Check out the interesting and well-written article on Affirmative Action on the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy website. The author starts out with a definition:

The author goes into the history of the program and the pros and cons that have been argued since its inception. He includes footnotes to his sources, a long bibliography, and links to internet resources.

From that article you can follow the link to the American Association for Affirmative Action and read the About Us page. There you can find the following quote from someone at Proctor and Gamble:

All the quotes form the AAAA are fine and dandy, yet they themselves fail to understand the basic premise. The web site states:

"The AAAA firmly believes that affirmative action is a policy that must be maintained to assure that the progress made by women, ethnic minorities and people with disabilities is preserved. "

Tell me is this not the responsiblity of Equal Opportunity????

Affirmative action seeks to address the past discrimination that was faced by minorities. In the 1970's that was needed. However, it has been some 34 years since it was begun. Truthfully, tell me of one major corporation, university or other organization that today discriminates solely upon race??? You would be hard pressed to find one. The purpose of equality is to everyone the same, regardless of race and or gender. By hiring or in the cases of college admitting someone solely upon race and or gender is an assault on equality.

We cannot guarantee and equality of outcome, people are different. Just because two people were born at the same time, does not mean that they will both wind up at the same place at a later time. Life is filled with detours, that occur because of the choices people make.

In order to treat every citizen fairly, we must judge individuals by the merit and ability, not their race and gender. This is why affirmative action is a losing proposition today, it fails to follow this simple premise and instead does the opposite of its intention, breeding ever more racial tensions.

dmk

According to the EEOC website, affirmative action is part of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. So to answer your question about Equal Opportunity, yes, it's the responsibility of EEO.

To answer your second question, cases in point:

1. Kennedy, et al. v. The City of Zanesville, et al.
C.A. No. 03-1047 (U.S. District Court, S.D. Ohio)
Relman & Associates brought suit against the City of Zanesville, Ohio and other municipal governments on behalf of residents in Coal Run/Langan Lane, a predominantly African-American neighborhood near the city limits of Zanesville. The suit alleges that the city, county, and township intentionally denied the plaintiffs public water service on the basis of race. The plaintiffs live within one mile of public water lines, but were denied public water service for nearly fifty years. As a result, they had to haul water from the city, collect rainwater, and store water in cisterns, where it often became dangerous for consumption. During the same time period, white residents on the same street were provided with water. When plaintiffs repeated their requests for water to the Muskingum County Commissioners a Commissioner stated that they would not get water "until President Bush drops spiral bombs in the holler."

In 2002, the residents filed a charge of discrimination with the Ohio Civil Rights Commission (OCRC). The OCRC found probable cause that the defendants discriminated against plaintiffs. Relman & Associates, along with the Equal Justice Foundation in Columbus, Ohio, subsequently filed a federal lawsuit. After the discrimination charge and the filing of the lawsuit the local governments finally ran water lines to plaintiffs. Relman & Associates represents the plaintiffs to recover damages incurred from the fifty years of monetary loss, humiliation, and deprivation of civil rights suffered as a result of the local governments' discriminatory actions and to ensure that no other residents are denied water because of their race.

Source: Relman Lawfirm's Our Cases.

There are other cases pending on the same website.


2. There are several companies in Arizona being sued by EEOC for race discrimination. I suggest waiting and seeing on these. I'd hope that the EEOC would NOT sue unless it had substantial evidence to back up its claims.


3. EEOC v. Jax Inns, Inc., d/b/a Spindrifter Hotel
No. 3:04-CV-978-J-16MMH (M.D. Fla. April 13, 2006)
The Miami District Office filed this Title VII race discrimination case alleging that defendant, owner of the Spindrifter Hotel and Conference Center in Orange Park, Florida, fired charging party (white) from her Director of Sales position for associating with blacks. Defendant bought the Spindrifter Hotel in June 2002, and in October 2002 rehired CP into the Director of Sales position she had held under the previous owners. Defendant's owners often complimented CP on the great job she was doing. In December 2002, CP stopped by the hotel after church to make sure everything was going well, although she was not scheduled to work. Her children, who are biracial, accompanied her. Defendant's majority owner asked if the children were hers, and appeared shocked and disappointed when she said they were. The following week the majority owner made stereotypical, pejorative comments about black people to CP. He then began interviewing candidates for CP's position. After hiring a new "Assistant General Manager" he fired CP without explanation on January 17, 2003. The new manager assumed CP's duties. Under the 3-year consent decree resolving this case, CP will receive $99,000 in monetary relief. The decree enjoins defendant from engaging in race discrimination and retaliation in violation of Title VII.
Source: EEOC LITIGATION SETTLEMENT REPORT - April 2006

4. EEOC v. Lithia Subaru of Oregon City
No. 041361AS (D. Ore. March 3, 2006)
The Seattle District Office filed this Title VII lawsuit alleging that defendant, a car dealership in Oregon City, Oregon, subjected a charging party to a hostile work environment based on his national origin (Iranian) and religion (Islam), and discharged him because of his national origin and religion and in retaliation for complaining about the harassment. The complaint also alleged that defendant terminated a second CP for objecting to the treatment of minority employees in the workplace.

In February 2002 defendant acquired the Subaru dealership where both charging parties worked as sales representatives. The new General Manager (GM) and a recently promoted General Sales Manager (GSM) subjected the first CP to a daily barrage of slurs (calling him "terrorist," "sand nigger," and "camel jockey"). Defendant promoted the second CP to Floor Manager on September 1, 2002. Both before and after his promotion, he complained to the GM about the treatment of minorities in the workplace, particularly the treatment of the first CP. Defendant demoted the second CP back into a sales position on October 11, 2002. A week later, he handed the GM and GSM a letter reiterating his concerns about the hostile work environment and mentioning the behavior of the GSM and another salesman. Two days later he sent a similar letter to an executive of defendant's parent company, Lithia Motors. Shortly thereafter, defendant gave the second CP a disciplinary notice claiming he had made racist comments, and then terminated him on November 25. Meanwhile, the first CP had an argument with an employee who had been harassing him and both men were disciplined. On December 15, 2002, the first CP sent a letter to Lithia management complaining of harassment. On December 23, defendant disciplined CP for allegedly failing to follow consumer policy, and on January 3, 2003, ordered him to resign or be fired.

The San Francisco District Office resolved this case through a 3-year consent decree providing that the two CPs will share $360,000 in monetary relief. Defendant will provide each CP with a reference letter stating that he "performed satisfactorily." The decree enjoins defendant from discriminating against employees and applicants in violation of Title VII. Defendant will adopt procedures for promptly investigating and providing redress for complaints of discrimination. It will designate management employees responsible for investigating discrimination complaints and post their names and contact information. Defendant also will place a Complaints Box in a nonmanagerial area of the facility and the designated management employees will gather complaints from the Complaints Box.
Source: EEOC LITIGATION SETTLEMENT REPORT - March 2006

5. EEOC v. Lithia Motors, Inc., d/b/a Lithia Dodge of Cherry Creek, et al.
No. 1:05-cv-01901 (D. Colo. March 8, 2006)
The Denver District Office filed this Title VII lawsuit alleging that Lithia Motors (the eighth largest automobile retailer in the U.S.) and Lithia Dodge of Cherry Creek (an Aurora, Colorado subsidiary of Lithia Motors) maintained a racially hostile work environment and subjected charging party to unequal terms and conditions of employment based on his race (black), and constructively discharged CP in retaliation for his complaints about discrimination. CP had been employed at Cherry Creek Dodge since 1998 or 1999, before Lithia bought it. In January 2003, Lithia transferred a white employee to Cherry Creek Dodge as the new General Manager (GM). Defendant had previously disciplined the new GM for "anger management issues." Shortly after the GM's arrival he made racial remarks to CP (perjorative comments about "BP time" (black people time) and remarking that he'd fired "a bunch of you people already") and subjected CP to less favorable treatment than whites (screamed obscenities at him more frequently and required him to undergo a drug test when no reasonable grounds existed for so doing while not testing a white employee known to be intoxicated at work). After CP filed an internal complaint on April 29, 2003, the new GM berated the personnel coordinator for assisting with CP's complaint and intensified his harassment of CP. CP resigned on May 16, 2003, having heard nothing from headquarters about his internal complaint. Defendant subsequently counseled the GM regarding unacceptable behavior.

The Phoenix District Office resolved this case through a 4-year consent decree providing CP and two other former black employees with $562,470 in monetary relief ($320,000 to CP and $142,500 and $100,000 to the two other claimants). Defendants are prohibited from discrimination based on race, color, or national origin.
Source: EEOC LITIGATION SETTLEMENT REPORT - March 2006
(see also
6. EEOC v. Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Inc.
7. EEOC v. Commercial Coating Services, Inc.
on same page; there may be others.)


I would say it's safe to conclude that there is still racial discrimination going on in the US today.

It was not that hard to find these cases....

Your turn.

I never said that there is not forms of racial discrimination. However, going through and citing individual cases does not prove the need for Affirmative Action. Each of these cases shows that EEOC is working and doing exactly what it is suppose to be doing.

This fails to still address the major problem, Affirmative Action breeds resentment on the part of some. I.e. the only reason he got promoted is because he/she is black, or she is a woman.

I made the following statement in a debate about affirmative action in a college debate:

"Take a look around this room, if you are a white male stand up. Now take a look again at those who are seated. To someone who already holds racial prejudices, they would say that the only people who earned their way into this school is those who are standing. Because of affirmative action, those of you sitting will forever be held in contempt by this people. It is this resentment that breeds continued tensions and hostilities."

Believe it or not, many of those in the room actually were at first shocked at my statement, but as it was allowed to sink in they finally realized what it meant, and agreed with it.

Affirmative actions is no longer making up for the evils of yesteryear, instead it is breeding evils for tomorrow.

Furthermore, ever case you cited show discrimination to an employee who already had a job, it failed to show a discrimination in hiring practice, hmmm, the people already had the job.

dmk

If anyone wants to read a fabulous author then they should look into the works of Thomas Sowell. He deals with many issues including economics, race, and society in general. He is an African-American who is opposed to affirmative action.
The Elephant Man

So what you are saying is that for some, the women of any color and non-white men feel less resentment that the white man has gotten further up the ladder (or on the bottom rung), while the white men feel more resentment that women or persons of color have gotten further up the ladder. The resentment has only moved but not dissipated.

I still think that there needs to be some positive action, call it what you will, to level the playing field so all have equal opportunity. I think better education would help.

We have not heard from any minorities on this board, have we?

Oh, and about your question: "Truthfully, tell me of one major corporation, university or other organization that today discriminates solely upon race??? "
The organization that discriminated solely upon race was the municipality of Zanesville, OH, which would not provide running water to black residents, but would to whites, and had to be sued to provide it.

PS. Just because you feel resentment does not mean you have to act upon it. This is true of any feeling....

Please explain to me how you fight discrimination, by embracing it to so-call level the playing field. If discriminating in hiring or admitting is wrong based on race, then how can you embrace a program that requires just that??

That is the problem with Affirmative Action. It requires business or schools to make hiring or admitting based upon race, the very thing that the 14th Amendment to the Constitution forbids. If we truly want a color blind society, there is an easy fix. Only allow applications for jobs and schools to require an individuals social security number and birthdate. Then companies and schools will be forced to look at the acheivements and merits of individuals and base their hiring and admitting on these, instead of the current situation.

dmk

I did not say to fight discrimination with discrimination. I said some positive action is needed. And mentioned education. Listening to NPR as I write this, I am learning about an idea called "unearned privilege", which is the flip side of racial disadvantages. I found an interesting article on it at White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack.

The whole idea of affirmative action is completely ridiculous. We have been through this time and time again. Blacks were mistreated in the past, get over it. I feel bad, and so does just about everyone else in America. Hell, I had a southern slave owning relative, and that makes me feel like crap.

It's late, I can't sleep, therefore, I will rant on about this issue a little longer.

Okay, my question to you AA suporters is this: How long are we going to continue to need AA? We understand that black were mistreated for years, but how long are we going to keep that a hot-button topic to continue to enforce AA? 100 years from now are we going to continue to keep AA going because we mistreated them? How fucking long do we have to continue to tell them that they are not good enough, or smart enough to make it on there own? Blacks have just as much of an opportunity to make something of themselves, ask any successful black man. They will tell you they worked hard, therefore, they made themselves a success. I will stand firm in my beliefs that many of black americas problems lay simply from black america. Don't even call me a fucking racist. Yes, many whites do disciminate against blacks, but that is easily a very limited occurences. Is has to go from the appearance -- to the slang. Honestly, who is going to hire someone who speaks ebonics and wears their pants down to thair ankles? I have the same problem with these white rockers who have tattoos all the way up to their face and more piercings than any 40 women could ever need. I really believe they need to help themselves first. Don't join a gang finish school. Quit taking rap music literally, it has changed from the good ole days. It rarely talks about the hardships of black america, but now more towards women, drugs and guns.

Nebraskaboy does bring up a good question..

How long should we embrace AA?