If you don't believe that Affirmative Action is necessary here in the year 2008, remind me not to smoke the shit you're on. I'm often surprised when I hear black people look down upon one of the triumphs of the civil rights movement. And in recent years, I've encountered more and more black people who are against it. The folks I've encountered see it as an unfair and an unecessary practice. I've even heard the "Reverse Racism" argument. I dunno, but its like people have forgottten that we're only about 40yrs removed from a period in time when folks fought for their rights, or some form of a leveled playing field.
I mean, we're not talking about some stuff that came about 200yrs ago. We're talking about 40yrs ago. It took a movement to make significant, and necessary changes for the future of minorities, and now some people think its not necessary. If there was no Affirmative Action or Equal Employment Opportunity laws, there'd be no black middle class. This policy has been directly responsible for the upward mobility of minmorities and women, or more specifically blacks. But yet today there are a number of white people who see it as racist.
Now, if you're white and you too feel its unecessary, I could understand. I understand your stance although I don't agree with it. Something like Affirmative Action wasn't meant to help your entitled ass white man, but it sure did help white women didn't it? More white females benefitted from Affirmative Action than blacks, but yet in arguments against it, nobody ever acknowledges this. Let "them" tell it, Affirmative Action was some bullshit passed to gain black voters back in the day. Thats something thats debatable especially given which side of the room you sit as far as politics is concerned.
"But people should be selected based on merit and not race!!"
Oh really?
Report: Justice Dept. passed over Dems, liberals
By LARA JAKES JORDAN, Associated Press Writer Tue Jun 24, 6:17 PM ET
WASHINGTON - Ivy Leaguers and other top law students were rejected for plum Justice Department jobs two years ago because of their liberal leanings or objections to Bush administration politics, a government report concluded Tuesday.
In one case, a Harvard Law student was passed over after criticizing the nomination of Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court. In another, a Georgetown University student who had previously worked for a Democratic senator and congressman didn't make the cut.
Even senior Justice Department officials flinched at what appeared to be hiring decisions based — improperly and illegally — on politics, according to the internal report.
"Individuals at the department were rejecting any of our candidates who could be construed as left-wing or who were perceived, based on their appearances and resumes and so forth, as being more liberal," Kevin Ohlson, deputy director of the department's executive office of immigration review, complained to Justice investigators.
The report marked the culmination of a yearlong investigation by Justice's inspector general and Office of Professional Responsibility into whether Republican politics were driving hiring polices at the once fiercely independent department.
The investigation is one of several that examine accusations of White House political meddling within the Justice Department. Those accusations were initially driven by the firings of nine U.S. attorneys in late 2006 and culminated with the ouster of Alberto Gonzales as attorney general last September.
The report issued Tuesday concluded that politics and ideology disqualified a significant number of newly graduated lawyers and summer interns seeking coveted Justice jobs in 2006.
As early as 2002, career Justice employees complained to department officials that Bush administration political appointees had largely taken over the hiring process for summer interns and so-called Honors Program jobs for newly graduated law students. For years, job applicants had been judged on their grades, the quality of their law schools, their legal clerkships and other experiences.
But in 2002, many applicants who identified themselves as Democrats or were members of liberal-leaning organizations were rejected while GOP loyalists with fewer legal skills were hired, the report found. Of 911 students who applied for full-time Honors jobs that year, 100 were identified as liberal — and 80 were rejected. By comparison, 46 were identified as conservative, and only four didn't get a job offer.
The political filtering of applicants ebbed for the three years between 2003 and 2005, the inquiry found, then resumed by 2006.
Of 602 Honors candidates that year, 150 were identified as liberal — including 83 who were cut. Five of 28 self-described conservatives were rejected.
Investigators blamed two political appointees on a three-person screening committee for the preferential treatment. It also singled out one of them, former deputy attorney general staff chief Michael Elston, for failing to make sure the hirings were proper — and giving evasive and misleading answers about why they were not.
An attorney for Elston, who is now in private practice, did not immediately return a message seeking comment.
Although federal law prohibits discriminating against government job applicants based on their politics, it's unlikely that any of those involved in the hiring process will be penalized since they no longer work at the department. A Justice official said the department is not considering pressing criminal charges or taking or civil actions against them.
Democrats quickly seized on the report to bludgeon the Bush administration for playing politics with a department sworn to uphold the law fairly.
"This is the first smoking gun," said Sen. Charles E. Schumer, D-N.Y., who sits on the Senate Judiciary Committee. "We believe there will be more to come. This report shows clearly that politics and ideology replaced merit as the hiring criteria at one of our most prized civil service departments."
Under Gonzales, the Justice Department last year moved to prevent politics from influencing the hiring screening process. His successor, Attorney General Michael Mukasey, said Tuesday he "will continue to make clear that the consideration of political affiliations in the hiring of career department employees is impermissible and unacceptable."
Obviously, this article above wasn't above race, but if they can do this on Capitol Hill based on political ideology or affiliation, why in the world Affirmative Action laws aren't needed. And to think this exposes the Justice Dept. The fuckin JUSTICE DEPARTMENT!! Can you believe this shit??!! Oh well, its the same administration who's responsible for removing some of our civil liberties under the guise of national defense. Why should they even care about the laws of this land when it comes to hiring employees.
These days its not good enough to have a sense of "white entitlement", you gotta identify yourself as being republican or a conservative. Now ain't that fucked up? I don't give a damn what political party you identify with, but I dare you to say anything which justifies what was done by the Justice Department in its hiring practice under the Bush administration.
Huh?
I don't hear you republicans saying anything now do I?
