FrankRep
07-12-2010, 04:01 PM
Affirmative action is nothing without profiling that has been enforced by government decrees for decades and which violates the 1964 Civil Rights Act that forbade relying on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin when hiring. by John F. McManus
Profiling on Steroids (http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/opinion/953-john-f-mcmanus/4008-profiling-on-steroids)
John F. McManus | The New American (http://www.thenewamerican.com/)
Monday, 12 July 2010
As a guest on a radio talkshow, I was asked for my view about SB 1070, the Arizona law featured in headlines across the nation. I said that I approved what the Arizonans had done because the federal government wasn’t doing its job and the people were simply demanding relief from the flood of illegal immigrants who had poured into their state.
Talkshow co-host number one was aghast. Asked why, she swiftly offered, “It’s profiling!”
Though I could have correctly countered that it isn’t profiling, I decided on this occasion to take a different tack. “So you don’t like profiling?” I said.
“Not at all,” came the reply.
“Then you must be opposed to affirmative action, which is profiling on steroids.”
Dead silence ensued, interrupted a moment later by co-host number two who offered, “That’s a great argument.”
Naming the radio personalities isn’t necessary. The point about profiling having caused co-host number one some deep embarrassment, the program moved on to another topic.
Affirmative action is nothing without profiling. It has been enforced by government decrees for decades. In the upside-down world in which we live, it’s perhaps not surprising to know that the practice grew from a 1964 law whose wording emphatically barred the practice. That’s right; the 1964 Civil Rights Act specifically forbade relying on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin when hiring. Henceforth, employers covered by the act (meaning most throughout the nation) were forbidden to discriminate in any of these manners when hiring, promoting, etc. One of the act’s most outspoken promoters, Minnesota’s Senator Hubert Humphrey, offered to “start eating the pages one after another” if anyone could show that an employer would have to hire on the basis of skin color, national origin, etc.
But here’s what happened: The act spawned creation of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, a federal agency given power to interpret the law, encourage compliance, and bring charges against an employer deemed to be in violation. One year later, President Johnson issued Executive Order 11246 mandating the very opposite of what the 1964 act had forbidden. Now, employers were forced to consider the very human attributes they were forbidden to note one year earlier. A madhouse had been erected. Affirmative action, merely talked about for several years, was now law. Its legacy has emphatically heightened race consciousness all across the nation. And Senator Humphrey never ate any of the act’s pages.
There’s no doubt that some of the opponents of the 1964 law took their stand because of personal prejudice regarding race. But others, Arizona Senator Barry Goldwater for one, rightly opposed the measure claiming that the federal government had no constitutional authorization to establish hiring practices for an employer. He, too, was called a racist, and any hope to defeat the act died amidst widespread focus on charges of racism. Once enacted, the federal government became a legal force in the workplace on behalf of affirmative action, turning on its head the principle that the law must be colorblind and threatening punishment for anyone who refused to comply. The madness extended to hiring and promotion practices in police and fire departments, colleges and universities, and anywhere else federal dollars have paved the way for federal controls. In time, there wasn’t even a need to show dependence on federal dollars in order to dictate to employers whom they could hire and promote.
In 1978, Californian Allan Bakke found himself denied entrance to the University of California Medical School, while 16 less-qualified applicants won admission courtesy of an affirmative action program. Bakke sued and his case went all the way to the Supreme Court, where the justices demonstrated their cowardice by ruling in Bakke’s favor (he could now go to the medical school) but refusing to void affirmative action. Racial bitterness continued to grow. Later Supreme Court decisions saw Justices White and Rehnquist fasten the term “racial quotas” to the practice. Even their objections weren’t enough to stop it.
Affirmative action has also spawned a form of schizophrenia. It has government agencies, educational institutions, and various other employers who are beholden to federal dollars placing completely contradictory claims within their hiring advertisements. The ads read, “We are an Equal Employment Opportunity Employer/ We Believe in Affirmative Action.” There’s nothing “equal” about employment when affirmative action is in vogue.
Finally, it must be stressed that Arizona’s SB 1070 doesn’t call for “profiling” any more than numerous already-existing federal and state law-enforcement practices. Under the Arizona law, law-enforcement officials are required to make a reasonable effort (e.g., asking for an ID that would satisfy the law such as an Arizona driver’s license) to determine the immigration status of illegal-alien suspects during “lawful contacts.” That’s not profiling; it’s common sense. Real profiling, the kind featured by affirmative action with all the injustice and bitterness it has brought, continues apace. It should be abolished.
SOURCE:
http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/opinion/953-john-f-mcmanus/4008-profiling-on-steroids
Profiling on Steroids (http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/opinion/953-john-f-mcmanus/4008-profiling-on-steroids)
John F. McManus | The New American (http://www.thenewamerican.com/)
Monday, 12 July 2010
As a guest on a radio talkshow, I was asked for my view about SB 1070, the Arizona law featured in headlines across the nation. I said that I approved what the Arizonans had done because the federal government wasn’t doing its job and the people were simply demanding relief from the flood of illegal immigrants who had poured into their state.
Talkshow co-host number one was aghast. Asked why, she swiftly offered, “It’s profiling!”
Though I could have correctly countered that it isn’t profiling, I decided on this occasion to take a different tack. “So you don’t like profiling?” I said.
“Not at all,” came the reply.
“Then you must be opposed to affirmative action, which is profiling on steroids.”
Dead silence ensued, interrupted a moment later by co-host number two who offered, “That’s a great argument.”
Naming the radio personalities isn’t necessary. The point about profiling having caused co-host number one some deep embarrassment, the program moved on to another topic.
Affirmative action is nothing without profiling. It has been enforced by government decrees for decades. In the upside-down world in which we live, it’s perhaps not surprising to know that the practice grew from a 1964 law whose wording emphatically barred the practice. That’s right; the 1964 Civil Rights Act specifically forbade relying on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin when hiring. Henceforth, employers covered by the act (meaning most throughout the nation) were forbidden to discriminate in any of these manners when hiring, promoting, etc. One of the act’s most outspoken promoters, Minnesota’s Senator Hubert Humphrey, offered to “start eating the pages one after another” if anyone could show that an employer would have to hire on the basis of skin color, national origin, etc.
But here’s what happened: The act spawned creation of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, a federal agency given power to interpret the law, encourage compliance, and bring charges against an employer deemed to be in violation. One year later, President Johnson issued Executive Order 11246 mandating the very opposite of what the 1964 act had forbidden. Now, employers were forced to consider the very human attributes they were forbidden to note one year earlier. A madhouse had been erected. Affirmative action, merely talked about for several years, was now law. Its legacy has emphatically heightened race consciousness all across the nation. And Senator Humphrey never ate any of the act’s pages.
There’s no doubt that some of the opponents of the 1964 law took their stand because of personal prejudice regarding race. But others, Arizona Senator Barry Goldwater for one, rightly opposed the measure claiming that the federal government had no constitutional authorization to establish hiring practices for an employer. He, too, was called a racist, and any hope to defeat the act died amidst widespread focus on charges of racism. Once enacted, the federal government became a legal force in the workplace on behalf of affirmative action, turning on its head the principle that the law must be colorblind and threatening punishment for anyone who refused to comply. The madness extended to hiring and promotion practices in police and fire departments, colleges and universities, and anywhere else federal dollars have paved the way for federal controls. In time, there wasn’t even a need to show dependence on federal dollars in order to dictate to employers whom they could hire and promote.
In 1978, Californian Allan Bakke found himself denied entrance to the University of California Medical School, while 16 less-qualified applicants won admission courtesy of an affirmative action program. Bakke sued and his case went all the way to the Supreme Court, where the justices demonstrated their cowardice by ruling in Bakke’s favor (he could now go to the medical school) but refusing to void affirmative action. Racial bitterness continued to grow. Later Supreme Court decisions saw Justices White and Rehnquist fasten the term “racial quotas” to the practice. Even their objections weren’t enough to stop it.
Affirmative action has also spawned a form of schizophrenia. It has government agencies, educational institutions, and various other employers who are beholden to federal dollars placing completely contradictory claims within their hiring advertisements. The ads read, “We are an Equal Employment Opportunity Employer/ We Believe in Affirmative Action.” There’s nothing “equal” about employment when affirmative action is in vogue.
Finally, it must be stressed that Arizona’s SB 1070 doesn’t call for “profiling” any more than numerous already-existing federal and state law-enforcement practices. Under the Arizona law, law-enforcement officials are required to make a reasonable effort (e.g., asking for an ID that would satisfy the law such as an Arizona driver’s license) to determine the immigration status of illegal-alien suspects during “lawful contacts.” That’s not profiling; it’s common sense. Real profiling, the kind featured by affirmative action with all the injustice and bitterness it has brought, continues apace. It should be abolished.
SOURCE:
http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/opinion/953-john-f-mcmanus/4008-profiling-on-steroids