The Supreme Court continues to hear cases regarding Affirmative Action and reverse racism. They, the Supreme Court, have asked the question, should Affirmative Action be modified from its current state of implementation or should it be done away with all together?

Bert’s Response

Affirmative Action was implemented to create a level playing field in America that slavery and Jim Crow had for so long dominated.  Slavery and Jim Crow together have stymied numerous generations of economic and educational growth in the black community.  Some modern day civil rights activists like Rev. Al Sharpton have stated that Jim Crow might be dead, but his son James Crow, Esq. is still alive and well.  As I thought about how to answer this question I wondered what the following individuals would have thought about it:

• John Howard Griffin, author of Black Like Me, published in 1961 he was a white male from Mansfield, TX who wanted to truly understand the black experience so much that he underwent medical treatment to temporarily change the color of his skin to become a black man.  He was so affected by racism and civil rights abuses that even while knowing that his situation was only temporary, noticed a look of defeat and hopelessness on his own face only after a few weeks as a black man.  It became so bad that he would stop the treatments that turned his skin black so he could go back to being white for periods of time. (http://www.sparknotes.com/lit/blacklikeme/)

• The 14 blacks, who in December of 2012, reached a settlement with a South Dallas, TX Mill company for exposing them to violent, racist graffiti and racial slurs by co-workers.  The mill agreed to pay them $500,000. (reference)

• The 51 black applicants who, in November of 2012, were denied employment on the loading docks by Caldwell Freight Line, a now defunct company, even though they had prior experience.  Caldwell Freight Lines was ordered to pay the applicants $120,000 for their refusal to hire them. (reference)

• President Barak Obama, who since he became President of the United States has seen the number of anti-government groups grow more than 800%.  (reference  as heard from the Joe Madison Radio Show)

 Supreme Court Justices Clarence Thomas and Sonya Sotomayor both believe in widening the net so that Affirmative Action includes all disadvantaged groups regardless of race.  Clarence Thomas, however, believes that we should remove the race factor all together; whereas Sonya Sotomayor believes that race is still very important to consider.  Both have benefitted from affirmative action.  Clarence Thomas, for his own benefit, wants to close the door behind him; while Sonya Sotomayor wants the door to remain open so that others can have access to opportunities that otherwise would be denied to them because of their skin color. Affirmative action was never meant to place someone in a position they are not qualified handle, but rather to give those that are qualified a fair chance to be considered.  Until you have walked in the shoes of a person of color, you can never know why we feel affirmative action, based on race, is still needed.  Reverse racism in my opinion would be to go back to the days of old, where the good ole boys club trumps righteousness.

So to answer the question asked, I would say the day that we as people of color no longer have to teach our children that they have to be two or three times better than their white counterparts just to be considered equal is the day that we no longer need affirmative action as it currently exists.  Today is not that day.

Anthony’s Response 

Affirmative Action should never be done away with at all. In today’s society, we are still not playing on an equal playing field. We as black men, women, gays and overweight individuals are still fighting for our fair shake in corporate America. Powers that control the job markets are continually finding new ways to discriminate against, not only perspective employees, but also existing employees; Smokers, overweight individuals and those who become ill while employed are a few that fall into this group of new age discrimination.  If affirmative action is modified, it needs to make sure that those who fall into this new age group of discrimination are protected.  These people need to feel confident that they have a fair chance at finding stable, long-term good paying jobs.  Affirmative action is still needed to even out the playing field, but it should be modified for today’s time.

Rhonda’s Response 

“Thought is the blossom; language the bud; action their fruit behind it.” 
(Ralph Waldo Emerson)

Ralph Waldo Emerson always has a way with words that provoke thought and change. Although, the Supreme Court continues to hear cases regarding Affirmative Action and reverse racism, they should modify Affirmative Action to fit the demands of the people today. Although the definition of Affirmative Action has changed over the years, it sets a foundation of fair rules and regulations, creates a foundation for all classes to interact, and fosters healthy competition.

Affirmative Action has been around for many years but the way we know Affirmative Action today is not how it originally began. Although Affirmative Action today has a negative connotation as being an exclusive opportunity for minorities, its original inception was to set a foundation of fair rules and regulations between employees and employers. Affirmative Action was first introduced in the National Labor Relations Act of 1935 (approved July 5, 1935). It was enacted by National Labor Relations Board to serve as a way to give unions protection against management.  National Labor Relations Board vs. National Casket Company was one of the first cases to address “Affirmative Action”. This case set the precedent that companies could not discharge employees due to their participation in unions. During these times, unions were created to represent workers in all industries. The first union was created in the mid 19^th century. 

However, today, due to many definition changes to Affirmative Action, we know it to be the recommendation made by President John F. Kennedy in his Executive Order 10925 in 1961. That Executive Order was to “ensure that applicants are treated equally without regard to race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.” This Executive Order created a new definition of Affirmative Action that would become the pillar of new policies, committees, and laws that would range from labor equality to education equality. This definition helped to add a layer to Affirmative Action that would create a foundation for all classes to interact within the workforce. 

When there is a foundation for all classes to interact within the workforce, this also fosters healthy competition within the workforce. It creates an equal playing field for all men and women in various industries who have similar skill sets and education. No more will skilled workers with equal education and skill sets be denied an opportunity to apply for jobs that in the past they would not have the chance. No more will a woman be denied an opportunity for a promotion due to the “good old boy” system of companies without violating equal right rules and regulations. No longer will minorities be denied employment and/or promotions due to racial discrimination without those industries violating civil liberties and rights of those individuals. Affirmative Action modification in 1961 was made to create equal opportunities for all races, religions, and sexes within the workforce. Although, there is still more work to be done when it comes to equal opportunity of pay for women, society has come a long ways from where we were in 1935; due to the definition modifications made by President John F. Kennedy in 1961. 

History always teaches us ways to persevere in the future without repeating past mistakes. Although history is our teacher, the lessons learned from our past are the true testaments for us to forge ahead   and do our best to better ourselves and not repeat historical results. In order for us to change the connotation of Affirmative Action today, we must modify the definition to meet the needs of today’s society. Modifying the definition will ensure that the purpose of Affirmative Action stays relevant and fresh to set a foundation of fair rules and regulations, creates a foundation for all classes to interact, and fosters healthy competition for societies today.

Are the majority of the prejudices experienced in America a black/white issue or a young/old issue?

Bert’s Response

I do not think the majority of prejudices experienced in America are black vs. white or even young vs. old.  I think the majority of prejudices in America are more socio-economic based.  There has and continues to be a constant war of the haves versus the have-nots. 

The reason I say this is because most policies that are put into place have more to do with money than it does race or age.  Please note that I do understand that in making policies that primarily affect money, the groups that are largely affected will be people of color and people of older ages.  I also understand that if you are not a person of color or someone of an older age, but fall into that lower-class to lower-middle class socio- economic status, you too are affected whether you want to accept it or not.  In most cases it is proven that the rich always want to get richer at all costs; even it means sacrificing one of their own.  If you are a rich white person whose life is all about money and nothing else, you won't care that you discriminate against a lower class white person to get richer.  Likewise, if you are a rich black/African-American person who also has allowed money to become your idol, you have no problem taking advantage of another black/African-American person to get richer.  This is evident when you look at the drug situation in the inner city.  Although you have somebody at the top getting mega rich, the middle man out on the street corner is getting his share by exploiting his own kind.  On the flip side, you have a white businessman who sees a piece of property he wants to build on to get richer.  In order for him to get that property, he must invoke a policy like eminent domain to forcibly buy that person's property to build his money making empire.  He doesn't care that the person who loses his/her property is white; he just wants to make more money.

Don't get me wrong, there are a lot of black vs. white issues that are underlying to the socio-economic prejudices.  We must aggressively address those issues as such.  Using my eminent domain example above, if the person wanting the property offers a white person more money for their property than he offers a black person simply because of race, then that is racism underlined to the socio-economic reason that the person is losing his/her property.  Even the slave trade was more about money than it was color.  As well, the Emancipation Proclamation that ended slavery was not solely about slavery being wrong.  It was because the south would not conform to all that the north wanted, so the north took away the south's ability to make more money.  Slavery was ended to financially ruin the south.  It all boils down to "the love of money is the root of all evil."

Anthony’s Response 

The majority of the prejudices in America today are black and white issues. I think racism is at an all time high, especially when you look at the actions of the TEA party who thinks that this country is being run into the ground by President Obama.  Where was the TEA party when BUSH lied to this country and sent sons, daughters, sisters, brothers, and their mothers and fathers to the front line to fight for a lie? He called them weapons of mass destruction.  Did we find any?

The TEA party has become one of the largest groups to protest President Obama and the Democratic Party’s ideas that have been brought to the table.  Are their views fueling the prejudices of today?  The Tea Party does have the right to assemble and protest, but at what point is it enough?  We all can agree that everyone in the world is not going to be happy about everything.  However, when your views bring out the crazy extremist I believe you should take a step back and look at your platform and make the necessary changes that will cause different reactions.

Prejudices do however go beyond black and white.  It can be conflict between young and old, party versus party, state versus state and probably one of the worst prejudices, black versus black.  In MY perspective, it is mainly a color thing.  I work in a building that used to have only 10 % of minority employees of any color.  In this building it was a white man’s world.  The company slowly allowed a few people of colors to become mangers.  Only when the chosen few did well, that others begin to get a chance as well.

America is a country that was built on the backs of slaves and immigrants.  We are one of the strongest countries in the world but yet we struggle to get along with each other.  We have proven to be prejudice of different races, ages and cultures.  If America does not open its eyes and the government doesn’t start working together for the sake of the ones that voted them in office, this country will continue to fall deeper and deeper into a spiral to the point that we won’t be able to recover.

Rhonda’s Response 

“…O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave…” (The Star Spangled Banner, by Attorney Francis Scott Key)

The Star Spangled Banner, the national anthem of the United States of America, ends each stanza with “O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave.” The Star Spangled Banner is sung at the beginning of many important events held in the United States (i.e. Sporting Events). However, as all who place their right hand over their heart and proudly sing the words to this song, the true meaning of why it was written may not always be understood.

The Star Spangled Banner was written in 1814 during the Battle of Fort McHenry. This anthem, originally a poem, was the accounts of the battle witnessed by Attorney Francis Scott Key. Although the soldiers fighting during this time were brave, slavery was still prevalent, prejudices were running rampant within America, and the country was being controlled by a small group of people who supported all of these injustices.

The Emancipation Proclamation was not signed until 1862 and slaves were freed in 1863. In 1931, the song was made the national anthem and during this time there were still forms of slavery going on in America. Jim Crow laws were very prevalent for the freed slaves. Black Americans were being slaughtered, hung, and not given the same opportunities as whites. No matter their social status, education, age, or profession; blacks were blacks and were disrespected constantly by whites.

However, we, Americans sing The Star Spangled Banner and close our eyes and proudly sing the last stanza with great enthusiasm “O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave.” This answers the question, are the majority of the prejudices experienced in America a Black/White issue or a young/old issue? I believe the prejudices experienced in America are a black/white issue. The most animosities reported regarding prejudices in various industries are those between blacks and whites. The foundation of our country started with a black/white issue (slavery) and will continue as we proudly continue to sing songs and recognize writings that were done during times when all Americans were not free and were treated as property.

We have to start anew and place old habits behind us and relish in the new accomplishments we have made as a country. Although we have come a long ways from the 1814’s, we still have a long ways to go which should result in new hymns to sing and new writings to be proud. No longer “O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave,” but the country who continues to thrive past incredulous prejudices and gets to the heart of all matters to make our country a free, safe, and proud place that all citizens (black, white, Latin American, Mexican, African, etc…) can call home.