Outrageous Official Misconduct In Missouri

Missouri has always prided itself on being the “Show Me” state. Robin Carnahan, the Missouri Secretary of State, even has a web page explaining the origins of that semi-official sobriquet. Now, however, Ms. Carnahan has given an entirely new meaning to that term: by flagrantly violating her official responsibility, she has shown that Missouri officials need to be shown how to obey their own law.

As Tim Asher, Executive Director of the Missouri Civil Rights Initiative, explained today in a press release describing the legal challenge MoCRI has just filed (I’ll provide a link as soon as one is available) objecting to Ms. Carnahan’s extreme makeover of the ballot language it submitted,

Secretary of State Carnahan exercised tremendous liberty in drafting this language. Her directive as outlined by Missouri Statute is to prepare ballot title language that is “true and impartial” and “neither intentionally argumentative nor likely to create prejudice.”

You decide whether she has met that legal obligation.

Here is the language submitted by MoCRI to Secretary of State Carnahan:

Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended to prohibit any form of discrimination as an act of the state by declaring:

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?

Here, by contrast, is what Secretary Carnahan has certified as the official ballot language:

Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended to:

  • ban affirmative action programs designed to eliminate discrimination against, and improve opportunities for, women and minorities in public contracting, employment and education; and

  • allow preferential treatment based on race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin to meet federal program funds eligibility standards as well as preferential treatment for bona fide qualifications based on sex?

This official dissembling, of course, is not limited to Missouri Democrats. As Mr. Asher stated in the press release,

[m]isleading statements like this ballot title are standard practice for those who support preferences and unequal treatment. They are afraid to let people vote on the true language since the people always choose fair and equal treatment.

Ward Connerly, who has some experience in these matters, was also appalled, stating:

This is one the most appalling abuses of a Constitutional Office I have ever seen. In California, Washington, and Michigan where identical measures have already been passed by the voters, the Secretaries of State and Attorneys General did not play politics with their sworn duty to protect the voting process. I am alarmed and believe the citizens of Missouri should be worried that their duly elected officials are misleading the voters with false and unfair information.

A petition challenging Secretary of State Carnahan’s attempt to undermine the MoCRI has just been filed in Cole County Circuit Court. Perhaps a judge will respond to Ms. Carnahan’s plea to “Show Me” how to perform her duties.

UPDATE

The Missouri Civil Rights Initiative press release quoted above can be now found here. It quotes Section 116.025, Missouri Revised Statutes.

UPDATE II [30 July]

On his new blog, Peter Schmidt, deputy editor of the Chronicle of Higher Education, makes the same point that the perceptive Chetly Zarko, who worked on the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative, makes in this comment below.

Schmidt’s version:

One prominent higher-education lawyer privately notes that any college affirmative-action program “designed to eliminate discrimination against, and improve opportunities for, women and minorities” in higher education would run afoul of the limits the Supreme Court placed on such policies as far back as its landmark Bakke decision of 1978. The court specifically held in that ruling that colleges cannot use race-conscious admissions policies to remedy societal discrimination. For discrimination to be the justification, it must be discrimination that the college in question perpetrated. In both the Bakke decision and its Grutter v. Bollinger decision of 2003, the only justification for race-conscious admissions allowed by the Supreme Court was the desire to foster levels of racial and ethnic diversity that will provide educational benefits to all students. So, in essence, if the proposed amendment to the Missouri Constitution bans what Ms. Carnahan says it bans, it bans what the Supreme Court says the U.S. Constitution already bans. Any Missouri college that has is operating a program like the ones she describes is vulnerable to lawsuit unless it has admitted to, or has been found guilty of, discrimination against minorities and women.

Allow me to suggest a corollary (or rather to suggest again a corollary I first suggested here): not only would Secretary Carnahan’s language limit the proposed initiative to outlawing programs that are already illegal (an admission, as Zarko suggests, that Missouri has such programs?), but, as I read it, it would not bar any racial or ethnic preference policy that was “designed to” promote diversity.

Does Secretary Carnahan really think that the organizers of the Missouri Civil Rights Initiative intend to leave “diversity”-justified racial preference programs untouched? But if she does not think that, what becomes of her legal obligation to certify neutral, unbiased, un-argumentative language? Secretary Carnahan is under no obligation to use the summary language submitted by initiative organizers, but she does have an obligation to summarize fairly and objectively their initiative, not the initiative she would have written or the dumb one she would prefer initiative supporters to have written.

Perhaps the more relevant question is, does Secretary Carnahan think?

Say What? (29)

  1. Brad July 26, 2007 at 4:57 pm | | Reply

    Wow. That is … uhm… interesting language. Could the blog host put part 2 in plain english?

  2. John Rosenberg July 26, 2007 at 6:05 pm | | Reply

    Er, no.

    I suppose that Ms. Carnahan’s first paragraph could be read to ban only affirmative action programs designed to do good, leaving in place all those whose purpose and intent was evil.

    And her second paragraph merely confirms one element of the proposed MoCRI, which is that it would not bar any preferences that are necessary to comply with court orders or federal regulations.

    Her attempt to deprive the citizens of Missouri of their right to vote on the initiative actually proposed by MoCRI is so outrageous it would be funny if it weren’t so offensive.

  3. Splendiferous July 26, 2007 at 6:54 pm | | Reply

    I live in Missouri and this is going to get nasty. I predict that it will eventually go to the Missouri Supreme Court.

  4. Shouting Thomas July 27, 2007 at 8:56 am | | Reply

    John,

    You say that a “petition” has been presented to the court.

    What are the actual legal remedies available? This is not very clear to me.

  5. eddy July 27, 2007 at 11:50 am | | Reply

    Wouldn’t the first section of the proposed language also ban legitimate anti-discrimination programs:

    ban affirmative action programs designed to eliminate discrimination against, and improve opportunities for, women and minorities in public contracting, employment and education;

    This language suggests that all state EEOC-type enforcement would be banned since they are ‘programs designed to eliminate discrimination’. The Secretary of State’s language does not distinguish between preferences which the amendment would ban, and enforcement of state remedies for “malicious” discrimination such as actual discrimination against blacks, women, etc.

  6. Banjo July 27, 2007 at 12:38 pm | | Reply

    If only George Orwell was still around.

  7. Chetly Zarko July 27, 2007 at 12:40 pm | | Reply

    Splendiforous, your prediction is sound. Maybe higher.

    Brad, in plain English, Carnahan is saying that MoCRI bans those affirmative action programs which are already illegal under federal Supreme Court precedent — she says that MoCRI bans programs intended to redress past discrimination only to minorities and women — the only purpose the Court has authorized is “diversity” for educational benefits, and it has explicitly rejected preferences per se for general anti-discrimination fighting.

    So the irony is that Carnahan is saying that Missouri has federally illegal programs, and that is what MoCRI is banning. It’s worded such as to implant a warm and fuzzy intent into those current programs though.

  8. Curtis Crawford July 27, 2007 at 1:22 pm | | Reply

    Unfortunately, Carnahan’s deeply partisan ballot language is quite true in what it states: The primary clause in the constitutional amendment, banning discrimination against, or 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” would indeed “ban affirmative action programs designed to eliminate discrimination against, and improve opportunities for, women and minorities in public contracting, employment and education.”

    Another clause in the amendment provides that it “does not prohibit action that must be taken to establish or maintain eligibility for any federal program, if ineligibility would result in a loss of federal funds to the state.” This clause does indeed “allow preferential treatment based on race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin to meet federal program funds eligibility standards.”

    Still another clause provides that the amendment shall not be interpreted “as prohibiting bona fide qualifications based on sex that are reasonably necessary to the normal operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting.”

    Asher was right to emphasize the amendment’s primary clause in his proposed ballot language. It was a mistake to preface this clause with the claim that the amendment would “prohibit any form of discrimination as an act of the state.” The amendment only bans discrimination on the bases it specifies, ” race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin, “in the areas it specifies, “public employment, public education or public contracting.”

    A clear and impartial ballot language might state the primary clause of the amendment, then add that affirmative action would be banned by the amendment, if and only if such action involved discrimination or preference on the bases and in the areas specified by the amendment.

  9. Jacqueline D. Stock July 27, 2007 at 2:01 pm | | Reply

    This is OUTRAGEOUS! Does Ms. Carnahan believe she was elected to the Office of Do Whatever I Believe is Best and Forget the Missouri Voters? As a registered Missouri voter, I would like to remind Ms. Carnahan that she is a servent of the people of Missouri, she serves at our pleasure and can be replaced-easily-should the voters feel it necessary. She was given a specific task to accomplish and failed miserably. She gets no passing grade, in fact, she gets an F! Do it over, Robin, and see if you can redeem yourself.

  10. PopConservative July 27, 2007 at 5:13 pm | | Reply

    This is not the first time Secretary Carnahan has used misleading language on a ballot. In 2006, Missouri’s hotly contested embryonic stem cell amendment not only used tricky wording on the ballot, but the actual text of the provision seemed contradictory to what voters would see at the polls. We can only hope that this causes enough of a stir to get her removed from office in 2008.

  11. Brad July 27, 2007 at 6:28 pm | | Reply

    “Unfortunately, Carnahan’s deeply partisan ballot language is quite true in what it states…”

    Not true at all.

    “ban affirmative action programs”

    Fine up until that point, but:

    “… designed to eliminate discrimination against, and improve opportunities for, women and minorities…”

    that portion is presuming intent and effect. In other words, it is positing a politically one-sided view of the issue.

    Had the original wording included, “… designed to foster reverse discrimination and promote divisiveness in society…” then she would justified in wordshopping the language. As it stands, all she did was commit an act of snide, arrogant, unethical manipulation.

    Also, and maybe more importantly, the second part is intentionally badly written in order to force an unaware voter to vote “No” because they couldn’t interpret the meaning. That is dispicable.

  12. Curtis Crawford July 27, 2007 at 11:12 pm | | Reply

    When writing my previous comment, I was puzzled that state authorization of BALLOT language would occur at this stage of the initiative process in Missouri. My memory of California in 1996, and Michigan in 2006, was that authorization of BALLOT language occurred AFTER the collection of signatures.

    The Missouri rules re constitutional initiatives are in Chapter 116 of the Missouri Revised Statutes. As I read them, what they require BEFORE the petitions are circulated is an impartial SUMMARY STATEMENT, not exceeding 100 words, in the form of a question. (Sec. 116.334) The statements submitted by the Initiative & the Secy of State both fit the last two criteria, at any rate.

    Here is the clause: “If the petition form is approved, the secretary of state shall within ten days prepare and transmit to the attorney general a summary statement of the measure which shall be a concise statement not exceeding one hundred words. This statement shall be in the form of a question using language neither intentionally argumentative nor likely to create prejudice either for or against the proposed measure.”

    If the initiative gets enough signatures to place it on the ballot, the question of BALLOT LANGUAGE arises. This, I believe, is what Sec. 116.025, the clause cited in John’s blog, addresses.

    It provides: “The secretary of state within twenty days of receiving a statewide ballot measure shall prepare and transmit to the attorney general fair ballot language statements that fairly and accurately explain what a vote for and what a vote against the measure represent. Each statement shall be posted in each polling place next to the sample ballot. Such fair ballot language statements shall be true and impartial statements of the effect of a vote for and against the measure in language neither intentionally argumentative nor likely to create prejudice for or against the proposed measure.”

  13. eddy July 27, 2007 at 11:36 pm | | Reply

    The Missouri CRI website might be more credible if they knew their own state’s name. The website states:

    When will the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative be on the ballot?

    The Initiative will be on the November 4, 2008 ballot.

    I would have let them know directly, but they don’t have any email addresses.

  14. Jeffersonian July 28, 2007 at 12:27 am | | Reply

    Given the politial bent of the Carnahan family in general, I’m stunned that our esteemed SoS wasn’t able to work in that the proposed amendment would flay alive cute puppies with sad eyes who just want to be loved.

  15. Cobra July 28, 2007 at 11:28 am | | Reply

    Oh, I get it. ONLY right winged, conservative anti-affirmative action types are allowed to use language that promotes their agenda.

    Well, well, well…when Secretary of State Robin Carnahan decides to put the REAL CONSEQUENCES of the Missouri Civil Rights Initiative up for consideration, all of sudden, it’s “outrageous.”

    I’m sorry. We’ve seen the harm that these anti-black/anti-latino/anti-native American, anti-woman initiatives can cause, and how they have won using Frank Luntz-style Orwellian subterfuge. I applaud Secretary of State Carnahan for standing up.

    Right wingers, if you want to kill affirmative action, and stifle opportunity for African-Americans, Hispanic-Americans and European-American women, have the GUTS to come out and SAY SO. Don’t hide behind clever words and linguistic treachery.

    Show of the courage of your convictions.

    –Cobra

  16. eddy July 28, 2007 at 2:57 pm | | Reply

    Cobra — Was the 1964 Civil Rights Act an anti-white, anti-male piece of legislation?

  17. eddy July 28, 2007 at 4:13 pm | | Reply

    “Don’t treat people differently because of their race or gender”:

    1964 — a pro-black/pro-latino/pro-native American, pro-woman sentiment.

    2007 — an anti-black/anti-latino/anti-native American, anti-woman sentiment.

    How could the same language morph in meaning 180 degrees in 33 years?

    Maybe this language expresses the same meaning it had years ago: anti-preferences.

  18. Cobra July 28, 2007 at 6:22 pm | | Reply

    Eddy writes:

    >>>”Was the 1964 Civil Rights Act an anti-white, anti-male piece of legislation?”

    It was an anti-perpetual white male power structure piece of legislation.

    There’s a distinction.

    Of course, there were people like frm. Chief Justice William Rehnquist who were AGAINST the CRA of 1964.

    >>>”As a law clerk for Justice Jackson, Rehnquist wrote a memorandum explaining why the case that stood for “separate but equal,” Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 53 (1896), should be upheld. In his confirmation hearings, both for associate justice and chief, Rehnquist claimed that the memo was written at Justice Jackson’s request for a statement of opposition to overturning Plessy, and did not reflect his views.

    Many, including other clerks of Justice Jackson, do not find this credible.”

    http://www.dkosopedia.com/wiki/William_Rehnquist

    To many conservatives, the late William Rehnquist is still considered a “hero”.

    –Cobra

  19. mikem July 29, 2007 at 3:37 am | | Reply

    This is so perfect. Cobra uses dkosopedia as the authoritative word.

    Want to know what a kos reference is good for? Here’s the entire (it’s been pared down since kos went “mainstream Democrat” for the cause) entry for Bill Burkett:

    “Bill Burkett – A figure and possible[!!!!] document source in the Killian documents affair of 2004. Possible fed the documents by Roger Stone which many speculate were passed from the White House by Dan Bartlett with approval or orchestration by Karl Rove[!!!].”

    I love your way, Cobra. You make things so easy.

  20. eddy July 29, 2007 at 4:08 pm | | Reply

    Cobra — You appear to interpret the laws of this country not as principles to be applied uniformly according to their plain meaning, but as exclusive possessions of their original intended beneficiaries. While it may be true that the 1964 Civil Rights Act may have been motivated by mistreatment of minorities, the final language of the Act didn’t merely prohibit discrimination against minorities even though it could have been written that way. It prohibited discrimination against everyone due to their race.

    The Act stood for the principle of non-discrimination across-the-board and not the delineation of a permanent class of favored beneficiaries. While the original beneficiaries of Brown v. Board of Education may have been minorities, the decision was based on the same principle that decided the Louisville and Seattle cases. Those who complain that these cases “undermine the promise of Brown” confuse principles with original beneficiaries.

    If we were to adopt your view of focusing on original beneficiaries rather than the principles used to decide cases, our laws would be largely impotent in discerning their meaning. Using your approach, if the Supreme Court decided in favor of Democrats over Republicans in a particular gerrymandering case, Republicans couldn’t use this case as precedent in another factually similar case where the situation is reversed. Whatever principle the first case rested upon for the Court’s decision would be irrelevant because the benficiaries of the first decision are quite different from the potential beneficiaries of the second case.

    Cobra, if you are against discrimination only when it adversely affects you, then you are not against discrimination on principle. That would put you on the same moral footing as the white supremists who opposed the 1964 Civil Rights Act because it would cut into their scheme.

    Sometimes a set of rules works to our benefit, sometimes they work against us. It’s the principled person who accepts those rules even when they are to his detriment.

  21. ACF July 29, 2007 at 8:01 pm | | Reply

    As Cobra admitted (by non-response to previously stated facts), the Black Power Structure uses affirmative discrimination against non-Blacks in hiring at law firms, within the government, in universities, and at medical etablishments. Non-Blacks are only hired if no Blacks are available.

    Of course, non-Blacks who worked to get where they are in life are on to the Black Power Structure.

    Cobra, can you hear the final ticks of your affirmative discrimination time bomb? What are you going to do when nobody wants to listen to your guilt trips? Are you going to get a job based on merit?

  22. ACF July 30, 2007 at 8:00 pm | | Reply

    Factual errors from InsideHigherEd:

    “The Missouri Civil Rights Initiative, which is organizing a referendum to ban affirmative action in public college admissions and other state activities, is suing state officials over changes in ballot language. Defenders of affirmative action have said that the language used in several successful campaigns against affirmative action isn’t clear on what is being banned, but initiative officials say that state leaders are trying to use the language to make affirmative action look good.”

  23. Cobra July 30, 2007 at 10:51 pm | | Reply

    Eddy writes:

    >>>”Cobra — You appear to interpret the laws of this country not as principles to be applied uniformly according to their plain meaning, but as exclusive possessions of their original intended beneficiaries. While it may be true that the 1964 Civil Rights Act may have been motivated by mistreatment of minorities, the final language of the Act didn’t merely prohibit discrimination against minorities even though it could have been written that way. It prohibited discrimination against everyone due to their race.

    Oh…so you’re saying that because of the CRA of 1964, there really isn’t a NEED for the MoCRI, MCRI or any number of Ward Connerly’s schemes since we ALREADY HAVE anti-discrimination laws on the books.

    Thank you.

    Eddy writes:

    >>>” Using your approach, if the Supreme Court decided in favor of Democrats over Republicans in a particular gerrymandering case, Republicans couldn’t use this case as precedent in another factually similar case where the situation is reversed. Whatever principle the first case rested upon for the Court’s decision would be irrelevant because the benficiaries of the first decision are quite different from the potential beneficiaries of the second case.”

    Oh, you must be referring to the SCOTUS decision of Bush v. Gore in 2000.

    >>>”The counting of votes that are of questionable legality does, in my view, threaten irreparable harm to petitioner [George W. Bush] and to the country, by casting a cloud upon what he claims to be the legitimacy of his election. Count first and rule upon legality afterwards, is not a recipe for producing election results that have the public acceptance that democratic stability requires.”

    In what may foreshadow the ultimate outcome of the case, Scalia also wrote. “It suffices to say that the issuance of the stay suggests that a majority of the Court, while not deciding the issues presented, believe that the petitioner has a substantial probability of success.”

    http://archives.cnn.com/2000/LAW/12/10/scalia.stevens/

    And…

    >>>”There is a legal argument for pushing Bush v. Gore aside. The majority opinion announced that the ruling was “limited to the present circumstances” and could not be cited as precedent. But many legal scholars insisted at the time that this assertion was itself dictum — the part of a legal opinion that is non-binding — and illegitimate, because under the doctrine of stare decisis, courts cannot make rulings whose reasoning applies only to a single case.”

    http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/15/opinion/15tues4.html?

    That’s precisely the scenario you depicted, is it not?

    ACF writes:

    >>>”As Cobra admitted (by non-response to previously stated facts), the Black Power Structure uses affirmative discrimination against non-Blacks in hiring at law firms, within the government, in universities, and at medical etablishments. Non-Blacks are only hired if no Blacks are available.”

    OK…I’ll humor you with this “Black Power Structure” rebuttal. According to your logic, since the “BPS” is fueled by Affirmative Action, you would have to argue the Republican President Richard M. Nixon created it.

    You would have to also argue that there is no longer a “BPS” in the states of California, Florida, Washington, Texas and Michigan, since there is no longer a government sanctioned Affirmative Action program.

    Third, you’d have to argue that there non-black people, ESPECIALLY white males are NOT being hired to work in law firms, government, universities and medical establishments in the other 46 states in any appreciable numbers.

    Do you realize how much your argument–that there is some SHORTAGE of non-blacks, especially WHITE MALES working at law firms, Universities, Government Positions and Medical Establishments–sounds like a particularly BAD SNL skit?

    A SHORTAGE of non-blacks?

    Stephen, c’mon… even YOU gotta be with me on this one.

    –Cobra

  24. AFC July 31, 2007 at 1:25 pm | | Reply

    “OK…I’ll humor you with this “Black Power Structure” rebuttal. According to your logic, since the “BPS” is fueled by Affirmative Action, you would have to argue the Republican President Richard M. Nixon created it.”

    I don’t care who created it.

    “You would have to also argue that there is no longer a “BPS” in the states of California, Florida, Washington, Texas and Michigan, since there is no longer a government sanctioned Affirmative Action program.”

    This statement further demonstrates your ignorance. You must not be involved in hiring decisions. The BPS continues to put blacks/women/others at the tops of job search lists in the states you mention – regardless of merit. Do you know that some companies (Walmart for example) require that any law firm they hire MUST have a certain number of blacks – regardless of merit? That is regardless of their location in any particular state.

    “Third, you’d have to argue that there non-black people, ESPECIALLY white males are NOT being hired to work in law firms, government, universities and medical establishments in the other 46 states in any appreciable numbers.”

    Wrong. You have flawed logic. In many of these job searches, blacks/women/others are foisted to the tops of the candidate lists. Because there are few of these candidates educated enough to even apply for the jobs, the candidates immeidately get offered the jobs and bidding wars ensue. All regardless of merit. The end result is that the few openings that do come up, get filled by unqualified people. Given the relatively large number of people in these fields, it would take 50 years (in most cases – do the math) to replace everybody in those fields with blacks/women/others. Really, do the math. The fact that not 100% of lawyers are now black women does NOT mean that black women are NOT getting free rides without merit in hiring decisions today.

    “Do you realize how much your argument–that there is some SHORTAGE of non-blacks, especially WHITE MALES working at law firms, Universities, Government Positions and Medical Establishments–sounds like a particularly BAD SNL skit?”

    Again, you must not be involved in these decisions, because you are clueless. Do you have any idea how many of these institutions have hiring freezes, except for blacks/women/other?

    Your ignorance is not surprising. I have met countless people (educated professionals in other fields, no less) who simply do not know about the hiring practices I describe. When I explain to them, and show them the specific written racist policies of these organizations, they are shocked.

    It does surprise me that you have not even attempted to become educated on this issue, given that you comment so proflifically about it. Why don’t you know that the types of organizations that I mention are SALIVATING to hire blacks/women/other regardless of merit? Most of their websites state this fact, and you have been provided ample evidence on this blog.

  25. FreeMan July 31, 2007 at 7:04 pm | | Reply

    ACF – There may be hiring of Women & People of Color without regard to being the most qualified – but the issue is would those governments hire Women or People of Color without Affirmative Action? Does sexism against Women and racism against People of Color exist in government hiring?

    I say it does!

    What is the hiring %age in government for Women & People of Color as compared to the population?

    Finally – think about if sexism against Women or racism against People of Color exists in the US in 2007 & remember the proof that White European-American Males with felony records have an easier time getting jobs than Black Afrikan Males without felony records

  26. ACF August 1, 2007 at 8:53 pm | | Reply

    Of course the government (and other entities) would hire Blacks/Women/other without affirmative discrimination and the Black Power Structure. Except, they’d be hired for merit.

    If you think that affirmative discrimination is desirable, then you are advocating punishing some (those with more merit) in order to reward others (those with less merit) even if the ones being punished never had damaged the ones being rewarded. All of this, based on skin color or genitals.

    So, if you like that idea, then I have another. Let’s take note of the high crime rate of the black community and lump all blacks together. We can just say that they’re all criminals. Oh, wait. You don’t like that one, do you? I guess we can only lump whites together when we want to forbid them jobs….

  27. Cobra August 1, 2007 at 11:26 pm | | Reply

    AFC or ACF writes:

    >>>”It does surprise me that you have not even attempted to become educated on this issue, given that you comment so proflifically about it. Why don’t you know that the types of organizations that I mention are SALIVATING to hire blacks/women/other regardless of merit? Most of their websites state this fact, and you have been provided ample evidence on this blog.”

    Waitiminute buddy, aren’t you the same guy who made a statement on another thread that “what happened over 15 years ago doesn’t matter?”

    Well, you conveniently forgot to mention glass ceilings, old-boys networks, fraternalism, cronyism, back-scratching, interlocking directorates and good ol’ fashioned race and gender bias. You know…WHITE Affirmative Action?

    Ahh…very convenient that you don’t discuss these activities that created the neccessity for Affirmative Action in the first place.

    American Society didn’t spontaneously pop up the moment you decided to participate in it. It’s the continuing amalgamation of successes and tragedies shaped by both. To remove the historical context while making sweeping societal change is short-sighted at best, potentially cataclysmic at worst.

    –Cobra

  28. ACF August 2, 2007 at 12:39 am | | Reply

    Cobra,

    “AFC or ACF writes:”

    Oops, typo!

    “Waitiminute buddy, aren’t you the same guy who made a statement on another thread that “what happened over 15 years ago doesn’t matter?””

    Right, judge the person in front of you on merit. Whatever happened more than 15 years ago doesn’t matter. If some people are well-prepared because their parents nurtured a culture in the household that favored education, then so be it. If others weren’t in that situation, then they can learn from the conditions around them and raise their children inthe appropriate environment, whatever that means to them.

  29. FreeMan August 2, 2007 at 10:30 am | | Reply

    ACF – to be clear White European-American Males have benefitted from the dominant status in society even though presently they may not have discriminated against my parent’s generation – Just like US has benefitted from genocide & land theft of the 1st Nation People – the US morally owes the 1st Nation People a moral debt & should be $ by this generation – Affirmative Action will help reduce sexism against Women & racism against People of Color and is based upon moral justice

Say What?