2008 Presidential Election: Post #6

Thursday, November 20, 2008

Post #6

On election day voters didn't just decide who their leaders would be; they also decided what types of rights they wanted citizens to have and what type of role they wanted their government to play.

In Colorado and Nebraska voters decided whether their state would or would not use affirmative action in hiring, contracting and college admissions. Nebraska passed a ban on affirmative action and it failed in Colorado. However, in both states the electorate was fairly divided on the issue.

For background on this electoral question read the AP's story "Colorado voters reject affirmative action ban" and the New York Times's story "Vote Results Are Mixed on a Ban on Preference" from November 7th. (These articles shouldn't stop you though from doing your own research though.)

In your blog post please address the following questions:
1. What do these election results on affirmative action mean? How does the American electorate feel on affirmative action?
2. Does the U.S. need affirmative action in order to diversify its colleges and workplaces? Can or will we achieve diversity without having affirmative action? If we don't use affirmative action what would work better?

Your post will be greatly strengthened with research and data to back up your claims.

28 comments:

Lauren the wise said...: I believe that the election results in Nebraska and Colorado mean America’s eyes are beginning to open to a new look on true equality between the races. Instead of seeing affirmative action in conjunction with steps toward equality, Ward Connerly’s crusade for a ban on the program has shown America that it might be just the opposite (1). I believe that before this time, America would have viewed a vote banning affirmative action as one against civil rights. But people wonder whether it’s fair to give advantages to people based on race and gender in some places where they are not given to others. Colorado, when it didn’t pass the ban on affirmative action bill, was the first to do so (2). States such as Michigan, California, and Washington have already passed the bill (3). Connerly, a black man, poses a strong argument for voters. He says "I have been fighting for the principle that my skin color should not determine my success in American life.”
I do not think that the United states needs affirmative action in order to diversify its colleges and workplaces, although I am a strong believer that it helps. Affirmative action is a way for diversity to happen faster, for minorities to get the same opportunities as others sooner. Discriminations are still all around, and affirmative action helps to skirt around them. It gives incentive for a college to take a change on a student who hasn’t had the same chance to prove themselves as somebody with much more money has. It helps those who have to work a job to help pay their rent at the same time as going to school. Those who live in neighborhoods where they have to spend time worrying about the safety of their family, instead of taking preparatory classes for the SAT. Those who need help more than they can afford to volunteer giving it.
I believe that a program which would be more effective would be one that had different criteria which people would have to meet to be considered in the affirmative action program. Barack Obama has criticized Connerly by addressing how affirmative action addresses the hardships that minorities face. But he also says that the program should be extended to white people with low-incomes, and should not include people of racial ethnicities who are privileged financially (1). I believe a successful affirmative action program should center more around those who face hardships getting where they need to go. Today, people don’t necessarily face harder times just because they are one gender, or one race. I am living proof of that. But I still believe that we should have a program which allows those who have to work harder than the rest of us to finally succeed.

1. http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iP2emAr4F0x_XR8HdB1CZGy1YCKQD94ADUJ00
2. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/08/us/politics/08affirm.html?_r=1&ref=us
3. http://www.krdo.com/Global/story.asp?S=9309109; November 27, 2008 12:30 PM
Anonymous said...: 1. The results mean that the American public is still divided over affirmative action. In Colorado, the voters defeated a measure to ban affirmative action 51% to 49% (1). However, in Nebraska, the ban passed with 58% of voters (1). These results also indicate a connection with the presidential candidate. Nebraska went for McCain 57% to 41% (4). Colorado went for Obama 53% to 47% (2). Supporters of the ban in Colorado say it would have passed if new voters for Obama had not showed up at the polls (2).
The American electorate is divided over affirmative action. However, they are beginning to indicate a slight preference to ban affirmative action. Affirmative action has been banned in California, Michigan and Washington (2). The ban was passed with a 58% majority in Nebraska (3). In Colorado, the ban seemed set to pass with over 60% two weeks ago (2).
2. Studies show that students learn better at diverse institutions (5). The student body at most schools has about 10% diversity (6). The school with the greatest amount of diversity, Rutgers, had 75% diversity (6). Given that 33% of the United States population is composed of minorities, it seems that colleges need to aim for greater diversity (7).
I think it is less important to expand diversity in workplaces. Diversity helps decision making in juries but that cannot be applied uniformly across the job market (8). Expanding the number of minorities at colleges would help overall education and give them more opportunities in the workforce. Therefore, affirmative action in colleges would indirectly increase the diversity in the workforce. Also, I believe that employers will usually be looking for the most-qualified applicants and if there are minorities and non-minorities from equal schools, employers will be free to choose so as to increase their business’ diversity.
I think affirmative action is necessary to achieve diversity. Until the United States has a more equal lower education experience, it can’t be expected to have an equal higher education experience without some interference. I think affirmative action has the ability to grant minorities an equal chance at schools where they might not be as qualified as other applicants because of their poorer lower education experience.
I think a program that awarded students in the top 10% percentage of their high school graduating class would be beneficial. This method would not be attacked as reverse discrimination because it would equally affect minorities and non-minorities. However, this plan would help minorities because they would have the ability to get into colleges if they were among the top of their high school. This would reward all students who had done the most work in high school. Opponents of affirmative action might consider this a fairer plan because it has nothing to do with race only with grade ranking.

(1) http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iP2emAr4F0x_XR8HdB1CZGy1YCKQD94ADUJ00
(2) http://washingtontimes.com/news/2008/nov/08/obama-helped-defeat-anti-affirmative-action/
(3) http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/08/us/politics/08affirm.html?ref=us
(4) http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/sunday/commentary/la-oe-judis9-2008nov09,0,5313266.story
(5) http://www.vpcomm.umich.edu/admissions/legal/expert/summ.html
(6) http://www.usnews.com/blogs/college-rankings-blog/2007/10/22/measuring-diversity.html
(7) http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/05/10/hispanics/index.html
(8) http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/04/060410162259.htm; November 28, 2008 3:42 PM
Che Greene the Politics machine said...: The passage of an affirmative action ban does not surprise me. The small margin won in Nebraska (58 percent) is not surprising either.(1) In an article by Gallup it noted, “The Supreme Court ruled in 2003 that race can be a factor in college admissions, as long as it is not the overriding factor.”(2) Americans appear to be split at this point whether or not to ban affirmative action programs. The polls show that 50 percent support programs to help minorities while 42 percent show opposition. (2) And overwhelmingly blacks show more support for the program while more of a percentage of whites oppose the system. It comes at no revelation that minorities favor the system because they have been historically cheated out of rights and liberties. The odds that Connerly is the main proponent of ending affirmative action, and is black, can be explained by the fact he has not faced as much discrimination in his life as other African Americans. He is more fortunate and admitted that the system should be for less fortunate families not including his own minority daughters.(3)

This election means that there is a chance for change in affirmative action programs. Connerly said about Obama, “If you listen to him carefully, you cannot help but think he is really torn by this issue, and that he is leaning in the direction of socio-economic affirmative action instead of race preferences."(3) In the articles I read it appears that Obama takes a middle of the road stance. Some say that Obama winning Colorado, shifted the vote on the ban to no. Mr. Connerly blamed the loss on an “Obama tsunami” of new voters.(4) Connerly is inconsistent on his thoughts of Obama and what his victory means for affirmative action and very biased so I looked up other polls. When asked, “As a result of Barack Obama’s election, do you think race relations in this country will get a lot better, get a little better, get a little worse or a lot worse? 42 percent thought it would get a little better, and 17 percent thought there would be no change. (5) This shows a general positive attitude towards race relations, and probably contributes to opposition of the ban on affirmative action. Since, the situation in the country is not bad right now, people are enjoying the status quo and feel no need for change.

In a Newsweek poll when asked, “"Which do you think is a bigger problem in this country today: blacks losing out because of racism, OR whites losing out because of racial preferences?" The vote was 30 percent said blacks, and 26 percent said whites. (6) This shows that there is not really a need for affirmative action programs anymore. The chance that discrimination could happen to white people is becoming almost equal to black people. This does not undermine the fact that historically blacks have faced a lot of discrimination. Affirmative Action represents an upper hand that previously less fortunate minorities receive. Even though the standard of living for many blacks has improved, that does not change the fact that is used to be horrible. There is still racism today. When asked if they have ever been discriminated against because of their race 54 percent of blacks said yes. (7) This demonstrates the presence of racism today.

We can improve diversity without affirmative action as well. There is talk of a program that would encompass all minorities including the poorer white minorities. A system based on income would be considerably fairer in many people’s minds. This way, there would be an advantage provided for those who are truly in need, rather than those who fall under a certain race.

Sources:

(1)http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iP2emAr4F0x_XR8HdB1CZGy1YCKQD94ADUJ00
(2) http://www.gallup.com/poll/18091/Race-Ideology-Support-Affirmative-Action.aspx
(3) http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1108/15195.html
(4) http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/08/us/politics/08affirm.html?_r=1&ref=us
(5) USA Today/Gallup Poll. Nov. 5, 2008. N=1,036 adults nationwide. MoE ±
(6) Newsweek Poll conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates International. May 21-22, 2008. N=1,042 white registered voters nationwide. MoE ± 4.
(7) ABC News Poll. June 8-12, 2005. N=1,117 adults nationwide (MoE ± 3), including, with an oversample, 145 blacks (MoE ± 8). Fieldwork by ICR.; November 28, 2008 4:20 PM
Bremily said...: I don’t really believe that after just this election, Affirmative Action will have that big of an impact on our country. Things changed in only a couple of states; since the idea hasn’t been able to extend much farther than that yet, it doesn’t immediately mean anything for our country. However, I think that the country will be watching both Colorado and Nebraska in order to see how they are affected by having and not having affirmative action in place. While apa.org touts Affirmative Action as highly beneficial to all, giving more jobs with higher wages to women and minorities in a once male-dominated society (1), I really have trouble supporting the mere idea of Affirmative Action. While of course I don’t support sexism or racism, I feel like an institutionalized way of trying to eradicate those negative outlooks just won’t work. You can’t change peoples’ opinions by making rules like that. There will still be racism and sexism whether we have Affirmative Action or not. Politico.com made a point of saying that in this past election, Immigration was just as big as an issue now as Affirmative Action was in the 1980s and 1990s (2). This kind of says to me that the Affirmative Action issue was closed a while ago, but for some reason people think it’s important to reopen that can of worms all over again. But back to the question posed, I think that the American electorate is wary of Affirmative Action. It’s been talked about since the late 1980s, then weakly enacted in the 1990s, and now these issues with Colorado and Nebraska are on the radar. On the articles posted on the blog, I think that from reading both of them, one can tell that the Colorado ballot was extremely confusing to make out, in addition to the fact that there were some really negative, fictitious ad campaigns circulating about “the dangers of banning Affirmative Action,” i.e. ending girls’ science camp (3 and 4). I believe that this really inhibited people in Colorado from being able to make their own clear decision on the issue raised.
I am personally against Affirmative Action because I think it invites preferential treatment and reverse discrimination. I don’t believe anyone, especially in America, should be given rights and privileges that other people aren’t allowed to have. I think that the Supreme Court’s ruling in University of CA v. Bakke was extremely wise (the “goals, not quotas” part.) I think that instituting Affirmative Action would lead more to quotas than to goals. If you’re trying to hire someone for a job, and you’ve narrowed it down to two people, one who is a white man and one who is a Latino man who are both equally qualified in absolutely everything you’re considering in who you want to hire, it shouldn’t be okay for an employer to hire someone just because of their race, whether they prefer white or Latino; it just shouldn’t come down to that. People can’t help the way they were born, but it’s not like they earned it or worked for it, either; it’s just the way things turned out, and that shouldn’t make them any luckier than anyone else in the workplace. America is already a really diverse place. Where I work, there is no discrimination against people based on race, or much else for that matter. So from my point of view, America is not necessarily in need of Affirmative Action policies. Another reason I don’t approve of Affirmative Action is because many of the people who would benefit from it didn’t actually experience as much discrimination as did, say, the Civil Rights Activists, or members of NOW. For example, I’m a female, but I shouldn’t benefit from Affirmative Action because no one has ever tried to tell me that I can’t vote because I’m a woman; My grandparents weren’t even born when Susan B. Anthony was crusading for the right to vote. I think that people just need to accept that there is still sexism and racism, on both sides of the spectrum: There are women who are sexist against men, and there are minorities who are racists against whites. I think it’s important to be able to better ourselves and think about those terms, but Affirmative Action should not be put into law. It is the responsibility of the American people, but not the American government, to enact the principles of equality and fairness in everyday life.; November 29, 2008 9:53 AM
Bremily said...: sorry i forgot to put my sources:
(1)http://www.apa.org/pubinfo/affirmaction.html#faq
(2) http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1107/6881.html
(3)Http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iP2emAr4F0x_XR8HdB1CZGy1YCKQD94ADUJ00
(4) http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/08/us/politics/08affirm.html?ref=us; November 29, 2008 9:54 AM
Unknown said...: These election results show the once again on issues of “civil rights” the country continues to be split; which is no surprise to me. Pre-election polling results said that the bill that would ban affirmative action programs (considering race/gender) in hiring, contracting, and college admissions would pass in both states. The 51% to 49% came as a shock to opponents in Colorado; no one thought this would happen. However, close by in Nebraska the ban on affirmative action programs passed with 58% of voters saying yes.
In Colorado the opponents to Ward Connerly’s ban went door to door trying to persuade voters, and launched radio advertisements that the bill was deceptive. They also referred to Connerly as a “carpetbagger” and a “high profile crusader” against affirmative action. Connerly had originally thought Tuesday would have been a huge win and success for Equal Rights, but was clearly proven wrong. He then said he shouldn’t have focused on so many states, and is now going to slow down his campaign to two states at a time. He also points out that Obama being elected president is proof that it is nearing the time to end affirmative action.
America is working to create equal opportunities for all genders or races, the question now if how to go about it. We are clearly stuck on whether to give less qualified an edge based on their background etc. or if we should have opportunity for those who are the most qualified.
Affirmative action programs make it easier to diversify the work place and colleges. I think that as American’s we could diversify without affirmative action, however, the programs just make it easier for us to do so. I think it is a good thing to create diverse areas in learning, and in the work place; however affirmative action programs can be used as reverse discrimination. Studies show that one day, Whites will be the minority; but there are no affirmative action programs for whites. Stereotypically minorities need to edge, need a better education, opportunities, and need more financial age. Despite this, Barak Obama has pointed out that there are many, many lower class white families who aren’t receiving any help or edge like other minorities. I am really split on this issue. By creating diversity in colleges through affirmative action programs, you will then have more diversity in the work place, because there will be qualified people from ever race/gender/background. I think that it is a good thing to have more diversity, and to have goals to diversify places, I am just undecided if affirmative action programs are the way to go about it. I feel like the programs are helpful to minorities (which is beneficial) I just also think that there are cases where there are whites that also could use an edge, but don’t receive it because of affirmative action programs putting them behind minorities in similar situations.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/08/us/politics/08affirm.html?ref=us
Http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iP2emAr4F0x_XR8HdB1CZGy1YCKQD94ADUJ00
http://www.gallup.com/poll/18091/Race-Ideology-Support-Affirmative-Action.aspx
http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/05/10/hispanics/index.html; November 29, 2008 12:56 PM
Unknown said...: These results mean that America really doesn’t know how they feel about affirmative action, and the two articles make it difficult to come to a conclusion about what the results mean. When one state passes the ban, that leads us to believe that America is moving past the era of racism and the era of trying to make up for it, and coming to the age of true equality. But then when you have another state simultaneously reject the ban, the meaning of the results gets fuzzy. Both articles cite voter fatigue as a reason the initiative’s failure in Colorado, because blank votes are counted as a “no” (1/2). Ward Connerly, a black man who fought for the proposal, said that with a ballot loaded with 14 proposals, “the cards were stacked” against a victory for the ballot (2). It is especially interesting that the proposal failed because pre-voting polling results showed that most people were for the ban (2). So based on Colorado results, we could say that America still believes in affirmative action, however three other states have already banned affirmative action; Washington, California, and Michigan (1). So I’d say the American electorate thinks the same way about affirmative action that it does about other hot-button issues; we’re split right down the middle.
I believe that affirmative action is ridiculous; skin color, age, gender, none of it should not matter. I feel that while it is important for our schools and workplaces to be diversified to promote tolerance, when it comes right down to it, the best candidate should be selected. For example, if I was in the hospital, I would want my doctor to be the best available. I don’t care if (s)he is black, white, purple or green, I’d want a doctor who was there because they were the best candidate to get into medical school, and then the best candidate to get the job; NOT because the school/hospital needed diversity. I hate affirmative action. After quotas were ruled unconstitutional in Regents of the University of California -v. Bakke, colleges turned to offering scholarships to minorities to encourage them to attend the college to diversify it (3). Acceptance into college, scholarships, and jobs should be awarded based on merit, not skin color or gender. There are plenty of Caucasian male candidate who are struggling to pay for college because scholarships they are qualified for go to their peers of similar financial status, only because the peers are of a different race or gender.
However, not matter how dumb I think affirmative action is, until admissions officers and hiring employers can consider a candidate colorless and gender-neutral, affirmative action is necessary to promote diversity and tolerance in our society. The only solution I can see to ending affirmative action is if college and employers required an application to be submitted without the candidate revealing their name, gender, or ethnicity. After reviewing the application and making a decision whether or not to accept the applicant, the institution could then request the rest of the candidate’s information. Unfortunately, this process would be time consuming and impractical. So until the day when racial/gender preference in hiring and accepting to college can be eliminated, small measures of affirmative action are necessary to ensure minorities and women are not discriminated against.

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iP2emAr4F0x_XR8HdB1CZGy1YCKQD94ADUJ00
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/08/us/politics/08affirm.html?_r=1&ref=us
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/46184/the_cons_and_pros_of_ affirmative_action.html?page=4&cat=9; November 30, 2008 12:44 PM
angel said...: 1. These election shows that there is still controversies over affirmative action. The proposed ban to end race and gender based preferences by public entities was passed easily in Nebraska with 58% of the vote. (1) While in Colorado, the proposed ban was no passed, the first state in the nation to not have this bill passed. (1) It seems that there might by some correlation to this result based on the presidential election. Colorado which Obama won the state with 53% of the vote, the proposed ban was not passed while in Nebraska, won by McCain who won 57% of the vote was able to pass Initiative 424. (1) The ballot initiative has already passed in California, Michigan, and Washington led by the crusade of Ward Connerly, who is African American and American Indian descent. (2) Connerly said that affirmative action causes resentment. “If it was wrong to do it against a brown-skinned man, it’s wrong to do it against a white man,” Connerly. Americans still have mixed opinions on affirmative action. I personally think that to have affirmative action, the people are taking a huge step backwards on what the people of the past have been fighting for equality for all the American citizens of this country. With affirmative action, employers, schools etc. are now discriminating against Caucasian people.
2. I think the U.S. probably needed affirmative action in the past for minorities to get the same opportunities as others sooner. Now in the present, it seems that people are able to accept different everyone with different backgrounds more easily as there is more diversity in the environment. But I do not think we need affirmative actions anymore. Right now the United States’ economy and other factors are weakening, and we need to hire people that are able to meet the criteria for their jobs in order to make the workforce, and schools more efficient. It does not seem right to hire an African American with little experience and education compared to a Caucasian American that has more experience and better qualification for the job just because of affirmative action. With this type of way to hire people, of course the economy and other jobs are less efficient. I do agree that affirmative action does achieve diversity quicker, but I don’t think we no longer need it anymore, America has grown and changed from the 1960s. I think its better when accepting students to colleges that students should be picked of their qualifications such as being the Top 10% of their class. With that situation, people are not discriminated based on their backgrounds but on their work ethics, and ability to achieve good grades.

(1)http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/08/us/politics/08affirm.html?ref=us
(2)http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/07/affirmative.action/; November 30, 2008 1:43 PM
ajsiir@ said...: I think that this split in the electorate on the issue of affirmative action reflects the country’s view on the issue. Nobody knows what should happen with affirmative action just like nobody knows what should happen with the idea of civil rights today. When Colorado failed to pass the ban and Nebraska passes the ban, and they are right next to each other geographically, you know you have a very controversial issue (1). Also, the close failing in Colorado brings up a lot of controversy when it comes to the voting, because it failed on a count of 51 percent against, 49 percent for, but the blank ballots were counted as no’s, so the majority of people who actually voted on it voted yes for the ban (1). I think that all of this controversy shows how confused the country is on affirmative action, and confused on the country’s beliefs today when it comes to racism and equality.

I think that affirmative action was an acceptable idea to help surge African American education, especially in the past when they were labeled and extremely discriminated against. And I know that today minorities are still less likely to be hired for jobs, especially young workers. I know that racism hasn’t completely gone away, and that African Americans still have a disadvantage when it comes to education and employment because of the labels of race. I think that affirmative action will continue, no matter how dumb I think it is, until the employment ratio matches the population ratio for African Americans and women, and I’m not sure if that will ever really happen. Even thought the employment rates are starting to even out, it is mostly skewed by Hispanic employment, and African Americans still have the highest unemployment rate by far (3).

I personally don’t think that we should have affirmative action anymore. I may be a bit biased being a wealthier white guy, but I think that the issue of racism isn’t as prominent as it used to be, especially in the case of employment and acceptance. We just had our first African American elected into the PRESIDENCY. I think that this alone should prove how most Americans have started to throw out the label of race and are now focusing on qualifications and ideas. I think that we should bring this into college admissions, and make the whole admissions process based on merit. Also, although University of California v. Bakke outlawed quotas, I think that the “goals” that universities have almost act as quotas, and will still discriminate against whites who may be more qualified (2). I think that this will actually somewhat hinder our countries progress if we give important positions to the unqualified just to expand diversity. We will be using less productive labor, which will lead to less production by our country overall. I think that affirmative action is an idea that actually promoted the idea of inequality, separating two groups and giving a head start to one. It gives those who have worked hard and gotten the qualifications a disadvantage when it comes to acceptance. I just think that reverse discrimination is not an appropriate solution to make up for past discrimination.

Sources:
1) http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/08/us/politics/08affirm.html?_r=1&ref=us
2) http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/46184/the_cons_and_pros_of_ affirmative_action.html?page=4&cat=9
3) http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0873314.html; November 30, 2008 2:06 PM
Katie B said...: 1. What do these election results on affirmative action mean? How does the American electorate feel on affirmative action?
2. Does the U.S. need affirmative action in order to diversify its colleges and workplaces? Can or will we achieve diversity without having affirmative action? If we don't use affirmative action what would work better?
Although we have had affirmative action around for quite some time, many people now believe that it is not necessary. In Nebraska, a ban on affirmative action passed when it was placed on the ballot (1). However, the same ban on affirmative action was rejected in Colorado (1). This may be because Colorado has a large Hispanic community that would benefit from affirmative action programs. Regardless of that, these results show that some may feel that affirmative action programs are no longer needed. People in Colorado that supported the ban said they felt it was unfair that women and minorities were given advantages because of their skin color and gender, and said that programs such as affirmative action should be based only on economic needs (4). The recent election of a black president to office has also led many to believe that equality has been achieved, and that the affirmative action programs actually may benefit minorities at the expense of the majority. People who voted against the ban in Colorado said that the proposal was deceptive, and it was said that the ban would stop things like science camps for girls (2). The fact that the ban was not passed in Colorado proves that the citizens there were still seeking to preserve equality, and that people of that state do not yet believe they have reached that point. Opponents of the ban in Colorado also said that they wanted to continue to give women and minorities a chance to compete in the workplace (4). However, Americans now believe more than before that race and gender do not play a part in your success as an individual.
While I do not think that Affirmative Action is completely necessary for diversity, I think it is a way to help create a good, diverse environment if used properly. I think if two candidates are up for a job and they have the same qualifications, something is needed for a tiebreaker. If a company wants a more diverse workplace, I think it is ok for them to choose the minority candidate. However, the Nebraska colleges say they will find a way to create diversity that works within the new law (3). I think we can achieve diversity to some degree without affirmative action, but it will take a lot longer because there won’t be that “shortcut” that affirmative action provides. I think we could do this through improving schools and school performance in poverty-stricken areas, which are heavily populated with minorities. If people who are struggling with poverty in our country are provided with better services to equip them to graduate successfully, I think they wouldn’t need Affirmative Action programs to place them in good colleges and jobs.

1.) http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/08/us/politics/08affirm.html?_r=1&ref=us
2.) http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iP2emAr4F0x_XR8HdB1CZGy1YCKQD94ADUJ00
3.) http://www.nebraska.tv/Global/story.asp?S=9416489
4.) http://www.bizjournals.com/denver/stories/2008/11/03/daily65.html; November 30, 2008 5:04 PM
megan w said...: The voting results of the affirmative action votes in Colorado and Nebraska only strengthen the idea that America is undecided. Should we allow complete equality in applying for a job, bidding on a contract or seeking college admissions, or are there still some disadvantages that minorities need help overcoming ?(1) I thought it was very interesting how the votes seemed to follow party lines to some extent. Colorado, which voted heavily Democratic, rejected the ban, while Nebraska, which voted Republican, confirmed the ban (1). This seemed to fit the idea of Democrats being more liberal and concerned with civil rights. But, the question still remains, is affirmative action reverse discrimination? I think that this question is central in many American’s minds as the voting results show. This could be incorrect though because the measure only failed in Colorado by a slim percentage. Ward Connerly, the former University of California regent who has become the most high-profile crusader against affirmative action (2), noted that Colorado had the longest ballot in the country with more than a handful of initiatives. He felt that voters may simply have been tired, and wanted to be done voting so voted no (2). The fact that this was the first in five attempts at banning affirmative action to fail points towards the position that most Americans are no longer in favor of it (2). The results did not paint a clear enough picture of American voter’s opinion to draw any definite conclusions.

I think that affirmative action is unfortunately still needed in order to diversify colleges. It is often hard for minorities to start out on the same level as advantaged students. As Anurima Bhargava, director of education practice at the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, notes “there won't be equal opportunity for minority students until their schools are improved and high school graduation rates are raised” (1). The American Association for Affirmative Action states that its goal is to "promote access for the traditionally underrepresented through heightened outreach and efforts at inclusion” (3). It is often hard to determine how much support should be given though. If affirmative action policies go too far they can begin to exclude the majority. This was made clear by the Bakke case in 1978 (4). Achieving diversity without having affirmative action would be difficult, but not impossible. More equal education prior to college would be a starting point. More financial assistance would also be necessary for underprivileged minorities. No strings attached federal grants to qualified students who simply cannot afford college are one proposed solution (5). In the workplace people should be hired, promoted, and fired on the basis of merit alone. I agree with Obama though when he says that the system needs to be fixed so that advantaged minorities do not receive the same benefits. I think affirmative action will continue to be a divisive issue simply because of the variety of opinions involved. Times have changed though and real discrimination is not common anymore so perhaps it is time to end affirmative action. After all it was originally intended to be a temporary solution.

1. http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iP2emAr4F0x_XR8HdB1CZGy1YCKQD94ADUJ00
2. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/08/us/politics/08affirm.html?_r=1&ref=us
3. http://www.affirmativeaction.org/about-affirmative-action.html
4. http://www.infoplease.com/spot/affirmative1.html
5. http://www.umich.edu/~mrev/archives/1995/11-15-95/affirm.html; November 30, 2008 5:44 PM
Anthony said...: These elections on Affirmative Action show that the nation is feeling that the playing field is level enough and affirmative action policies are starting to lose support (2). The original affirmative action policies from executive order 11246 forbid strict quotas and said that employers should make “good faith efforts” to meet goals and timetables for employment of minorities and women (1). Affirmative Action policies receive the most opposition and controversy when there are quotas (1). Many people see this as reverse discrimination that is not justifiable because of the hundreds of years of slavery and racism faced by minorities. Many people are beginning to feel that affirmative action is just another form of discrimination and is not necessary (4). “Angry white men” are blaming affirmative action for their lack of promotion or employment at a particular (4). Minorities and Women say they are tired of the side effects of affirmative action, which is the perception that their success is unearned or undeserved (4). Proponents of affirmative action argue that the playing field is not level yet since the majority of minorities and women are in lower paying jobs and still face some discrimination (4). Opponents argue that affirmative action is unnecessary because equal rights have already been achieved (4).

I don’t think that the US needs affirmative action to diversify colleges and workplaces. Colleges have fairly diverse populations already and I don’t think that the only reason that they are diverse is because of affirmative action. Looking at college websites where they display a pie chart of the different ethnicities of students’ currently attending, shows that colleges are conscious about diversity and take pride in displaying it. There is no way that people will ever be truly unbiased when making a decision unless they make a choice without knowing someone’s gender or ethnicity.

I think that we can achieve diversity without affirmative action. A better solution would be to improve education for minorities in grades kindergarten through 12th grade (1). This would increase the graduation rate of minorities and let them have more of an equal opportunity of education compared with wealthier or middle class whites. This levels the playing field at an earlier age so theoretically all students start the same. This way colleges will not need to use affirmative action as much to diversify their schools. If colleges are diversified, then it will be easier to diversify workplaces because of minorities and women will be as educated or qualified as a white man. Of course, it is easier said than done, but it should be tried or continued.

Sources
1) http://www.thisnation.com/question/044.html
2) http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/08/us/politics/08affirm.html?_r=1&ref=us
3) http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iP2emAr4F0x_XR8HdB1CZGy1YCKQD94ADUJ00
4) http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/affirm/affirm.htm; November 30, 2008 5:49 PM
Jessie said...: While Ward Connely, who heads the American Civil Rights Coalition seemed to be doing successful with four states passing the Affirmative Action ban, recently including Nebraska, Colorado stopped his winning streak and rejected it (2). The vote was close, with the ban not being passed by only 1% (1). Many proponents of the ban, like Connely, argued that it was presented to Colorado deceptively, asking them to put an end to “ending discrimination” without ever mentioning affirmative action (1). Many people of Colorado that opposed the ban still stated that they were not tricked in voting to allow affirmative action, claiming that they didn’t believe America was ready to “free the reigns” and that this would only lead us to go backwards in all the progress we had made to equalize opportunity (3). People like Anurima Bhargava, director or education practice at the NAACP Legal Defense argued that the United States was not ready to end affirmative action until minority students’ schools were improved and their graduation rates increased (1). Supporters of the ban, led by Connerly, disagreed with Colorado’s decision, stating that if we were ready to vote in a black president not because of his skin color then we were ready to stop preferential treatment for minorities in jobs and higher education (1). While the electorate is still muddled on their stance on affirmative action, it seems that the majority would agree with Connerly’s assertion that the United States is ready for equality without incentives.
There are strong arguments for banning and allowing affirmative action. Many people think it should be banned because it is reverse discrimination, and that while it is not good to discriminate against a minority, it is not fair to fix it by doing the same thing. People will claim that the hardships of minorities is in the past and that the only way we can move forward is by keeping it there (2). Mr. Connerly’s argument is also very valid in that he believes the United States has made enough progress and proven itself with the election of a black president that affirmative action is no longer necessary (1). The reverse side claims that there cannot be equal opportunity without equal resources. They also argue that affirmative action has forced us to integrate and diversify our society, and if it is dropped then we will fall backwards (1).
While I see all of these arguments, I would still have to vote to not ban affirmative action. I agree with Bhargava’s claim that equal opportunity doesn’t exist without equal education. If a minority student receives a poor education because of something out of their control like poverty, then it is not fair to compare them equally to a wealthy Caucasian child that attends a prestigious private school. While the argument can be made that we cannot watch out for every poor person, it is also proven that minorities are not given as much of an opportunity for a good education because of their economic situation. Like Bhargava said, until schooling and teachers are improved, affirmative action is necessary to make sure every group of people has a chance.

1.http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iP2emAr4F0x_XR8HdB1CZGy1YCKQD94ADUJ00 (Colorado)

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

3. http://www.denverpost.com/newsheadlines/ci_10906078; November 30, 2008 6:21 PM
Willie said...: “This measure would prohibit the state government from discriminating against or granting preferential treatment to any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in public employment, public education, or public contracting. (1)” about Ballot Initiative Colorado Amendment 46. The Nebraska Amendment would do the same. But these two states, although bordering, voted very differently. Colorado voted no by a 2% margin while Nebraska voted yes by a 16% margin (1). Colorado was the first state where voters hadn’t chosen to ban affirmative action (2). California, Michigan and Washington all banned affirmative action (3). I think that this shows that the electorate is divided on the issue of affirmative action. It didn’t get on to the ballot in many states, though. But in general, whites oppose affirmative while racial minorities support them (6). Whites are still the majority in the country so it could be assumed that the majority opposes affirmative action. Its interesting because whites are less decisive when it is called affirmative action but when the wording is preference, they more strongly oppose the actions (6). It doesn’t mean that affirmative action shouldn’t be used and it certainly isn’t the type of thing that was supposed to be on the ballot anyway. If the majority were always helpful to the majority, affirmative action wouldn’t be needed. Its why the founders set up government institutions that could override the majority opinion.

I think that affirmative action still has a big role to play. I couldn’t define how it should be done, besides that I wouldn’t want it to reduce academic or experience qualifications. But when it comes down to it, I believe it should be used to give some advantage to African Americans and Hispanics. I say African Americans and Hispanics because apparently Asian Americans don’t need help because they are already overqualified compared to all others (the book calls them “the model minority”. They would even benefit from reducing affirmative action, at least when it comes to admission to universities, more than whites would (5). It sounds like some of the opposition of affirmative action from African Americans may be due to a belief that it belittles their achievement. Clarence Thomas believes that’s why he didn’t get hired right away, after being at Yale which had a successful affirmative action program (4). According to a study by the Educational Testing Service, 74 % of the students at 146 elite universities are from the top 25% of economic status (7). This is a clear correlation between success that parents had and the success of the individual at hand. Statistics clearly show that African Americans are an economically disadvantaged group comparatively to whites. So are Hispanics. This would suggest that they are also less likely to get into elite schools and get good jobs. I believe that affirmative action has the ability to bring balance to the system so someday policies won’t be needed to make true equal opportunity possible.

(1) http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/ballot.measures/
(2) http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/08/us/politics/08affirm.html?ref=us
(3) http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iP2emAr4F0x_XR8HdB1CZGy1YCKQD94ADUJ00
(4) “The 15-cent diploma: Clarence Thomas says affirmative action cheapened his Yale Law School degree and made it almost impossible for him to find a law firm job” by Tamara Loomis
(5) “The Real Boost From Affirmative Action Bans” by Lucia Graves
(6) http://www.pollingreport.com/race.htm
(7) “Affirmative Action Promotes Equal Access to Education” by Millery Polyne; November 30, 2008 6:45 PM
Molly said...: The results from Nebraska and Colorado show that America is very divided on the issue of affirmative action. This is clearly shown through the close margins. It passed with 58% of the vote in Nebraska and it didn’t pass in Colorado with only 49% of the vote (1). In Colorado, the margin was only 2% so this shows just how divided people are. People were shocked when Colorado rejected the ban, Melissa Hart (an opponent of the ban) said “We’ve done something that everybody was telling us was impossible.” (1) I also was surprised to hear that CO rejected it. I always thought of Colorado as a predominantly white state with a majority of Republicans. It was a red state until this year, Colorado voted for Obama over McCain 53% to 47% (2) Obama spent a lot of time in the state early on in the campaign to try and get all the votes he could in the beginning. This was one of the largest setbacks that the proponents of the band in Colorado had to face. The other was the length and wording of the ballot (2). There were 14 proposals on Colorado’s ballot (3) and some said it was rather confusing. The language of he proposal apparently focused on ending discrimination and did not mention affirmative action (1).
Overall, I think that it is a pretty big step for America to be okay with voting against affirmative action. I think that if we weren’t in the era we are today, people would think that voting yes to the ban meant voting yes to discrimination. That really is not the case though. I believe that years ago, yes affirmative action was necessary, but we are in a new age where I do not think it is necessary. I think that it can lead to reverse discrimination, as in the case of Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (4). I know that often times minorities do not have as many or as good of opportunities as whites do, but in the end affirmative action moves our country backwards. It is designed to give everyone a fair shot at the job or school, but in effect it can do the opposite (4). The difference in the average African American student’s SAT and a white student’s SAT score is 171 points (5), but the African American students are still getting an advantage. This really does not seem fair. I think that the best student should get accepted whether they be male, female, black, or white. I don’t think that there is a level playing field right now, with women only making $.76 for every man’s $1 (6). Even though it isn’t equally diversified, I definitely think we are on our way. Affirmative action is not necessary to diversify our workplace and school system. Research has shown that there would only be a 2% decrease in the number of black students at selective colleges (6). I think that after a few years without affirmative action, that number will drop even more. Our country does not need to rely on affirmative action to keep the country diversified. I found alternatives that some states use instead of affirmative action. In Texas, the top ten percent of students from every graduating class are guaranteed college admission (7), this guarantees that no highly qualified students will be passed over on the basis of race. Some people think that universal admissions would be a good plan allowing everyone that wants to go to college to do so (7), but I don’t think that would work out very well. Under one California plan, no less than 50 to 75% of students could be admitted based only on their academic achievements. The plan was replaced with a plan that provided automatic admission for students who graduated in the top 4 percent of their high school class, much like Texas’s plan. This was also replaced with a plan in which students were considered "not just for grades and test scores, but also for evidence of such qualities as motivation, leadership, intellectual curiosity, and initiative (7). I don’t necessarily think that any of these plans are the right way to go, but I think it is good for states to be thinking of new ideas and ways to diversify the nation without using affirmative action.

1. Colorado voters reject affirmative action ban www.associatedpress.com
2. http://washingtontimes.com/news/2008/nov/08/obama-helped-defeat-anti-affirmative-action/
3. Vote Results are Mixed on a Ban on Preference www.nytimes.com
4. http://www.balancedpolitics.org/affirmative_action.htm
5. http://www.stanfordalumni.org/news/magazine/1996/sepoct/articles/against.html
6. http://www.understandingprejudice.org/readroom/articles/affirm.htm
7. http://www.freeonlineresearchpapers.com/affirmative-action-alternatives; November 30, 2008 7:31 PM
Alec said...: 1. I do not think that the vote in Colorado is at all indicative of a trend in the nation. Colorado is the first state to reject such a ban, but I see no signs of a precedent being set (4). California, Michigan, and Washington have all upheld such bans already, the side I believe most Americans will begin to take. In a recent poll, only 1/3 of Americans said they believe that affirmative action programs should be continued (6). It’s true that those numbers are higher than Bush’s approval ratings, but if such data holds true, affirmative action programs (like Bush) will be phased out of the system in the near future.

2. The United States does not need affirmative action to diversify its colleges. It does not seem strange that a country bent on diversification also wants to see people under the same light. It wants to acknowledge everyone’s differences, but not judge them by those differences. Affirmative action judges people by their differences. It creates an overwhelming sense of race-consciousness that is harmful for America (2). America is diverse as it is, it only needs to provide equal opportunity to its citizens to have that fully recognized at the college level (3). How will that happen, you ask? I answer:

In education, proponents for affirmative action stress equal opportunity. They would argue that because of past injustices, minority racial groups start off with fewer opportunities, especially at the elementary through high school levels. One opposing affirmative action would say that it is less about race, but about economic status. Assuming that someone is underprivileged just because they are a minority is racist. Therefore, affirmative action creates its own kind of discrimination. The same goals for equal opportunity could be achieved through analysis of school districts and income levels rather than simplifying it to an issue of race (1).

Overall, I do not support affirmative action programs. Their place in history has been served, but they are not relevant to America today. They are inherently racist and harmful to America by making assumptions about economic status based on race alone. I hope that next election season, more states will follow in the paths of California, Michigan, and Washington in their ban of affirmative action programs.

(1) http://find.galegroup.com/ovrc/infomark.do?&contentSet=GSRC&type=retrieve&tabID=T010&prodId=OVRC&docId=EJ3010397215&source=gale&srcprod=OVRC&userGroupName=mnktomjefh&version=1.0 (type “jefferson” to get in)
(2) http://find.galegroup.com/ovrc/infomark.do?&contentSet=GSRC&type=retrieve&tabID=T010&prodId=OVRC&docId=EJ3010055222&source=gale&srcprod=OVRC&userGroupName=mnktomjefh&version=1.0
(3) http://www.tcf.org/list.asp?type=NC&pubid=1072
(4) http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iP2emAr4F0x_XR8HdB1CZGy1YCKQD94ADUJ00
(5) http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/08/us/politics/08affirm.html?ref=us
(6) http://www.pollingreport.com/race.htm; November 30, 2008 7:32 PM
Jen R said...: In a report by the Pew Research Center, support for affirmative action has actually grown in the United States (1). Its support grew from only 58% in 1995 to 70% in 2007 (1). However, amendments that ban affirmative action have passed in California, Michigan, Washington, Florida, and Nebraska (7). Colorado has shifted more toward the middle of the political spectrum, and therefore left the ballot more up for grabs (2). The affirmative action ban was not passed in the moderate Colorado, yet was passed in the more conservative state of Nebraska (3). Nebraska overwhelmingly supported McCain with 57% of the vote (3). In general, liberals tend to support affirmative action while conservatives oppose it (4). However, in the 2008 presidential election of the states that passed the ban on affirmative action, only Nebraska was conservative (8). I think this shows that Americans are identifying less and less with political parties. If Americans had voted simply based on political ideology and party identification, I think it would have been very unlikely for this ban to pass in California, Michigan, Washington, and Florida.

On the importance of diversity in the workplace and in colleges, Connerly, a man of African American and Indian descent and a chief proponent of banning affirmative action stated:

“I think diversity is a very important interest if you're talking about diversity of thought. I don't think that the diversity of someone's skin color or where their ancestors came from is compelling.” (8)

I agree with this statement made by Connerly. Defining diversity based on somebody’s skin color is very stereotypical. If diversity of race or gender is in fact necessary (the reason for affirmative action), then historically black colleges as well as women’s colleges would have to face consequences as well (8). For some, affirmative action is seen as reverse-discrimination and furthering the race issue (4). I think reverse-discrimination also hurts the reputation of many well deserving ethnic people as well as females. Many people fall back on the excuse of reverse-discrimination to undercut the achievements of the most qualified and deserving minorities and women. I truly believe in diversity and being exposed to people of different cultures and beliefs, but I find it unfair to group minorities together. To me, this is discrimination towards minorities because they are all automatically being viewed as underprivileged. No single race can be clumped together and categorized as having the same backgrounds, beliefs, and advantages or disadvantages in the modern U.S. Diversity can better be achieved by hiring or accepting people of various ideologies and personal histories. Connerly argues that offering more opportunities should be based on socioeconomic conditions rather than gender or race (2).

1. http://www.aclu.org/racialjustice/aa/index.html
2. http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-08-24-affirmative_N.htm
3. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/08/us/politics/08affirm.html?_r=1&ref=us
4. http://www.studentnewsdaily.com/other/conservative-vs-liberal-beliefs/
5. http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/07/affirmative.action/
6.http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iP2emAr4F0x_XR8HdB1CZGy1YCKQD94ADUJ00
7. http://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives/2008/11/nebraska_voters.php
8. http://www.npr.org/news/specials/election2008/2008-election-map.html#/president?view=race08; November 30, 2008 8:37 PM
amanda c said...: The results on the ban of affirmative action in Colorado and Nebraska show that the electorate is divided. First of all, one state voted for the ban (Nebraska) and the other voted against the ban (Colorado). Second, the people in each state were split. In Nebraska, 58% approved the ban and 42% voted against it (1). In Colorado, 51% rejected the ban, and 49% approved it (1). This shows that American’s feelings about affirmative action are very diverse. This means that the electorate feels both ways, and that it just varies according to the state or area of people who are being asked. For instance, Obama won Colorado in the recent election, and he opposes the ban on affirmative action (2). It has been suggested that it correlates to Colorado’s rejection of the ban because he influenced them. Parallel to that, McCain won Nebraska, and they voted for the ban (2). Mr. Connerly suggests that voter fatigue may play a part in the results. While Nebraskans only had the affirmative action issue to vote on, Colorado voters had 14 proposals to vote on (2). If you look at the big picture, so far anyways, 3 out of 4 states have voted for the ban. This may show that the electorate is leaning towards approval of a ban on affirmative action.
I agree with those three out of four states that voted for the ban more so than with Colorado. I do not think America needs affirmative action to diversify colleges and workplaces. We can achieve diversity without affirmative action programs. America is becoming more diverse every day. Even in our text book it says that a minority majority is predicted in years to come (3). So, as America’s population itself grows more and more diverse, and as equality increases between the races, workplaces and colleges with naturally become more diverse also. I believe that colleges and workplaces should place more value in skill, experience and other qualifications than race or gender. Those who argue against affirmative action bans would say that minorities have a more difficult time getting the skills and qualifications to make the cut, and I agree to some extent. Which is why I believe we should make other programs, instead of affirmative action ones, to help make sure minorities have the resources available to them to acquire these qualifications. We need to make sure that there is no discrimination going on in the process of getting accepted into a school or getting a job, however we do not need to favor anyone and start reverse discrimination (3).

(1)http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iP2emAr4F0x_XR8HdB1CZGy1YCKQD94ADUJ00\
(2) http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/08/us/politics/08affirm.html?_r=1&ref=us\
(3) Government in America; November 30, 2008 8:47 PM
Kyle said...: Based on the election results for banning affirmative action, we can tell that it is a divisive issue that goes one way or the other by a narrow margin. Some states are more liberal like Colorado and will have the majority supporting affirmative action by a small margin while it could be the opposite scenario for the slightly more conservative states (1). Like I have said in previous posts, issues like affirmative action are really controversial issues where it is going to be in many cases a near equal division of support. Because the majority vote wins in these cases by such a slim margin, and these issues are driven almost exclusively by opinion, these issues take an extremely long time to fix, and I am sure everybody in the class realizes this by now. Some believe that affirmative action is reverse discrimination and that it gives unfair advantages. The other half of the population believes that due to past discrimination, affirmative action is needed to provide “equal results”(3). Based on the fact that most states have been passing the ban on affirmative action, I think that the majority realizes that equal opportunities have been established. But based on studies done, there are other variables like voter fatigue and an amendment heavy ballot that could have caused Colorado to reject the ban (2). This also applies to the states that did pass the ban, since some complaints have been made regarding potentially deceptive tactics used to gather support for the ban (2). I personally think that we have equal opportunity already, and that the only thing that affects the result is the determination of the individual to achieve their goals. For example, affirmative action will give minorities an unfair advantage getting a job or into a certain school, but affirmative action cannot give anyone the needed work ethic to do well once they get the job or to get through their classes when they get into school. Therefore I think it is an ineffective program.
I think it does seem to take programs like affirmative action to make the workforce and colleges more diverse, but at the cost of fairness. Affirmative action was made to create equal opportunity, and we already have that. I believe affirmative action has created reverse discrimination though, and it has also destroyed equal opportunity by putting less emphasis on being qualified and putting more emphasis on diversity (4). I am not sure if it is possible to achieve diversity without affirmative action, but I think that we need to get rid of preferential treatment because equality and complete fairness takes priority over diversity. However, I do not think any existing program could do a better job promoting diversity than affirmative action without setting quotas or something.

Sources:
1. http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iP2emAr4F0x_XR8HdB1CZGy1YCKQD94ADUJ00
2. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/08/us/politics/08affirm.html?_r=1&ref=us
3. http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/06/23/scotus.affirmative.action/
4. http://www.insidehighered.com/views/2006/09/20/mclemee; November 30, 2008 8:48 PM
kasandra said...: The American electorate is divided on the issue of affirmative action. The November election results showed that people are clearly split on the topic, both Nebraska and Colorado had their populations split in half over proposed amendments that would ban affirmative action in the respective state (1). Some people definitely believe that affirmative action is beneficial and will help pay the damage done by decades of slavery in America, others believe that it is reverse discrimination and denies certain people opportunities based only on their skin color. States feel like if they ban affirmative action all together, they are hurting the years of rigorous work done to end racial discrimination. But on the other hand, affirmative action is a classification system based on race and ethnicity. It does not promote equality because it puts some people higher than others with more regard for race than scholar and merit. America still has a lot of racial bias and discrimination; we need affirmative action to help level the playing field. Reverse discrimination makes sense at first. When I think of affirmative action I do not think equality, because truly it is giving one race more opportunity than the other, however in our world we need to do this or else white superiority would still dominate college admissions and job considerations. The system needs to be preserved in order to bring true equality. White and black people still live very different lives in most parts of the country. In a 2002 poverty study, the census bureau found that 24% of African Americans lived in poverty that was two times as much as the national average (2). In a decade long study, African Americas consistently scored lower than white students on standardized reading tests (4). This has absolutely nothing to do with level of intelligence, it has to do with the conditions these kids were raised with (2). Because of the discrimination that still exists in employment, we are in a vicious cycle of parents not being able to supply their children with top education (3). Affirmative action will eventually correct this injustice and make sure all students can get into college and then continue on to one of the top jobs in America. The election of Barack Obama shows that we are on our way to not needing this system, however the fact that so much controversy existed over him being black is solid evidence proving that we need affirmative action and must preserve it throughout America.

1. http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iP2emAr4F0x_XR8HdB1CZGy1YCKQD94ADUJ00
2. http://www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/p60-222.pdf
3. http://www.infoplease.com/spot/bhmcensus1.html
4. http://nces.ed.gov/NAAL/PDF/2006470.pdf; November 30, 2008 9:24 PM
Melinda said...: The results of the Colorado and Nebraska elections displayed the divisiveness of America on the issue of affirmative action. Both states were voting on a measure by Ward Connerly that would have banned any preference based on race or gender [2]. However, Colorado rejected this ban with 51% to 49%. On the other hand, Nebraska overwhelmingly passed this ban. Already, they have had to start investigating many of their programs to see if they are in accordance with this ban [3]. One interesting aspect of the results is how they did not correlate at all with the general ideology of the state. Colorado supported Obama with 53% of their vote, while Nebraska supported McCain with 57% and a much greater margin. In general, Democrats have always been more supportive of minority rights, as many Democratic supporters tend to be of minority races [1]. In this case, however, Connerly actually blamed the “Obama tsunami” for the failure of his ban in Colorado. Obama has criticized the ballot measure as divisive, and he maintains that affirmative action addressed the hardships that minorities face [3]. At the same time, Obama has mentioned that there are other divisions such as socioeconomic statuses. He has even said that he believes affirmative action programs should exclude privileged minorities such as his own daughters [3].

I think that affirmative action has definitely been very beneficial to minorities. America has had a history of a lot of racial and gender inequality. It has taken many long battles to finally achieve theoretical equality, but there is a great difference between theoretical and real equality. I also believe that, in the past, minorities needed a push to get their momentum for greater success. Thus, affirmative action is a temporary solution to the problem. Once the first waves of minorities have been assimilated into equality, I think that they can serve as role models for others like them. Now, however, I think that America has reached the transition point. This election showed that people are ready to end affirmative action programs because they are no longer completely necessary, as minorities have been able to hold their own. I think that this transition should not be legislated, however. Rather, it needs to take place in a very localized manner. There is much geographical diversity in America, and it is impossible that one law will be effective across the nation. it should be up to each university or business to determine how they will factor in affirmative action to maintain diversity. I also think that there are different classifications that are more applicable in the present. Many universities have implemented programs that have attempted to create racial diversity, and they have succeeded. There are many colleges that have a 50:50 gender split, and have a sizable minority population [6]. They have even extended it to the GLBT population; for example, Yale University has one of the biggest GLBT communities among schools of its level [5]. Rather, I think that, especially in universities, admissions officers should factor in socioeconomic statuses more. In many of the high caliber schools with a tremendous scholarship and financial aid fund, they look at applications as need-blind, then offer admitted students all the money they need to be able to attend that university. In the past, it is possible for them to have achieved racial diversity, but it is very possible that there was a white student and a black student who were both from upstate New York. America has already begun to move past the traditional barriers of race and gender; there are more complicated sectors of society that are in competition.

[1] - http://www.understandingprejudice.org/readroom/articles/affirm.htm
[2] - http://www.aclu.org/racialjustice/aa/index.html
[3] -http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iP2emAr4F0x_XR8HdB1CZGy1YCKQD94ADUJ00
[4] - http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/08/us/politics/08affirm.html?_r=1&ref=us
[5] – www.yale.edu
[6] – www.princeton.edu; November 30, 2008 10:57 PM
BJORN said...: I think that we can definitely take from these articles that there is a wide range in what the American people think about Affirmative Action. This is clear because when Colorado votes to reject the ban by only a 2% margin, while Nebraska votes to accept the ban by 58% of the votes, there is definitely not a clear cut decision that everyone wants (1). I do not think that we can classify how the American Electorate feels about Affirmative Action, because of all of the special cases that there are. As Barack Obama said, the "privileged" minorities should not benefit from Affirmative Action because they do not need it, whereas some low-income whites need such programs, so there should be programs that they can benefit from (2). So this is why we can not have a blanket ban or a blanket passage of Affirmitive Action as it is defined right now. Because either some people who truely need help are excluded from this type of program, or people who are well enough off and do not need it are taking opportunities away from those who need the help. I think that in time we must fidn a way to get away from affirmative action and that we shouldnt need it to diversify the workplace and universities, but for now i think that it is essential. Before the 1990's, universities would have jumped at the chance to recieve a black student who brought both diversity and achievment to its campus. But after Porposition 209, universities couldn't admit students based on race, and the amount of diversity at UCLA drastically dropped. Today the college has a ratio of only a little over 1 in 50 students are black (3). I think that it is DEFINITELY important to have strong academics at a school, because that is the main reason why people go to college. However, I also think that it is very important to have diversity at a college, because when people go to college, it is a time of change in their lives. It is a time to explore and find their passions and to branch out and try new things. But if they are surrounded by people who are the same as them, or who come from similar backgrounds, they will not get the same opportunities as a student who studies in a diversified community. So this is why i think that right now it is important to use Affirmative Action until we find a better solution to this on going problem.

1. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/08/us/politics/08affirm.html?ref=us&pagewanted=print
2. http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iP2emAr4F0x_XR8HdB1CZGy1YCKQD94ADUJ00
3. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/30/magazine/30affirmative-t.html; November 30, 2008 11:51 PM
Tiffany Ly said...: In Nebraska, a ban on affirmative action was passed (1). While in Colorado, a similar ban was rejected (2). The results of the Nebraska and Colorado show that people have mixed feelings about the policy of affirmative action. We have to wonder for what reasons was this ban passed/not passed? In Colorado, the deciding vote was just 51 percent versus 49 percent against the ban (2). Rather than trying to figure out why voters would reject a ban, the media has focused its attention on the vague and biased wording of the question (2). There is also speculation that the outpouring of support for Barack Obama as the first African American President influenced voters in their choice on the ban (2). Voters in Colorado favored Obama, but McCain won Nebraska (1). However, political affiliations generally don't have as much influence in affirmative action policy today. Colorado is the first state Ward Connerly hasn't been able to pass a ban on affirmative action in, but he might come back and try again (2).

Colleges still want to increase their diversity in Nebraska, but the ban makes this more difficult (3). Some people fear that outreach and recruitment programs will get cut, such as “Native American Day” (3). The reasons for the ban and mostly based off of the idea of being “qualified” rather than colored.

On the side those who want to do away with affirmative action, two main approaches can be taken. There are people who argue that statistically minorities don't do as well academically, therefore, affirmative action is rejecting white people in favor of less talented minorities are accepted. This is the concept of qualification. While on the other side of the same call to end the practice of affirmative action, people call the practice of preferring people based on their color or gender is not promoting equality. Telling people they get preferential treatment in employment or college admissions is the equivalent of telling them they need a boost, because they don't have the ability to get that position. These are the same people who think that affirmative assumes that people of color and women cannot do as well as white males. The people who argue for affirmative action believe that America is too entrenched in racism to treat minorities and women equally without affirmative action.

Personally, I know that America is still racist. After Obama's win in this year's presidential election, there has been a spike in the number of racial hate crimes in the form of cross burnings, black figures hung from nooses, and children chanting “Assassinate Obama” (4). Two days after Obama was elected, a stranger called me a disgusting East Asian. We are still a Racist nation, but I wonder if Affirmative Action has fixed or can fix that racism. In the end I don't think so. Affirmative action has been justified as giving preference to groups that had once been discriminated against. However, affirmative action now doesn't fix past discrimination. If the past has taught us anything, it is that we need to celebrate diversity without treating any group different from another. I think affirmative action perpetuates more racism by treating people from different groups unequally. If given the chance, with their own power minorities and women can eradicate the notions of inferiority if given the chance to prove that they can do equally as well as white males. Without that opportunity these groups can only wonder what could have been.

While racism still exists, we need to use different means to solve socio-economic differences between races, not give preferential consideration. The Boston Globe suggests that inequalities that exist in education, poverty, homelessness, physical abuse, and mental illness (5).

Another factor people never consider is culture. We can say “equality” and “qualifications,” but we never consider the beliefs and cultures of minorities. Having immigrant parents and being Asian, are major reasons for why I take AP classes and try to get good grades. My parents want me to take advantage of the opportunities they never had, so I'm partly motivated by guilt. Asians are stereotypically smart, good at math (which is a subject I hate), ect. Yet, a lot of our success can be connected to culture. The same goes for other minorities, but we don't understand because we aren't apart of the same group. There are major differences that come with being apart of a different group and being a different color. Empathy can only take us so far.

(1)http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/08/us/politics/08affirm.html?_r=1&ref=us
(2)http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iP2emAr4F0x_XR8HdB1CZGy1YCKQD94ADUJ00
(3)http://www.nebraska.tv/Global/story.asp?S=9416489
(4)http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article5172285.ece
(5)http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/editorials/articles/2008/11/15/obama_and_affirmative_action/; December 01, 2008 12:20 AM
klake said...: 1. This election, affirmative action came into question in the form of ballot measures in both Colorado and Nebraska (1). Colorado rejected a measure to ban affirmative action, 51% to 49%, while Nebraska passed the measure 58% to 42% (1). Nebraska becomes the fourth state, along with California, Michigan, and Washington, to approve a ban on affirmative action (2). Colorado is the first state to actually reject such a measure, which suggests a climate of change in America (2). A minute margin of two percentage points lends credence to the idea that Colorado rejected an affirmative action ban based on reasons not entirely policy related. Even the people opposing the ban on affirmative action in Colorado were shocked by its defeat; so-called Amendment 46 was garnering 60% support a few scant weeks ago (4). In May, a Newsweek poll found that 72% of voters oppose ‘preferential treatment’ to minorities; this suggests that the American public is against affirmative action in theory (5). However, in the same poll, 57% of people disagreed with the statement “We have gone too far in pushing equal rights in this country,” which suggests that people agree with affirmative action in practice (5).

2. I think that the United States needs affirmative action to diversify colleges and workplaces, but that affirmative action should be altered to include different disadvantaged groups. Low-income students and students living below the poverty line should be given preferential treatment for admissions into our university system; perhaps even greater preference than racial minorities. Studies have shown that certain racial minorities have lower literacy levels and proficiency levels than the white majority; until that literacy level is equal, affirmative action should be enforced (6). Currently, only 47% of people list race relations as ‘good’ within the country and 36% list race relations as ‘not so good’; this demonstrates that people do believe discrimination occurs within the United States (5). Diversity would be difficult to achieve without affirmative action because certain groups already have advantages like higher reading comprehension levels and no history of major discrimination (6). Affirmative action also allows certain scholarships or programs to be directed at a demographic of people; for example, a university may not be allowed to hold ‘Native American Day’ to increase Native American enrollment (7).

1. http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/ballot.measures/
2. http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iP2emAr4F0x_XR8HdB1CZGy1YCKQD94ADUJ00
3. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/08/us/politics/08affirm.html?_r=1&ref=us
4. http://washingtontimes.com/news/2008/nov/08/obama-helped-defeat-anti-affirmative-action/
5. http://www.pollingreport.com/race.htm
6. http://nces.ed.gov/NAAL/PDF/2006470.pdf
7. http://www.nebraska.tv/Global/story.asp?S=9416489; December 01, 2008 12:26 AM
Savann said...: I think that the results of these elections mean that America is getting closer to achieving equality among its citizens. California, Michigan, Washington, and Nebraska all passed the ban on affirmative action (1), but we aren’t quite there yet. As I’ve said in my previous post, just because a black president was voted into office doesn’t mean racism and sexism has gone away. That being said, I think that the American electorate is somewhat split on their opinion of affirmative action like they were in Colorado (1).
Affirmative action is meant to “promote access for the traditionally underrepresented through heightened outreach and efforts at inclusion”, though it’s not supposed to give preferential treatment to any one group of people (2). There are still many minorities out there that are in need of affirmative action to help them find a better position in society. In a Washington Post, there was an article that talked about how big the difference between the graduation rates between black and white students were from Trinity Washington University and the Catholic University. At Catholic, the 6-year graduation rate for whites was 72% while the rate for blacks was only 25% (the biggest difference in the U.S). (3) I think that if such a large gap exists, then there should be still be something to help lessen it.
"If there is a single factor that seems to distinguish colleges and universities that have truly made a difference on behalf of minority students, it is attention," said Kevin Carey, a graduation rate researcher (3). At Florida State University, Center for Academic Retention and Enhancement, or CARE, took the time to pick out students from low-income families in the surrounding communities and helped them throughout the high school, summer programs, ACTs/SATs and such, preparing them for college. It increased the 6-year graduation rate for blacks to 72% (3). If programs like these are helping so many youths today, its use should be more widely spread. It doesn’t have to be for just minorities either.
What I don’t get is why affirmative action doesn’t really apply to Asians (which I just found out!). In the Denver Post, the writer said some people justified it by using the stereotype that Asians are smart and get what they want through hard work (4). If that’s true, what exactly is the point of affirmative action when everyone should be working their little butts off to get where they want?

1) http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iP2emAr4F0x_XR8HdB1CZGy1YCKQD94ADUJ00
2) http://www.affirmativeaction.org/about-affirmative-action.html
3) http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/16/AR2008061600199.html
4) http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_9172477; December 01, 2008 1:35 AM
Jill said...: I think the election results show that America is changing its view point. However, not to an extreme, because in Colorado, the vote against affirmative action failed 51% to 49% (1). It shows the voters of Colorado [who voted Obama] were very divided (1). In Nebraska [who voted McCain] the vote against affirmative action passed - at 58% (1). Ward Connerly, an African American and the former University of California regent, has become the most high-profile crusader against affirmative action mentioned that voter fatigue of the 14 amendment proposal ballot may have been a factor in the loss of CO (2). He also said, "We weren't fighting this massive Obama presence in Nebraska that had energized so many liberals in Colorado." (2) The votes against affirmative action are mixed - showing the nation might not be ready yet to eliminate affirmative action, but its definitely being considered. California, Washington, and Michigan have all passed similar initiatives to end affirmative action (3).
I think the U.S. does not need affirmative action to diversify. According to the Census bureau by 2050, the minorities will be in the majority (4). I don't think race or gender should be a qualification for a job or school placing because it establishes quotas. I agree with Sarah Palin when she said, she believes in "equal opportunity for everyone" as long as every American is treated equally (3). I think that's easier said then done, but, I think we can definitely move that direction in the future. After Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Conner's rulling on Grutter v. Bollinger, it suggests "the Court expects that 25 years from now, the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary to futher the interest approved today." (4). I think the best way to go about this is to eliminate the optional race boxes on college applications, and choose students based on the qualifications for that specific school. I think naturally it will become diverse. To do this the best way possible, however, we need to give equal education opportunities to all children. I don't think as a nation we are ready for it yet - but I think we are progressing and it has potential in the upcoming years.

(1) AP -- Colorado voters reject affirmative action ban
(2) The New York Times - Vote Results Are Mixed on a Ban on Preference
(3) StatesmenJournal.com -- The future of affirmative actions
(4) Boston.com - Obama and affirmative action; December 01, 2008 6:48 AM
Jaqi said...: I feel these election results show that affirmative action isn't necessary in the United States anymore. People in Colorado made the decision on their own to negate affirmative action because they don't feel they need it to make accurate assessments on whether a student is qualified enough to enter a college in their state. While their are still obviously mixed voters on the situation which was clearly shown by the Colorado voters who voted 51 for affirmative action and 49 against it (1). Also Nebraska chose to ban affirmative action with 58% of the vote (3). I Think this election has really changed the US view on affirmative action because according to a 2007 report done by the Pew Research Center there was a 70% support of affirmative action (2). But now in many states it seems to have done a 50- 50 split on what people want. What opinion polls seem to show is that a lot of voters don't know very much about affirmative action policies and who is hurt or benefited by these programs (4). Also the American Psychological Association say there are little evidence that students who benefit from affirmative action are less qualified (Pratkanis and Turner, 1995. 4)
1.http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iP2emAr4F0x_XR8HdB1CZGy1YCKQD94ADUJ00
2.http://www.aclu.org/pdfs/racialjustice/whosupportsaa.pdf
3.http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/08/us/politics/08affirm.html?ref=us
4. http://www.apa.org/pubinfo/affirmaction.html; December 01, 2008 9:09 AM
Dan said...: I think the results in Colorado and Nebraska are very significant. First, they there is no clear popular opinion in either state on Affirmative Action, especially in Colorado, where the vote was 51-49 against the amendment. What seems interesting to me is that the Amendment passed in Nebraska where McCain won by 18 points (1), and failed in Colorado where Obama won by nearly 10 points (2). This seems interesting because it appears that in Colorado, some people that voted for Obama also voted for the amendment, while in Nebraska many people voted against the Amendment. The differences weren’t significant to change the results, but the fact that they were different I found interesting. I think the fact that the majority of the country voted for Obama proves that most Americans today see other issues more important in judging a person than the color of their skin.
In saying this, I think that resources should be focused on need-based scholarships rather than race or ethnicity based scholarships and admissions. This way, all Americans will have an equal opportunity to be admitted to colleges regardless of a family’s ability to pay for college. Today, financial road blocks seem to be much more common problems than racial prejudice in college admissions. However, I think that Affirmative Action in the workplace may still be necessary. Affirmative action in the workplace, especially in areas like hiring college faculty or other industries where employees would work directly with customers, could be very beneficial, as it would give customers someone they can relate to to interact with. On the other side of the coin, however, is that as people of different races and ethnicities grow comfortable around eachother, the need to make race-based hiring decisions becomes less and less significant. I think that the U.S. has come a long way on the road to racial equality and as we continue to abandon old views of prejudice, the need for Affirmative Action programs will be less and less.

http://data.denverpost.com/election/results/county/colorado/
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/2008/elections/ne/president/; December 01, 2008 9:17 AM