Nutty In The Nutmeg State

The Norwich Bulletin has an article today, “Struggle For Equality Stalled, Eastern Connecticut Black Leaders Say,” that is quite depressing, in part because of the misinformation it purveys.

It quotes a number of “black leaders” whose pessimism is unrelieved by recognition of any racial progress at all. For example:

“It’s just a fiction that we made progress,” said R. Hamisi Ingram, executive director of the state Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities. “The only progresses we have made is we are more culturally accepted today.”

….

Kamau Birago, an assistant professor of sociology at Connecticut College, believes the gains made in the 1960s ended in the mid 1970s.

“There’s this sustained attack on affirmative action since the 1970s and the dismantling of these programs,” Birago said. “There’s been this backlash against what was perceived as an unfair advantage blacks were getting under affirmative action.”

Birago said since programs such as affirmative action have been weakened, blacks have lost opportunities to get better education and jobs. He said those who took advantage of the programs before the 1980s did well, while others were left behind.

In other words, the civil rights legislation of the 1960s produced nothing. Civil rights are empty without racial preferences.

One slightly discordant — and hence sensible — note was struck by Jacqueline Owens, president of the Norwich Chapter of the NAACP:

“We have to let our kids know they can succeed. There are opportunities for them, but they have to work hard,” Owens said.

She said blacks also have to be aggressive and get the things they want without settling.

“African Americans, especially those that are in blue-collar jobs, they’ve really got to think for themselves,” Owens said. “If you’re told ‘You can’t do, you can’t do, you can’t do,’ you start to believe it.”

The only problem with this analysis is that most of the “can’t do” rhetoric these days comes from “black leaders,” such as Lee-Ann Gomes, director of social work in Norwich Human Services:

“Minorities, I think, for whatever reasons, still have a problem getting jobs and holding on to those jobs,” Gomes said. “Absolutely it’s disproportionate for minorities. I think it’s atrocious sometimes.”

Gomes said people talk about hiring more minorities, but are so used to hiring people like themselves, they rarely increase their minority work force.

The view presented by the article through these quotes was, as I’ve said, depressing, but worse was a “Glossary” item included by the newspaper itself in a sidebar:

Affirmative action: A program designed to correct governmental and social injustices against minorities who have been the subjects of prejudice in schools, the workplace and society. Under affirmative action, schools and workplaces would analyze their student or employee populations and see where certain minority groups are under-represented. The school or employer is then supposed to hire from those minority group to make the school or workplace more representative of the community.

What the Norwich Bulletin regards as “affirmative action” was always wrong and is now almost certainly illegal (except where any “under-representation” can be attributed to a particular employer’s discrimination). Moreover, as I have pointed out here too many times to cite (search this site for “executive order”), the view of affirmative action that requires race-based hiring or admissions directly contradicts both the principle underlying and the policies called for in the two presidential executive orders (10295 and 11246) that established affirmative action. Both demanded

affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin. (Emphasis added)

Say What? (2)

  1. sharon February 21, 2006 at 6:23 am | | Reply

    Always nice when a newspaper has to have a glossary for common terms so the readers understand Newsspeak. Are there any readers of a newspaper (average age: 50) who don’t know what affirmative action is?

  2. Rich February 21, 2006 at 9:48 am | | Reply

    In other words, the civil rights legislation of the 1960s produced nothing. Civil rights are empty without racial preferences.

    I know this is a paraphrase, but it’s amazing how many think that we can have both Civil Rights and racial preferances at the same time.

    Racial preferances in and of themselves violate the letter and spirit of Civil Rights, which apply to the individual, not to a race.

    What most blacks today pander as Civil Rights is in fact a direct violation of Civil Rights.

Say What?