 years ago in its landmark decision in Brown v. Board of Education.


"To invalidate the plans under review is to threaten the promise of Brown," Breyer said.


The two school systems in Thursday's decisions employ slightly different methods of taking students' race into account when determining which school they will attend.


Federal appeals courts had upheld both plans after some parents sued. The Bush administration the parents' side, arguing that racial diversity is a noble goal but can be sought only through race-neutral means.


Louisville's schools spent 25 years under a court order to eliminate the effects of state-sponsored segregation. After a federal judge freed the Jefferson County, Ky., school board, which encompasses Louisville, from his supervision, the board decided to keep much of the court-ordered plan in place to prevent schools from re-segregating.


The lawyer for the Louisville system called the plan a success story that enjoys broad community support, including among parents of white and black students.


Attorney Teddy Gordon, who argued that the Louisville system's plan was discriminatory, said, "Clearly, we need better race-neutral alternatives. Instead of spending zillions of dollars around the country to place a black child next to a white child, let's reduce class size. All the schools are equal. We will no longer accept that an African-American majority within a school is unacceptable."


The Seattle school district said it used race as one among many factors, relied on it only in some instances and then only at the end of a lengthy process in allocating students among the city's high schools. Seattle suspended its program after parents sued.


The opinion was the first on the divisive issue since 2003, when a 5-4 ruling upheld the limited consideration of race in college admissions to attain a diverse student body. Since then, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who approved of the limited use of race, retired. Her replacement, Justice Samuel Alito was in the majority that struck down the school system plans in Kentucky and Washington.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/06/28/national/w072013D85.DTL

 

[nittie]

A year or two ago we had a thread on this board about the graduation gap closing between blacks and whites. At the time if I remember correctly blacks were graduating at about 75% compared to 80% for whites. I tried to point out that wasn't necessarily a good thing for blacks. Today over half of black high schoolers drop out, the Supreme Court voted against AA and unemployment for black youngsters is about 50%, these stats prove what I was saying then, formal education is not the only way out for Blacks, in a lot of ways it hurts more than it helps. I tried to point out back then that those figures were controlled by the government, they could change at anytime, we had little if any influence on how well our kids do in school. Instead of focusing and worrying about state colleges we should be empowering HBU's, we should be petitioning the government to make sure our local public schools are properly funded and staffed with well trained professionals. If we don't get it through our heads that the government is a reactionary device designed to protect the status quo we will always be at the mercy of the courts.

 

[mttocs]

RIP affirmative action. Which encouraged mediocrity. To the point that a half-wit like Jesse Jackson is taken seriously enough to be quoted twice in this thread.

 

[QueEx]

RIP affirmative action. Which encouraged mediocrity. To the point that a half-wit like Jesse Jackson is taken seriously enough to be quoted twice in this thread.

Well, Well, well.

Look what the foul smelling wind, blew in.
Same ole Scott, same ole rot.
Same ole Nate, same ole hate.
No matter the name;
Always the same.

Same ole action;
hatin on Jackson.
A male Dollly Pardon
Looking like Sharpton

Lacking in skills
to pay his bills
Blaming on us
for all his ills.

 

[QueEx]

<font size="6"><center>Supremely Bad Decisions </font size></center>

Bruce Shapiro
June 29, 2007

Chief Justice John Roberts's astonishing claim in the Supreme Court's final ruling of the term, that he is "faithful to the heritage" of Brown v. Board of Education--while explicitly invalidating desegregation programs based on race--shows not just how far the Court has swung to the right but the profound corruption of ideas and language that motivate the Court's activist, conservative bloc.

Indeed, the entire final week of the Supreme Court term amounted to a grudge match on some of the right's longest-held policy grievances. Antitrust and New Deal-style business regulation? Strike down the nearly century-old ban on manufacturers fixing minimum prices! Free speech? Let school principals suspend a student for off-campus anti-drug satire--and along the way undo student free-speech rights granted during the Vietnam War! Racial discrimination? Ban race-based remedies for race-based segregation!

As the last week's first decisions came down--on the student speech case, Morse v. Frederick (a k a the "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" case), and on the campaign finance case--it was tempting to see the Court's conservatives as locked in contradiction, divided over the principles of free speech. How can the Court on the one hand adopt the view that the First Amendment prohibits McCain-Feingold's limitations on barely masked campaign ads, while on the other hand allow a principal to punish a student for a whacky banner unfurled during an Olympic Torch run?

But those two decisions, seemingly at odds, have one thing in common: Far from being paragons of judicial restraint, the Supreme Court's majority actively sided with the interests of power. In Morse v. Frederick, as Justice Stevens noted in his dissent, the majority seemed intent on reversing Tinker v. Des Moines, the landmark free-speech case that gave students the right to protest the Vietnam War by wearing armbands to school. "Carving out pro-drug speech for uniquely harsh treatment," Stevens acerbically noted, "finds no support in our case law and is inimical to the values protected by the First Amendment."

As for campaign finance, labor unions may be cheering, for now, their new freedom to support candidates with advertising up until election day, but there is no doubt that corporate interests have greater resources and will use this new platform to exert their voices in unprecedented ways. Far from being an expansive interpretation of free speech, it amounts to a constricted view of the First Amendment, turning on its head the Framers' explicit "original intent" to insure access of all to the arena of political debate.

And what about the Louisville and Seattle desegregation cases? There is nothing new, after all, about the Supreme Court undermining Brown. That has been going on for a generation, and by the fortieth anniversary of Brown in 1994, it was already clear that the Supreme Court's role as an engine of desegregation was over. Resegregation has been going on for a generation, largely beyond judicial reach. So too have debates whether to reinvent integration in economic class terms.

Indeed, the precise impact of the Court's ruling on the Seattle and Louisville cases remains unclear. Seattle, with a proud municipal commitment to ethnic and racial diversity, is already talking about "race-conscious" but not racially determined measures that might meet the Court's new standards. Justice Anthony Kennedy gave Roberts his majority, but on the other hand Kennedy wrote what may turn out to be a poison-pill concurrence. Taking sharp issue with Roberts's comprehensive dismissal of race-based remedies, Kennedy called the Chief Justice "profoundly mistaken" in his view that "state and local school authorities must accept the status quo of racial isolation in schools."

What is new is the Roberts Court's comprehensive and direct assault on Brown's insistence that race-conscious discrimination requires race-conscious remedies. "The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race," wrote Roberts in an Alice-in-Wonderland formulation that provoked a rare emotional rebuke from the usually Olympian Justice Breyer: "It is not often in the law that so few have so quickly changed so much."

What has changed, Justice Breyer seems to be saying, is the Supreme Court itself. What is so evident in all this week's cases is an almost gleeful judicial activism aimed not at any particular policy but at the basic configuration of power in this country. Antitrust means antiregulation, free speech means muzzling student protest, desegregation means maintaining segregation. That is the meaning of this week's rulings, and that--it is clear--is the meaning of the Roberts Court.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070716/shapiro

 

[geechiedan]

really interesting read..its the opinion of the supreme ct. plus who concurred and dissented and why...

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/05-908.ZO.html

Accepting racial balancing as a compelling state interest would justify the imposition of racial proportionality throughout American society, contrary to our repeated recognition that “[a]t the heart of the Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection lies the simple command that the Government must treat citizens as individuals, not as simply components of a racial, religious, sexual or national class.” Miller v. Johnson, 515 U. S. 900, 911 (1995) (quoting Metro Broadcasting, 497 U. S., at 602 (O’Connor, J., dissenting); internal quotation marks omitted).14 Allowing racial balancing as a compelling end in itself would “effectively assur[e] that race will always be relevant in American life, and that the ‘ultimate goal’ of ‘eliminating entirely from governmental decisionmaking such irrelevant factors as a human being’s race’ will never be achieved.” Croson, supra, at 495 (plurality opinion of O’Connor, J.) (quoting Wygant v. Jackson Bd. of Ed., 476 U. S. 267, 320 (1986) (Stevens, J., dissenting), in turn quoting Fullilove, 448 U. S., at 547 (Stevens, J., dissenting); brackets and citation omitted). An interest “linked to nothing other than proportional representation of various races … would support indefinite use of racial classifications, employed first to obtain the appropriate mixture of racial views and then to ensure that the [program] continues to reflect that mixture.” Metro Broadcasting, supra, at 614 (O’Connor, J., dissenting).

The validity of our concern that racial balancing has “no logical stopping point,” Croson, supra, at 498 (quoting Wygant, supra, at 275 (plurality opinion); internal quotation marks omitted); see also Grutter, supra, at 343, is demonstrated here by the degree to which the districts tie their racial guidelines to their demographics. As the districts’ demographics shift, so too will their definition of racial diversity. See App. in No. 05–908, at 103a (describing application of racial tiebreaker based on “current white percentage” of 41 percent and “current minority percentage” of 59 percent (emphasis added)).

The Ninth Circuit below stated that it “share[d] in the hope” expressed in Grutter that in 25 years racial preferences would no longer be necessary to further the interest identified in that case. Parents Involved VII, 426 F. 3d, at 1192. But in Seattle the plans are defended as necessary to address the consequences of racially identifiable housing patterns. The sweep of the mandate claimed by the district is contrary to our rulings that remedying past societal discrimination does not justify race-conscious government action. See, e.g., Shaw v. Hunt, 517 U. S. 899, 909–910 (1996) (“[A]n effort to alleviate the effects of societal discrimination is not a compelling interest”); Croson, supra, at 498–499; Wygant, 476 U. S., at 276 (plurality opinion) (“Societal discrimination, without more, is too amorphous a basis for imposing a racially classified remedy”); id., at 288 (O’Connor, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment) (“[A] governmental agency’s interest in remedying ‘societal’ discrimination, that is, discrimination not traceable to its own actions, cannot be deemed sufficiently compelling to pass constitutional muster”).

The principle that racial balancing is not permitted is one of substance, not semantics. Racial balancing is not transformed from “patently unconstitutional” to a compelling state interest simply by relabeling it “racial diversity.” While the school districts use various verbal formulations to describe the interest they seek to promote—racial diversity, avoidance of racial isolation, racial integration—they offer no definition of the interest that suggests it differs from racial balance. See, e.g., App. in No. 05–908, at 257a (“Q. What’s your understanding of when a school suffers from racial isolation? A. I don’t have a definition for that”); id., at 228a–229a (“I don’t think we’ve ever sat down and said, ‘Define racially concentrated school exactly on point in quantitative terms.’ I don’t think we’ve ever had that conversation”); Tr. in McFarland I, at 1–90 (Dec. 8, 2003) (“Q. How does the Jefferson County School Board define diversity … ?” “A. Well, we want to have the schools that make up the percentage of students of the population”).

 

[geechiedan]

for those who believe that AA encourages mediocrity here is just one of MANY real word situations that happened:

This is parts of the case of United States v. Paradise...in which quotas were enacted...

http://supreme.justia.com/us/480/149/case.html
"The use of quota relief in employment discrimination cases is bottomed on the chancellor's duty to eradicate the continuing effects of past unlawful practices. By mandating the hiring of those who have been the object of discrimination, quota relief promptly operates to change the outward and visible signs of yesterday's racial distinctions and thus, to provide an impetus to the process of dismantling the barriers, psychological or otherwise, erected by past practices. It is a temporary remedy that seeks to spend itself as promptly as it can by creating a climate in which objective, neutral employment criteria can successfully operate to select public employees solely on the basis of job-related merit." NAACP v. Allen, 493 F.2d 614, 621 (1974).

The Court of Appeals also held that white applicants who had higher eligibility rankings than blacks were not denied due process or equal protection of the laws by the one-for-one hiring order. The Department's use of unvalidated selection procedures that disproportionately excluded blacks precluded any argument that "quota hiring produces unconstitutional `reverse' discrimination, or a lowering of employment standards, or the appointment of less or unqualified persons." Id., at 618.[Footnote 5]

In 1974, only shortly after the Court of Appeals' decision, the plaintiffs found it necessary to seek further relief from the District Court. Judge Johnson found that "defendants have, for the purpose of frustrating or delaying full relief to the plaintiff class, artificially restricted the size of the trooper
Page 480 U.S. 149, 157

force and the number of new troopers hired." Paradise v. Dothard, Civ. Action No. 3561-N (MD Ala., Aug. 5, 1975). The court also addressed the disproportionate failure of blacks hired to achieve permanent trooper status:[Footnote 6]
"[T]he high attrition rate among blacks resulted from the selection of other than the best qualified blacks from the eligibility rosters, some social and official discrimination against blacks at the trooper training academy, preferential treatment of whites in some aspects of training and testing, and discipline of blacks harsher than that given whites for similar misconduct while on the force."[/B] Ibid.

After much wrangling back and forth and STILL no compliance on the part of the Department...

The District Judge summarized the situation:

"On February 10, 1984, less than two months from today, twelve years will have passed since this court condemned the racially discriminatory policies and practices of the Alabama Department of Public Safety. Nevertheless,
Page 480 U.S. 149, 163

the effects of these policies and practices remain pervasive and conspicuous at all ranks above the entry-level position. Of the 6 majors, there is still not one black. Of the 25 captains, there is still not one black. Of the 35 lieutenants, there is still not one black. Of the 65 sergeants, there is still not one black. Of the 66 corporals, only four are black. Thus, the department still operates an upper rank structure in which almost every trooper obtained his position through procedures that totally excluded black persons. Moreover, the department is still without acceptable procedures for advancement of black troopers into this structure, and it does not appear that any procedures will be in place within the near future. The preceding scenario is intolerable and must not continue. The time has now arrived for the department to take affirmative and substantial steps to open the upper ranks to black troopers." Id., at 74 (emphasis in original).

The court then fashioned the relief at issue here. It held that "for a period of time," at least 50% of the promotions to corporal must be awarded to black troopers, if qualified black candidates were available. The court also held that "if there is to be within the near future an orderly path for black troopers to enter the upper ranks, any relief fashioned by the court must address the department's delay in developing acceptable promotion procedures for all ranks." Id., at 75. Thus, the court imposed a 50% promotional quota in the upper ranks, but only if there were qualified black candidates, if the rank were less than 25% black, and if the Department had not developed and implemented a promotion plan without adverse impact for the relevant rank. The court concluded that the effects of past discrimination in the Department "will not wither away of their own accord" and that "without promotional quotas the continuing effects of this discrimination cannot be eliminated." Id., at 75 and 76. The court highlighted the temporary nature and flexible

Page 480 U.S. 149, 164
design of the relief ordered, stating that it was "specifically tailored" to eliminate the lingering effects of past discrimination, to remedy the delayed compliance with the consent decrees, and to ensure prompt implementation of lawful procedures. Ibid.

1983 the District Court was constitutionally required to settle for yet another promise that such a procedure would be forthcoming "as soon as possible." 2 Record 358.

Moreover, the Department's proposal ignored the injury to the plaintiff class that resulted from its delay in complying with the terms of the 1972 order and the 1979 and 1981 Decrees.[Footnote 21] As the Eleventh Circuit pointed out, no blacks were promoted between 1972 and 1979; the four blacks promoted in 1979 were elevated pursuant to the 1979 Decree and not as a result of the voluntary action of the Department; and, finally, the whites promoted since 1972 "were the specific beneficiaries of an official policy which systematically excluded all blacks."

To permit ad hoc decisionmaking to continue and allow only 4 of 15 slots to be filled by blacks would have denied relief to black troopers who had irretrievably lost promotion opportunities.[Footnote 22] Thus, adoption of the Department's proposal would have fallen far short of the remedy necessary to eliminate the effects of the Department's past discrimination, would not have ensured adoption of a procedure without adverse impact, and would not have vitiated the effects of the defendant's delay.[Footnote 23]

this is one part of the affirmed decision on the question of quotas being used in this case:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/htm...0_0149_ZS.html

(d) The one-for-one requirement does not impose an unacceptable burden on innocent white promotion applicants. The requirement is temporary and limited in nature, has only been used once, and may never be used again. It does not bar, but simply postpones, advancement by some whites, and does not require the layoff or discharge of whites or the promotion of unqualified blacks over qualified whites.

in all of this the judges involve acted in neither a capricious or callous way and it was quite evident that the culture of racism was enduring in that case.

 

[QueEx]

GEECH,

"Creating Mediocrity" is a phrase coined by those in the "majority" who oppose
affirmative action. Its a neat little phrase that, said enough, even some Black
people have actually come to believe that its true, except its a gross misnomer.

Most of white America never agreed with affirmative action to begin with. From
day one they looked for ways to scuttle it and they've been on a roll since the
Alan Bakke case (the 1978 reverse discrimination case).

QueEx