If you think Affirmative Action is wrong YOU ARE RACIST!! Definition: Affirmative action is a federal agenda initiated in the 1960s that’s designed to counteract historic discrimination faced by ethnic minorities, women and other underrepresented groups. To foster diversity and compensate for the ways such groups have historically been excluded, institutions with affirmative action programs prioritize the inclusion of minority groups in the employment, education and government sectors, among others. Examples: Affirmative action programs have allowed women and minorities entry into professions formerly off limits to them. GOP Shelves Plans to Cut Back Affirmative Action Programs An article from CQ Almanac 1996 If you think Affirmative Action is wrong YOU ARE RACIST!! Definition: Affirmative action is a federal agenda initiated in the 1960s that’s designed to counteract historic discrimination faced by ethnic minorities, women and other underrepresented groups. To foster diversity and compensate for the ways such groups have historically been excluded, institutions with affirmative action programs prioritize the inclusion of minority groups in the employment, education and government sectors, among others. Examples: Affirmative action programs have allowed women and minorities entry into professions formerly off limits to them. Legislative Action Plans to scale back the federal governments affirmative action programs got only as far as a House subcommittee in 1996. Republicans, nervous about the November elections, scuttled efforts to move the legislation further. The bill (HR 2128) would have prohibited the federal use of racial and gender-based preferences when hiring, distributing contracts and administering programs. It also would have banned the federal government from requiring or encouraging others to grant such preferences as a condition for receiving federal contracts or financial assistance. The bill would not, however, have barred federal officials from encouraging women and minorities to apply for jobs, contracts or programs. Exemptions would have been permitted for federal contracts with historically black colleges and with Indian tribes. Certain gender-based exemptions to civil rights law would have been grandfathered, allowing, for example, a womens lingerie manufacturer to exclude men from consideration as models. Also, the bill would not have affected state or local affirmative action programs or voluntary preferences adopted by private businesses and universities. President Clinton, who had announced a “mend, dont end” policy in July 1995, remained steady in his support of affirmative action in 1996. He pre-empted congressional action by making some changes to federal preference programs. One executive order suspended for three years all programs that reserved contracts for minority- and women-owned companies. (1995 Almanac, p. 6-24) Opponents of affirmative action argued either that it had worked so well that it was no longer needed, or that it always was an ill-conceived effort that promoted women and minorities at the expense of more qualified white men. They said that continuing such programs would exacerbate racial and gender divisions and lead to a balkanized society. Affirmative action advocates insisted that the program had worked and was still useful. Any substantial retreat, they argued, would invite a resurgence of discrimination. Early in the 104th Congress, Republicans had portrayed the bill, sponsored by Charles T. Canady, R-Fla., and a companion Senate bill (S 1085) sponsored by Majority Leader Bob Dole, R-Kan., as sure bets to pass. But moderate Republicans remained squeamish about banning numerical goals, despite conservatives claims that they always led to quotas. In addition, as the November elections neared, Republicans found themselves appealing for votes from women, whom many studies found were the main recipients of affirmative action programs. Democrats argued that the U.S. Supreme Court had already clarified the nations affirmative action laws in its June 1995 decisions in Adarand Construction v. Pe$nTa. That ruling said federal affirmative action programs could amount to unconstitutional reverse discrimination and were subject to the most rigorous level of court review, known as strict scrutiny. The decision appeared to cast doubt on many federal programs, though the court did not strike any down. (1995 Almanac, p. 6-37). Legislative Action The House Judiciary Committees Constitution Subcommittee approved HR 2128 on March 7 by an 8–5 party-line vote. The panel defeated, 6–6, a proposal by Barney Frank, D-Mass., to allow the federal government to set numerical goals when considering how to diversify its work force. Illinois Republican Michael Patrick Flanagan joined Democrats in voting for the amendment. The subcommittee defeated, 4–7, an amendment by Patricia Schroeder, D-Colo., to remove from the bill a section of the 1964 Civil Rights Act dealing with gender-based classifications. The section allowed women or men to be excluded from occupations if gender was considered a bona fide occupational qualification, if privacy was paramount or if national security or military issues were at stake. The panel also defeated, 5–8, an amendment by Melvin Watt, D-N.C., to require those who filed affirmative action lawsuits to prove that they had been discriminated against by a federal preference program instead of being able to sue because the federal preference existed. Watt and Frank said that without the change, the bill would spawn thousands of lawsuits. Hoping to save the bill, Canady offered to scale it back to repeal only those policies that applied to federal contracting, leaving hiring and other programs intact. Later in the session, the leadership shifted its support to a much narrower bill (HR 3994) introduced by Small Business Committee Chairwoman Jan Meyers, R-Kan. That bill proposed to repeal a Small Business Administration program known as Section 8(a), which reserved government contracts worth $3 million or less for minority-owned businesses. In the end, House leaders moved neither bill. Senate Silent The Senate never attempted to mark up Doles bill, remaining silent on the issue after Labor and Human Resources Committee Chairwoman Nancy Landon Kassebaum, R-Kan., announced in April that she was “struggling” with the legislation. The Senate had rejected an attempt in 1995 to attach language to two appropriations bills to repeal affirmative action programs in government contracting.
Posted on: Sun, 07 Dec 2014 01:35:03 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015