Is that news to you? I thought it was common knowledge, especially in the Executive branch (Department of Justice, Department of Health and Human Services, etc). I would guess that blacks are overrepresented in all government jobs. I experienced it firsthand after a nightmarish visit to the DMV today. If you want to know what hell will be like, visit your local DMV. 
Well, I stumbled across (clumsy) that bit of information in my research of the legislative history and background of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Could “affirmative action” be the reason that blacks are overrepresented in government jobs (rhetorical)?
Columnist Paul Craig Roberts wants to know, too. He wrote a piece titled, “Whatever Happened to Civil Rights?” As you read the article, you can almost feel his contempt for skin color entitlements (I don’t like them either, Paul). Roberts writes:
The 1964 Civil Rights Act has been illegally enforced for 37 years. The result is a massive system of race and gender discrimination against white males in order to achieve proportional representation of racial minorities and women.Now comes an astonishing report from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management: “Annual Report to Congress, Federal Equal Opportunity Recruitment Program, Fiscal Year 2000,” released in April 2002.
This report to Congress makes brutally clear that despite the “equal opportunity” name of the program, the purpose of the federal program is to make certain there is no equal opportunity for whites in federal employment.
The report uses tables and bar charts to make unmistakably clear that federal discrimination against whites goes far beyond merely achieving proportional representation for blacks. In all 22 independent federal agencies and in 16 of 17 federal executive departments, blacks are massively over represented.
In the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (sic) blacks comprise 46.4 percent of the employees. The “affirmative action” or racial quota target for proportional representation (percent in Relevant Civilian Labor Force) for the EEOC is 6.4 percent black employees. Blacks are thus over represented in EEOC employment by 625 percent!
The latest release of the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) report he cites is here (PDF). The report focuses on “underrepresentation” even in the face of the higher percentages of certain minority employees. That, and not underrepresentation, is the issue. Why are these numbers so high?
OPM is totally nonchalant about the overrepresentation of blacks and other minorities. “Minorities are now better represented in the FW [federal workforce] than in the Civilian Labor Force (CLF),” they deadpan, “with one exception — Hispanics. So will they get rid of race quotas for blacks in the government now? Not likely.
But this is how PC society works. Hispanics are underrepresented, so now the bureaucrats will shift gears and start hiring Hispanics in disproportionate numbers, discriminating against more “non-minorities” in the process. Down the rabbit hole, Alice!
As Roberts notes, there are no statistics for white males (Sorry, guys!). Are they being discriminated against in federal employment by design or are they not seeking government jobs at the rate other groups do? Such information would be useful, but they’re obviously not interested in the answers. Sorry, guys.
The report states that “non-minority” women (read: white - why don’t they just say it?) represented 33.2 percent of the civilian labor force in 2003 but 27.2 percent of the federal workforce. And? So? Are these government bean counters trying to achieve the magic number of skin colors and genders (excluding white males) so as to create perfect harmony? Good luck with all that. Not happening on this planet.
Cliff Kincaid of Accuracy in Media adds his commentary about the report:
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, for example, has employed 614% more blacks than their proportion in the civilian workforce, and the U.S. Department of Education employed 473% more blacks.
The protected minority groups include blacks, Hispanics, Asians/Pacific Islanders, Native Americans, and women. The OPM Report for 2003 shows that, of the new federal jobs created, only 22.9% were filled by white males and other “non-minorities.” Tim Fay comments, “It wasn’t a very good year for white guys to apply for a federal job.”
While there is obviously no such thing as “overrepresentation” for the protected or preferred minorities, there is such a thing as “underrepresentation.” And that’s what gets the press attention. Federal Times newspaper ran a story under the headline, “New Push for Diversity: OPM Moves To Address ‘Underrepresentation’ in Senior Ranks.” The story noted that, “Overall, percentages of blacks, Asians and American Indians in virtually all federal pay grades meet or exceed those of the national work force overall. But in the Senior Executive Service and equivalent senior pay grades, all minority groups are underrepresented as compared with their percentage in the national work force overall.”
Now some people get upset with me for writing about race preferences all the time, but the quest for “equal opportunity” has gone absurdly wrong. Skin color quotas disguised as “affirmative action” are unacceptable, unfair and un-American. In my own tiny way, I’ll continue to call it out.
There is hope! Judges are striking down skin color preferences. In San Francisco, a 20-year-old sex and skin color preference program was dismantled because it violated Proposition 209, an initiative spearheaded by Ward Connerly, which outlaws race and sex preferences in state hiring and admissions.
The people are tired of this mess, too. Connerly organized the Proposition 209 campaign in sunny liberal California, and 54.6 percent of the voters chose to end skin color preferences.
Perhaps we’ll continue to see one victory after another after another!.
Speaking of “Discriminations,” check out all of John Rosenberg’s blog. John is working on his dissertation on discrimination at Stanford. His blog is good reading and a good resource.
Rest easy, everybody. I certainly will!
Do you understand the implications of completely eliminating any evaluation based upon ethnicity?
Comment by Hirez — 07.30.04 @ 6:29 pm
Hirez- What don’t you tell me what the implications are? In your opinion, what would happen if skin color preferences were eliminated?
Comment by La Shawn — 07.30.04 @ 6:36 pm
Implications?! Why, we would have to go to individual merit and character; or even (gasp!) the principle of free association.
Comment by Mark Slater — 07.30.04 @ 6:42 pm
I will first address Mark. So are you saying that right now, blacks are of lessor “character” and have less “merit” than whites, being that we as a whole are behind whites in every vitality indicator in this nation?
And if we are of lessor character and have less merit, then are you implying that it is a “natural” state?
If it is not a “natural” state, then it is a nutured state…
WHICH
Begs the question, have blacks ever been at parity in terms of vitality indicators in the United States of America? IF not then what are the circumstances past, present and future that keep us so distant from the caucasion majority.
The bible clearly indicates that there is a duality between civic or social responsibitity of leadership, and the individual responsibility of members of the populace.
For example, let’s analyze the proverbian scripture, “spare the rod spoil the child”. This clearly indicates that nurture determines behavior. Apply this in the social sense of government, historic bigotry, locked out access to capital, poorer quality of schools, poor health care, and you have a virtual built in system of “spoiling the child”.
Now mind you, I am a former Republican, now independent so I see the validity of certain conservative ideologies, but there are key areas of their strategem that just don’t cut it when analyzed through the rubics of social justice that is so prevalent in the bible.
LASHAWN…
To eliminate a variable in this case race, when doing a sociological analysis is to have an output that is skewed because the analysis is not complete.
For example, when know a certain ethnicity of Jewish men are predisposed to a specific cellular disease a rate much higher than the normal population. We know blacks are predisposed to sickle cell at a much higher rate than the general population. Now apply the logic of removing race as a variable in determining risk for a disease and you now have effectively eliminated the ability to target a certain group with marketing materials and preventative measures to guard or mitigate against the onset of the disease.
Apply that same concept to a sociological situation, and you have effectively done the same thing as the anology above indicates. You have eliminated the ability to mitigate, guard, and warn, because the particular population that is subject to certain “ills” is now no longer measured but lumped in with the population as a whole.
That is a long post, so I am going to cut it short.
But suffice to say, you don’t cure prejudice, bigotry and discrimination by ignoring it.
Comment by Hirez — 07.30.04 @ 7:09 pm
Hirez, I am well aware that race should be considered in certain medical treatments because certain diseases are more prevalent among certain groups. Proposition 209 contains such exceptions. But you lost me with the rest, even though I’ve heard it all before. How can that be? It’s Friday and I get to sleep late tomorrow, that’s how! Have a great one. Oh, and welcome to the blog.
Comment by La Shawn — 07.30.04 @ 7:14 pm
Can’t have that kind of nonsense, can we? Oh no, facing the water hoses, police dogs and bricks will have been in vain, if the elimination of skin color preferences comes to pass, says chicken little black leader to the masses. At least, that’s how I interpreted Sharpton’s comments about riding that donkey.
Comment by Andy — 07.30.04 @ 7:16 pm
Your sarcasm Andy is unamusing…
Lashawn…have a good evening…
nice board…
I will leave this open for discussion till tommorrow…
How do you know discrimination ceases if you remove the means by which to measure it?
Let’s take it to it’s logical end…
Do you advocate the removal of race from the census?
Do you advocate the removal of gender?
Do you advocate the removal of age?
If not why?
If the fundamental assumption is that “content” of character as manifest in job performance (which is mostly a subjective and arbitrary measure)…
Then why have any cosmetic or biological indicators measured at all?
What kind of church do you go to?
Comment by Hirez — 07.30.04 @ 7:24 pm
There’s a lot of things that bother me about affirmative action, but I’ll list just one for now-
If you are doing your very best to determine the best candidate for a particular position, don’t you usually form a definitive opinion about which is the very best candidate, and which is the second best candidate, etc? Affirmative action assumes you will have plateaus of candidates you think are equally likely to succeed at the position.
To me, if you have plateaus of candidates you like equally well, you have not done your job as an interviewer. Conversely, if you have done your job as an interviewer, you may be in violation of federal law.
Comment by gcotharn — 07.30.04 @ 7:30 pm
25% of black Americans work for government entities. I assume it’s because: (1) the pay grades are pretty good; (2) health care and pension benefits are pretty good; (3) there is more remnants of discrimination in the private sector; and (4) desire to help out the “little people.”
Just to play devil’s advocate: ain’t it possible that whites are significantly less interested in working for the government? Perhaps blacks are disproportionately likelier to go into fields (social work, etc.) that link with government jobs.
I’m not throwing any argument out there that we don’t hear from white conservatives when white overrepresentation in other areas is discussed. To not even explore this option (when it’s regularly explored when black underrepresentation in fields is discussed) reeks of hypocrisy.
Comment by molotov — 07.30.04 @ 7:59 pm
Hirez, I’ll answer you via e-mail.
Molotov, I explicitly addressed some of your points in my post. I suspect that whites don’t seek out a government job the way blacks do, but still, all federal agencies have race preference policies they call “affirmative action plans.” It would be interesting to know which weighs more heavily in the numbers: “discrimination” against working for the government by whites or discrimination against whites by the government in favor of minorities.
Comment by La Shawn — 07.30.04 @ 8:17 pm
Blacks make up 13% of the U.S. population. Blacks make up 17.6% of the federal government population.
Uh, that’s massively over represented?
Blacks in the government migrating to the EEOC. I wonder why that would be.
Comment by DarkStar — 07.30.04 @ 9:30 pm
The “overrepresentation” isn’t based on the percentage of blacks that make up the population; it’s based on the EEOC’s own skin color quota numbers.
Comment by La Shawn — 07.30.04 @ 9:33 pm
Sarcasm, what sarcasm? That is the raison d’etre behind victimism. Twisting the stated dream of MLK around to “you owe me”, reparations, and a whole laudry list of grievances. All I want is a fair chance at an opportunity with no regards to the color of my skin. I’ll sink or swim based strictly on my God-given merits
Although I do have a confession to make. The statistics on racial distribution aren’t accurate and I helped make it so and have done so since 1980. And if I’m doing it, who knows how many are also deliberately skewing the numbers. You know those blocks where you’re supposed to check off your race, I “never” do.
Or, on the rare occasion when I’m told that I have to check one, I place a check under every category where I have reason to claim a drop of blood. Once upon a time, it used to be pretty clear that answering these questions were optional.
Although lately, it seems Uncle Sam is cracking down. My most recent security clearance was held up since I didn’t check one off, so I put down “M”, they kicked it back thinking I had put down M for Male. True I am male, but I explained the M stood for mutt and besides, I don’t approve of the government asking my “race”. As I see it, there’s only one race, the Human Race. Would you believe they actually had to kick it up to DC? I don’t know what their final determination was, but I got my clearance.
Comment by Andy — 07.30.04 @ 9:42 pm
As it stands now, according to the charts, Hispanics, Whites and Women have some catching up to do at the expense of Asians, Blacks and Native-Americans to attain mandated parity.
In the interest of true equality based on merit, may I suggest a new federal Agency of Obfuscation. AO will collect all resumes, purge racial, gender and other group identifier traits, assign a unigue ID number before passing it on to the agency that is seeking to fill a position.
[Darn, and I was trying so hard to get away from the “I’m just a number on the statistical sheet” meme, sorry Bob Seger.]
Should an interview be necessary, an avatar will stand in for the face to face, and for the time being, use canned responses that have been equally purged of syntax and grammar idiosyncracies that could give away one’s groupness. In due time, computers should be fast enough to mask in real-time.
At the rate Hispanics are mirgrating to the States, and since bi-racial marriage is cool, we’ll eventually all be Brown and race won’t matter anymore
Just a thot, what color is our soul?
Comment by Andy — 07.30.04 @ 10:36 pm
[…] I’ll agree with La Shawn Barber on this one <link> This report to Congress make […]
Pingback by i am always right » More Affirmative Action … — 07.30.04 @ 11:23 pm
Stats got your tongue Kiki?
Comment by Andy — 07.31.04 @ 1:37 am
Hirez:
NO! You obviously did not understand a single thing I posted. Specifically, I said that individual character and merit ought to be the standard. Not to mention the case to be made (if we were discussing the private sector) of free association — maybe you are a businessman and wish to hire someone you already know, or to not hire someone because his ears are too big.. it’s your call.
Also, you seem to be confusing spiritual enlightenment with civil duties. For example, scripture tells us, “Repent ye therefore, and be converted” (Acts 3:19) By your standard, the civil authorities ought to force people to convert.
Likewise, scriptiure delineates a host of responsibilities to civil government, like punishing evildoers. If we too such actions as average citizens, that would be vigilante-ism.
Comment by Mark Slater — 07.31.04 @ 2:31 am
“Have blacks ever been at parity in terms of vitality indicators?”
Yes. Decades ago, whites and blacks had similar levels of intact families (both very high) unmarried pregnancy (very low) and both groups were, as compared to today, very close to extended relatives and had vital cultural traditions: girls looked up to mother and aunts; boys looked up to father, grandfather, and pastor. Most people then (any skin color) had little in material posessions, but knew what really mattered.
Comment by Mark Slater — 07.31.04 @ 2:41 am
I don’t trust anything Roberts writes. Read some of Volokh’s crits of him. The man says the income tax is a worse state of affairs and more enslaving than chattel slavery.
I’ll get a cite if anyone wants.
Comment by Expatlse — 07.31.04 @ 5:35 am
Hirez, I advocate removal of all distinctions in the census. The intent when it was established was to count so that the number of representatives could be allocated, and nothing more. If we did that once again, race would become far less an issue because people would quit comparing percentages, and Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson would lose all their power.
Comment by Mike — 07.31.04 @ 6:35 am
The “overrepresentation” isn’t based on the percentage of blacks that make up the population; it’s based on the EEOC’s own skin color quota numbers.
I’m not sure what you mean.
Let me make clear what I mean.
Some people, wrongly I might add, think there is discrimination in an employment area if that area doesn’t represent the racial distribution of the general population. I’ve never agreed with that premise. I’m a software engineer. I was the only Black person to graduate with a computer science degree the year I graduated from college. Most times, I am the only Black person, or one of a handful, working on a small project.
From my familiarity of the federal government, white government workers are less likely to want to work in the EEOC while Black people are more likely to want to work in the EEOC.
No discrimination there.
Comment by DarkStar — 07.31.04 @ 8:43 am
Some people, wrongly I might add, think there is discrimination in an employment area if that area doesn’t represent the racial distribution of the general population.
We are in agreement there. A lot of people think the existence of a disparity is proof of “racism” or discrimination, but it isn’t necessarily the case.
Comment by La Shawn — 07.31.04 @ 9:00 am
La Shawn:
I am not impressed by mis-representation in EEOC.
To work for EEOC, one would have to believe in the “cause” - most White people just aren’t interested. Likewise, married women are less interested in being executives at Wal Mart.
Regardless of the fundamental “root causes” - it is a fact of life that more Black people (proportionately) work for Government.
In his book “Basis Economics” Thomas Sowell explains - in clear terms - why Government jobs do not produce wealth - they merely consume wealth. Therefore, regardless of cause, Black Americans disproportionately consume wealth, and are deprived of the oppoertunity to produce wealty - by having so many Government jobs.
This, unfortunately, prolongs life on the “plantation” of Government dependency.
Comment by FRANK ZAVISCA — 07.31.04 @ 10:46 am
Frank, well said!
Although there are a handful of governmental agencies like DARPA, In-Q-Tel and on occasions NASA, that incubate wealth. Even then, those agencies generally don’t generate that wealth via the government employees, rather by contractors that either create technology or provide COTS (Commercial-Off-The-Shelf) technology.
Comment by Andy — 07.31.04 @ 12:32 pm
I find it funny that Blacks, who are working, are criticized for working.
I went to college with Blacks whose parents were government workers. The children of those parents are now teachers, engineers, reporters, high tech workers, government workers, etc.
My mother was a government worker. Food, housing, clothes, etc, were able to be brought from her job. I came out making more than she made. I’m now in the position to help her in her retirement because my income is nice and I’ve learned the merits of saving money.
I refuse to criticize people for working an honest job. Especially when they are able to provide for their children to do better than they did.
Comment by DarkStar — 07.31.04 @ 1:32 pm
I certainly have no room (or desire) to criticize folks with government jobs. I used to work for the government. I left because the culture fostered there (at least where I was) tended to stifle incentive to improve and excel. It’s almost impossible to fire incompetent employees. Don’t get me wrong: I’m glad people have jobs where they can get them, but the culture is not above criticism.
Comment by La Shawn — 07.31.04 @ 1:38 pm
If you think your DMV is hell, you ought to try dealing with the one in Jersey.
Comment by birdwoman — 07.31.04 @ 2:04 pm
So are you saying that right now, blacks are of lessor “character” and have less “merit” than whites, being that we as a whole are behind whites in every vitality indicator in this nation?
The point is, we do not know. WE DO NOT KNOW. We know there are hires based on merit and we know there are hires based on meeting quotas.
When you go to the brain surgeon for your child, would the Black doctor be there because he was the best in his class or because a quota needed to be filled? Would that matter to you when the life of your child was at stake?
That is the sinister psychology of race quotas. Unless someone walks around with a sticker on their shirt that says, “I was hired based on merit alone” we have no way of knowing. We cannot determine, by position alone, whether someone is there because they earned it. The Free Market has been stifled and we have no way of knowing if we’re dealing with the most qualified person or the most qualified person of color.
It does a grave disservice to anyone who did get there on sweat equity and merit. It’s a lot of baggage to have to carry. I do not want to shoulder it, because I believe people CAN get there on merit and hard work, the moment we stop telling them they can’t. I face this sort of challenge as a woman. Did the company contract with my company because I was a female owned business or because I was the most qualifed consultancy to do the job? I don’t want to meet their quota. I want them to choose me because I’m the best they could get.
Comment by Mrs. du Toit — 07.31.04 @ 4:52 pm
An equal-opportunity employer
Which does not, incidentally, describe the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, apparently. These days, assuring that one does not discriminate almost demands proportional employment by race. The EEOC, curiously, seems to…
Trackback by dustbury.com — 07.31.04 @ 8:41 pm
Oh my, Andy. I haven’t been online all weekend, and when I do come back on, look what I’ve missed…Lol.
Comment by Kiki B. — 08.02.04 @ 1:09 am
Kiki, yeah it’s been a busy weekend. Actually, when I wrote that comment, there were three blank entries by you in a row, so I didn’t know if you were flabbergasted or what. LOL
Comment by Andy — 08.02.04 @ 4:00 am
I am a freelance Graphic Artist.
I have several business opportunities for growth opening up for me through my various customer contacts.
It is a good feeling knowing that I earned any success that I have from my hard work and not from my color. I don’t rely on loans, or any government programs or any Black Business chamber, club or whatever. I simply pound the pavement, knocking on doors, and cold calling to present my services to potential clients, both black and white. Most of my customers are white, 95% actually.
Hard work and struggle is a good thing, I can only say that in retrospect ofcourse, yet it is. I thank God each day for the challenges and opportunities He gives me. Early on I worked at a company that hired me because I was black. I did not go very far in that company knowing this fact. Admittedly I took it for granted and was happy getting a weekly check. I did mediocre work and did not trust my white superiors enough to share any of my ideas, but I felt I was entitled to receive a weekly check regardless of my performance. I can only admit this in retrospect as well.
It wasn’t until I was laid off and ventured out on my own that I realized the truth, that favoratism and quotas stifle creativity, and innovaton and lead to lethargic attitudes. Racial quotas deprives an individual of the ability to demonstrate ones potential. To really know what your made of.
Comment by Jerry McClellan — 08.02.04 @ 3:00 pm
Jerry, your story highlights your own personal failings.
I was taught the value of hard work and I’ve always tried to live up to those values, whether or not I obtained my position with affirmative action, knowing someone, or whatever.
Your personal failings have nothing to do with affirmative action.
Comment by DarkStar — 08.02.04 @ 6:03 pm
DarkStar, you are correct in your assessment. That is the point indeed. What I stated is a highlight of my own personal failings, and is a reflection of what goes on all of the time in corporate america and in our own government. But, simply stating the obvious doesn’t let AA off of the hook. AA panders to the worst in the majority of Blacks and other minorites because it fosters an attitude of entitlement. The simple fact that a person defends AA on the premise that Blacks somehow deserves it demonstrates that point.
That is at the heart of the AA issue, this attitude of entitlement. This is dangerous indeed because it truly does limit a persons capabilities and perpetuates the very racist notion that Blacks have to be taken care of like children, they cannot do it on their own.
They need a socio-economic high-chair.
Pandering to minorities does not solve their problems, as you stated yourself, teaching them the values of hard work does. How do you know if you are living up to those values if what you strive for is first, given to you, and then, not because of your hard work, but because of your color. You will never know if you actually earned what you’ve “achieved”.
Comment by Jerry McClellan — 08.02.04 @ 9:19 pm
How do you know if you are living up to those values if what you strive for is first, given to you, and then, not because of your hard work, but because of your color. You will never know if you actually earned what you’ve “achieved”.
Who cares?
I don’t.
I’ve seen corporations push aside low performing individuals of all races.
I’ve seen corporations and businesses promote and up individuals of all races who don’t deserve it.
I’ve never seen one discussion address that issue.
When a person’s evaluation comes, if they lie and say the person is doing a good job, then the fault lies with the business. If they tell the truth and the individual maintains their low performance, it’s the individual’s fault.
You would have performed the same way if a friend got you the job, not your “race”.
When the same people who cry out against the entitlement mentality, cry out against FHA loans and government backed student loans or grants, then the intellectually honest discussion can begin. Not before then.
Comment by DarkStar — 08.02.04 @ 10:16 pm
DarkStar,
“You would have performed the same way if a friend got you the job, not your “race”.”
That may not necesarily be true. For it depends on who the friend is, is he/she the owner of the company? A relative? or merely another coworker who put in a good word for me? Nepatism can breed an entitlement mentality as well, so maybe I would have performed the same if that were the case. A co-equal friendship in which the friend simply put in a good word to his boss, my future boss, would probably, more or less, cause me to do better work in the hopes of not shaming my friend. The same could be true if it were a relative.
AA is an invisible entity, so there is no obligation to give any honor to anyone in appreciation for what it may bring and therefore no obligation to strive for high achievment. There are no checks and balances in place to ensure this. Yet, a friend or relative relationship has built in checks and balances as I stated above.
You say who cares, well indeed, who does care? Or better yet, who should care? As you stated earlier,
“I was taught the value of hard work and I’ve always tried to live up to those values, whether or not I obtained my position with affirmative action, knowing someone, or whatever.” Well, if you were taught the values of hard work then you should care about whether or not your hard work is being rewarded. Should you not? Isn’t that part of valuing hard work, knowing that it reaps reward?
You are correct in that it is the individual’s fault, I totally agree with that, ultimately it is the individual’s responsibility. That being the case, why is AA a necessity if it is the individual’s responsibility? If AA doesn’t solve the problems of equality in the workplace then why have it? If less qualified people are still being hired then what is the point? By your own admission companies still hire, promote and fire unqualified people whether black or white. If that is the case then why in the world do we need a system that perpetuates this reality even more so?
FHA loans and student loans are supposed to be need based not raced based. When race is a factor for one group they become unfair to all groups. AA in its present form is not need based, it is race based, and that is the problem.
Comment by Jerry McClellan — 08.03.04 @ 10:54 am
FHA loans and student loans are supposed to be need based not raced based.
They both add to the entitlement mentality. In fact, the default rate for FHA loans is higher than that for conventional loans. It also contributes to the spiraling costs of buying a home.
Comment by DarkStar — 08.03.04 @ 9:08 pm
Jerry,
Have you ever considered the fact that affirmative action is not and has not been an innovative idea nor has entitlement. It has always been extended in most if not all areas of life to white males and to a lesser degree to white females in this country, particularly if the socio-economic group was right. This does not diminish the other fact that some of these individuals have been productive and are qualified. I see no embarrasment or guilt on the shoulders of those who reaped the benefits of “first hired, last fired” corporate or government; “redlining” for property purchases or better interest rates on loans or credit cards regardless of your credit score; access to better educational facilities because “someone knew someone” in the adssion ofice or the board; first crack at business opportunities because someone made a call, etc; Mind you this is not an indictment of the system, I am only trying to remind you that existed long before you or I came along and should not now be considered a harbinger of misplaced assistance to those who are able to reap some of the same benefits and I think not at the expense of most white males ( not the case when the shoe was on the other foot)
Comment by Luana — 09.17.04 @ 3:02 pm