COLORBLIND (6-8-08)

Obama's test in hypocrisy

Now that Barack Obama has the nomination as the democratic candidate in the 2008 presidential election. Its time to see where Barack Obama stands on the issue of legislative discrimination. His claim to be above racial division, and a candidate for all races, leads me to ask where he stands on the issue of equality. To be more specific race-based affirmative action. Either Barack is a success story of how a reverse discrimination policy in this country assists minorities climb to the top of there game, or he got there on the merits of his own hard work and determination. Barack needs to state his position as to whether he believes this nation should continue to allow or even encourage preferential treatment, for a particular segment of society, solely based on skin color. The term affirmative action describes policies, aimed at a historically non-dominant group, intended to promote priority access to education or employment. Motivation for the implementation of affirmative action was from a desire to redress the effects of past discrimination that was regarded unjust. It serves to encourage public institutions such as universities, hospitals and police forces to be more representative of the general population. Affirmative action involves giving "preferential treatment" to these poorly represented groups. While, racial and gender equality should be a policy or goal of all institutions. I fail to see any way raced-based policies can be constitutionally legislated into law. Current affirmative action policies are merely another form of discrimination. They have resulted in more qualified applicants being denied entry into higher education or employment solely because they belong to a the dominant group in society (white male). Affirmative action, as it is used today, is no more than reverse discrimination because it requires the very same, race-based discrimination it is seeking to eliminate in order to work. Race-based affirmative action is, has been, and ought to be, ruled illegal. If any preferential treatment is be allowed, it should be based on current economical standing, not that of ones ancestors. Any "preference policy" that is used to match the mix of an institution to that of society, without engaging in reverse discrimination, should be allowed. This type of "color blind" policy is commonly achieved through targeted recruitment programs, aimed at qualified applicants of an underrepresented group. I believe there should be some type of educational assistance to those who strive for excellence, but are limited by there economic means. America’s poor is disproportionately made up of minorities, so an income-based affirmative action would still help them, but not be limited to them. An income-based affirmative action would eliminate the need for race-based affirmative action as well as ending benefits waisted on middle and upper class minorities, who need no assistance, but still take advantage of them. Non-poor minorities can not claim they experience racial discrimination on a wide scale. The Fact that they are of average or above average income proves society as a whole has placed them on a level playing field. Some will say they should be further advanced than their standing reflects. Some may even have specific examples that show how racial discrimination have prevented their advancement. To them I say; "There are laws, already on the books to address individual acts of racial discrimination by people, institutions and business." If you truly have a case, take it to court. If you loose, its probably because your looking to place the blame, for your failings, onto someone else. Affirmative action, as it is, has been counter-productive for minorities as a whole. Affirmative action has devalued the accomplishments of the people assists. Many are believed to be where they are in life, because of the unfair, preferential, raced-based treatment they have received. It promotes prejudice and resentment towards those who benefit from it, by those who have been harmed by it. Affirmative action allows unprepared or poorly qualified applicants to be accepted into a highly demanding educational institution or job which results in eventual failure. By "lowering the bar", it denies those who strive for excellence on their own merit the sense of real achievement. I believe all institutions wanting to reflect the same diversity as their surrounding populous should be encouraged to do so. I believe that programs should be motivated by financial need only after admissions have been judged fairly based on ability. Affirmative action represses the qualified in favor of the not-so-qualified. Factoring race into the process, creates new wrongs to correct old ones. It increases racial tensions and unfairly benefits the more privileged people within minority groups at the expense of the disenfranchised within majority groups. There has recently been a strong push among American states to ban racial or gender preferences in university admissions. In 2006, nearly 60% of Michigan voters decided to ban affirmative action in university admissions. Michigan joined California, Florida, Texas, and Washington in banning the use of race or sex in admissions considerations. Several reverse discrimination cases have ruled the current practice of affirmative action to be racist and wrong.
The only question now is....Does Obama agree?