Kagan supports Government enforced Racism.

[Renae]

WASHINGTON – As a White House adviser Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan indicated support for affirmative action as good law and good politics.

The Clinton administration was wrestling with how to weigh in on a case involving a white New Jersey school teacher who was laid off instead of an equally senior black colleague. Kagan endorsed a narrow legal argument to try to prevent a Supreme Court ruling effectively ending affirmative action policies.

The solicitor general wrote a memo saying the case could be disaster for affirmative action. In a handwritten note, Kagan said the solicitor general had "exactly the right position" legally and politically.

Kagan's stance is not a surprise and would put her in the liberal wing of the Supreme Court when it comes to affirmative action.

Kagan: Affirmative action good law — good politics - Yahoo! News

A chance to end AA, and she was against it, helped keep Government endorsed racism alive. Shameful.

The more we learn of this woman, the more we can see she's not interested in the Constitutionality of issues, but rather pushing an agenda.

 

[American]

Don't expect any libs to show up here. AA is goodness at a 10 on a scale of 1-5.

 

[Objective Voice]

I think Affirmative Action has its place within the racial dialog. I'm not sure how affective it's been, but it certainly has afforded many minorities to get jobs that they probably wouldn't have gotten ordinarily. Not because they weren't qualified, but because they likely would have purposely been passed over due to the color of their skin.

Affirmative Action was suppose to be this means of "leveling the playing field" so to speak, a form of giving minorities (African Americans) our "40 achers and a mule" long overdue now four generations of former slaves. Myself, I'm not one of those African Americans who call for Affirmative Action whenever I see what I believe to be racial inequality taking place in the workplace. This is mainly because I think most corporations alread have strong equal opportunity policies in place and do a fair job of finding a racial balance between what is morally and ethically right in their hiring practises. That doesn't mean that some minorities still get wrongfully passed over; you just can't prove it without doing a whole lot of investigative work which usually ends up amounting to little or nothing (that can be substaintiated anyway). In other words, unless the act of racism is so blantantly obvious to atleast 3 people, you're really not going to get very far in a racial discrimination claim these days. You stand a far better chance of proving sexual harrasment than racial discrimation within the workplace.

Now, where Affirmative Action falls short, IMO, is where it was purposely designed to promote fairness: It forces companies to rethink their race relations & hiring practises. To that, I think sometimes companies overthink the race issue and instead of being fair and impartial they "find vacancies" to plug minorities into just to ensure that their corporate racial mix matrics appears fair. Is that wrong? Maybe...you could look at it as the wrong person got hired just to fill a quota OR you could say the right person got hired for the wrong reason - fulfilling the numbers game moreso than hiring the individual based strictly on their overall qualifications. That tends to happen in those instances where two people of different races (1 white, 1 black) who have very similar qualifications apply for the same job. Affirmative Action speaks to hiring the minority in such cases over the white applicant. No, it's not fair and that's where Affirmative Action falls short. But...

If corporate America were honest with itself as a whole, would most companies hire the black applicant who is clearly just as qualified if not moreso over the white applicant? I think not.

Honestly, in those such situations it's a lose-lose. The white applicant loses out on a good job and the black applicant gets the job but not strictly on his qualifications but by default. So, now the black applicant has to work X2 as hard to prove him/herself to be worthy of the "generosity" given. It's not fair to either side, but until hiring practises become impartical which for a very long time they have not (and to a degree still aren't), Affirmative Action will continue to be this contraversity issue born out of the Civil Rights ear where some African Americans are still demanding, "Wher'e my 40-achers and a mule?".

 

[Renae]

If corporate America were honest with itself as a whole, would most companies hire the black applicant who is clearly just as qualified if not moreso over the white applicant? I think not.

I was starting to agree with you till you played this card.

 

[samsmart]

Kagan: Affirmative action good law — good politics - Yahoo! News

A chance to end AA, and she was against it, helped keep Government endorsed racism alive. Shameful.

The more we learn of this woman, the more we can see she's not interested in the Constitutionality of issues, but rather pushing an agenda.

Affirmative action isn't government endorsed racism.

 

[Ockham]

Affirmative action isn't government endorsed racism.

Putting one's race above another and making laws to enforce it... I can see how it's viewed in those terms.

 

[Wiseone]

Ya this Kagan thing is bugging me, I expect her to be liberal leaning there's no getting around that. But I would expect a would be Supreme Court judge to have some experience as a judge, regardless of her extensive law experience.

 

[Objective Voice]

I was starting to agree with you till you played this card.

It's not that I'm playing the race card here. Not at all. It's knowing what I know after working in office administration for so many years reviewing EOP policies, sitting in on employment policy meetings, reading a vast assortment of professional conduct policies over the years, etc., etc. I'm sure these days many companies large and small try very hard to be fair in their hiring practices. But if it weren't for the law forcing equality upon Corporate American, I seriously doubt most businesses would hire a equaly qualified black man over an equaly qualified white man. That's just telling the truth as I understand policy making covering this particular issue from years of experience.

 

[samsmart]

Putting one's race above another and making laws to enforce it... I can see how it's viewed in those terms.

I can see how it's viewed in those terms as well. However, that doesn't make it an accurate description of what affirmative action is. After all, there were laws that have been in place that were discriminatory against African-Americans, the primary beneficiaries of affirmative action, that have been on the books as closely as 60 years ago. So if the government has in the past made and enforced laws that blatantly discriminated against one group, I see nothing wrong with the government making and enforcing laws that help that group achieve opportunities they wouldn't ordinarily have access to.

 

[cholla]

I can see how it's viewed in those terms as well. However, that doesn't make it an accurate description of what affirmative action is. After all, there were laws that have been in place that were discriminatory against African-Americans, the primary beneficiaries of affirmative action, that have been on the books as closely as 60 years ago. So if the government has in the past made and enforced laws that blatantly discriminated against one group, I see nothing wrong with the government making and enforcing laws that help that group achieve opportunities they wouldn't ordinarily have access to.

These laws were not in place during most peoples lifetime, yet you say I see nothing wrong with the government making and enforcing laws that help that group achieve opportunities they wouldn't ordinarily have access to

How long should we have to pay for the sins of our fathers? Where is our access to these opportunities? Why does the law favor one over another?

 

[samsmart]

These laws were not in place during most peoples lifetime, yet you say I see nothing wrong with the government making and enforcing laws that help that group achieve opportunities they wouldn't ordinarily have access to

How long should we have to pay for the sins of our fathers? Where is our access to these opportunities? Why does the law favor one over another?

Actually, there are quite a few people alive today who were alive when those laws were in place. About only 3 generations ago. And yes, I say "I see nothing wrong with the government making and enforcing laws that help that group achieve opportunities they wouldn't ordinarily have access to" because most opportunities are familial - they are determined by your family history and family connections. So if one person is in the oil business, chances are likely that his children will join the oil business. So affirmative action helps those minorities enter those extremely prestigious or wealthy industries, which they ordinarily would not be able to join due to a lack of family connections.

How long should we have to pay for the sins of our fathers? Well, not too longer, most likely. Less and less race and ethnicity is becoming a factor for people. Today's young people have the highest rates of interracial marriage, after all, which is evidence that race is being less and less of an impact on people. So within a generation or two people will have better access to better opportunities regardless of race of ethnicity.

Where is our access to these opportunities? Well, granted, not everybody can have equal access to all opportunities. After all, someone from Oklahoma won't have as much opportunities to enter the film industry as someone from California or New York. However, affirmative action isn't meant to give equal access of opportunities to all people - it is meant to allow members of a racial or ethnic group that has historically been discriminated against to enter certain professions so they can pull themselves out of poverty and less rewarding professions. If all a person of a certain race or ethnicity sees of people of his own race or ethnicity is doing menial labor jobs such as landscaping or picking corn, then that's all those members will do, lowering opportunities for them in other areas, such as finance, business, or academics. Affirmative action allows those people to start entering such fields, which has the effect of inspiring other members of those races and ethnicities to attempt to join those fields and aspire to better things.

Why does the law favor one over another? Because, in the past, the law favor one over another, and those who the law favored back then are reaping benefits and rewards even now. After all, many people of wealth have achieved it through inheritances. So there have been people who have profited from the discrimination of other groups. So affirmative action allows those discriminated groups a chance to profit themselves and raise themselves out of the perpetual cycle of proverty that discrimination has caused them to enter.

 

[ptif219]

She is not liberal leaning. She is a far left liberal activist

 

[Ockham]

I can see how it's viewed in those terms as well. However, that doesn't make it an accurate description of what affirmative action is. After all, there were laws that have been in place that were discriminatory against African-Americans, the primary beneficiaries of affirmative action, that have been on the books as closely as 60 years ago. So if the government has in the past made and enforced laws that blatantly discriminated against one group, I see nothing wrong with the government making and enforcing laws that help that group achieve opportunities they wouldn't ordinarily have access to.

You're mixing "intent" with "reality". The intent of the laws at the time where such that it enforced equality when equality was not provided and when a person's skin color caused them to be turned away from being helped by others. Segregation and violence due to one's skin color was wide spread and our Consitution identifies equality for all - not equality for people of a certain race, color, creed. The intent was to enforce equality for all. However, the reality today is such that, that intent is no longer equality but "preference" for miniorities such that the reality is the direct oppositive of the intent. By using and providing AA it now prefers a race, color, creed over others and segregates or prefers not based on merit but based on an excuse that prior generations did not allow equality... thus those mistakes excuse racism to prefer a black, hispanic or other miniority over a caucasian. We've lost sight of "equality". AA has been and continues to be a racist policy and I would support it's removal. Let's see what happens.

 

[Renae]

Affirmative action isn't government endorsed racism.

AA = Gov't giving aid, benefits, special consideration to those with the approved skin color, and denying same advantages to those not of the approved skin color.

In any other context, this is called RACISM. But because it's "To help right WRONGS!!!" People blindly ignore the reality and pretend it's okay to use Racism to end Racism.