In spite of a slight trend in high court decisions striking down affirmative action, and ballot initiatives spearheaded by Ward Connerly passing around the country banning affirmative action, the Obama administration has taken the opposite route, continuing to mandate and expand affirmative action policies.
A little over two years ago, a black man educated at Ivy League schools was democratically elected to the most powerful office in the world. Most people saw the election of Obama to the U.S. presidency as decisive evidence that affirmative action policies are no longer necessary, if they ever were. Obama seemed to agree with that; while running for president he admitted that when his daughters apply to college, they "should probably be treated by any admissions officer as folks who are pretty advantaged." Yet in spite of a slight trend in high court decisions striking down affirmative action, and ballot initiatives spearheaded by Ward Connerly passing around the country banning affirmative action, the Obama administration has taken the opposite route, continuing to mandate and expand affirmative action policies.
The Obama administration is aggressively using federal agencies to expand affirmative action. Hospitals and healthcare providers recently received notice from the U.S. Department of Labor's Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) that they are "federal contractors" based on their TRICARE participation and must provide OFCCP with an affirmative action plan or risk being audited and fined. This surprised many hospitals, since they do not have contracts with the federal government in regards to TRICARE.
Read the rest of the article at Townhall
As a federal supervisor, I once read about a white male employee of the DHHS who was passed over for a promotion in favor of a minority or woman [I don't remember which]. He filed a complaint with his agency’s EEO office which rejected his assertion. This was an agency that was already about 96% minority/woman and had no white male supervisors, yet was still using affirmative action to benefit minorities and women. Its excuse was that it was just following the government’s affirmative action mandate to “correct historic disparities in representation” in the work force.
The last I heard was that he had filed a lawsuit, and it was wending its way through the courts.
Women [50%] plus Hispanics [18%] plus blacks [11%] reveals the fact that AA is intended to be a self-perpetuating program.
Ever since JFK first institutionalized affirmative action with Executive Order 10925 requiring government contractors to take ’affirmative action’ to ensure that applicants are employed; and treated as employees in a manner without regard to race, creed, color, or national origin.” It has been used as a bludgeon to supposedly advance the ‘civil’ rights of ‘victims’ groups as defined by progressives.
Progressives almost immediately misconstrued the concept to mean that employees of government contractors should, as closely as possible, ensure that the percentages of races represented in the general population should be mirrored in the racial makeup of a company’s workforce regardless of the ability of those people to actually qualify for or demonstrate the ability to actually do the work.
In the 1990’s the latest move for the US to pay ‘reparations’ was, for awhile, fashionable but ran into two problems. No person or group would ever establish the ‘value’ of those reparations. I myself have had many a discussion regarding this issue. Those on the other side of the debate begin to stall once you ask for the figure. They are reluctant to name a price as they fear leaving money on the table so-to-speak. Secondly; acceptance of such monetary compensation would render the issue forever dead. Once reparations were paid; they’re gravy train of repeatedly castigating any organization they desire to influence for ‘payment’ would be forever dead.
Affirmative action, on the other hand, is an open ended concept that will never go away now that it’s been codified into law. The most personally astonishing thing I’ve observed regarding affirmative action is not that it has been utilized of late to grant favor to victim’s groups who’ve suffered no such history of discrimination as blacks have; but rather the inability of progressives to admit how inherently racist such a concept actually is.
Affirmative action announces to all who pay attention that everything from college entry, to home loans, to work promotions, to access to medical care (that’s right there are affirmative action requirements written into the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act) that those who belong to any race other than Caucasian cannot compete on a level playing field and that entry exams, loan histories, employment, workplace promotions, and access to medical care, et al would be impossible for members of those races to achieve without deliberately skewing the ‘qualifiers’ for those things in the favor of the ‘protected’ victim group.
As long as affirmative action exists, no person ever hired, promoted, or selected for anything can ever be certain it was the quality of their character that won the day for them as opposed to the color of their skin.
The best method for ensuring equal treatment would be to treat all persons without any consideration other than grades, employment history, skill set, or ability. Progressives won’t allow this as it removes power from them and transfers it to individuals.