Recently in my Government class we have started an internship of sorts with CAIR-Oklahoma. We will be basically doing research about issues CAIR is working on, which I am super excited about. The first issue we'll be working on is Affirmative Action, which has become a hot topic recently here in Oklahoma. More on that later. So I would like to start off with what Affirmative Action is, exactly. After reading about twenty similar definitions of Affirmative Action throughout the internet, I finally settled on Wikipedia's version. It says
"Affirmative Action refers to policies that take factors such as race, color, gender, or national origin in consideration in order to benefit an underrepresented group, usually as means to counter the effects of a history of discrimination."
These "underrepresented groups" are usually minorities. Affirmative Action is usually implemented in things like acceptance to a university or applying for a job.
State Question 759
In November 2012 State question 759 will be appearing on Oklahoma voters' ballots. It will look like this:
The purpose of state question 759 is to limit Affirmative Action in public businesses, school, and contractors in the state of Oklahoma.
Debates on Affirmative Action
Like any issue, there are people on both sides of the debate on Affirmative Action. At this time I would like to give you, in a nutshell, the general opinions I have collected from around the internet.
For:
- Diversity, while desirable, will not always occur if left to chance
- Some stereotypes will never be broken without Affirmative Action
- It compensates minorities for injustices done to them in the past
- Gives opportunities to people that they may never otherwise receive
Against:
- It leads to reverse discrimination
- Lowers standards of accountability to push students or employees
- It is condescending to minorities and demeans their achievement
- It goes against a color-blind society
A Different View
I found this article while doing research today. While it is not about Affirmative Action per se, I still found it interesting. The author is addressing a subject he finds trumps Affirmative Action in terms of being unfair. He also makes the poor white kid look a little less...well, poor.
AUTUMN AND a new academic year are upon us, which means that selective colleges are engaged in the annual ritual of singing the praises of their new freshman classes.
Surf the websites of such institutions and you will find press releases boasting that they have increased their black and Hispanic enrollments, admitted bumper crops of National Merit scholars or became the destination of choice for hordes of high school valedictorians. Many are bragging about the large share of applicants they rejected, as a way of conveying to the world just how popular and selective they are.
What they almost never say is that many of the applicants who were rejected were far more qualified than those accepted. Moreover, contrary to popular belief, it was not the black and Hispanic beneficiaries of affirmative action, but the rich white kids with cash and connections who elbowed most of the worthier applicants aside.
Researchers with access to closely guarded college admissions data have found that, on the whole, about 15 percent of freshmen enrolled at America's highly selective colleges are white teens who failed to meet their institutions' minimum admissions standards.
Five years ago, two researchers working for the Educational Testing Service, Anthony Carnevale and Stephen Rose, took the academic profiles of students admitted into 146 colleges in the top two tiers of Barron's college guide and matched them up against the institutions' advertised requirements in terms of high school grade point average, SAT or ACT scores, letters of recommendation, and records of involvement in extracurricular activities. White students who failed to make the grade on all counts were nearly twice as prevalent on such campuses as black and Hispanic students who received an admissions break based on their ethnicity or race.
Who are these mediocre white students getting into institutions such as Harvard, Wellesley, Notre Dame, Duke, and the University of Virginia? A sizable number are recruited athletes who, research has shown, will perform worse on average than other students with similar academic profiles, mainly as a result of the demands their coaches will place on them.
A larger share, however, are students who gained admission through their ties to people the institution wanted to keep happy, with alumni, donors, faculty members, administrators, and politicians topping the list.
Applicants who stood no chance of gaining admission without connections are only the most blatant beneficiaries of such admissions preferences. Except perhaps at the very summit of the applicant pile - that lofty place occupied by young people too brilliant for anyone in their right mind to turn down - colleges routinely favor those who have connections over those who don't. While some applicants gain admission by legitimately beating out their peers, many others get into exclusive colleges the same way people get into trendy night clubs, by knowing the management or flashing cash at the person manning the velvet rope.
Leaders at many selective colleges say they have no choice but to instruct their admissions offices to reward those who financially support their institutions, because keeping donors happy is the only way they can keep the place afloat. They also say that the money they take in through such admissions preferences helps them provide financial aid to students in need.
But many of the colleges granting such preferences are already well-financed, with huge endowments. And, in many cases, little of the money they take in goes toward serving the less-advantaged.
A few years ago, The Chronicle of Higher Education looked at colleges with more than $500 million in their endowments and found that most served disproportionately few students from families with incomes low enough to qualify for federal Pell Grants. A separate study of flagship state universities conducted by the Education Trust found that those universities' enrollments of Pell Grant recipients had been shrinking, even as the number of students qualifying for such grants had gone up.
Just 40 percent of the financial aid money being distributed by public colleges is going to students with documented financial need. Most such money is being used to offer merit-based scholarships or tuition discounts to potential recruits who can enhance a college's reputation, or appear likely to cover the rest of their tuition tab and to donate down the road.
Given such trends, is it any wonder that young people from the wealthiest fourth of society are about 25 times as likely as those from the bottom fourth to enroll in a selective college, or that, over the past two decades, the middle class has been steadily getting squeezed out of such institutions by those with more money?
A degree from a selective college can open many doors for a talented young person from a humble background. But rather than promoting social mobility, our nation's selective colleges appear to be thwarting it, by turning away applicants who have excelled given their circumstances and offering second chances to wealthy and connected young people who have squandered many of the advantages life has offered them.
When social mobility goes away, at least two dangerous things can happen. The privileged class that produces most of our nation's leaders can become complacent enough to foster mediocrity, and less-fortunate segments of our society can become resigned to the notion that hard work will not get them anywhere.
Given the challenges our nation faces, shouldn't its citizens be at least a little worried that the most selective public universities - state flagships - dominate the annual Princeton Review rankings of the nation's best party schools, as measured largely by drug and alcohol consumption and time spent skipping class and ditching the books?
Should Harvard, which annually turns away about 2,000 valedictorians and has an endowment of nearly $35 billion, be in the business of wasting its academic offerings on some students admitted on the basis of pedigree?
Peter Schmidt is a deputy editor of The Chronicle of Higher Education and author of "Color and Money: How Rich White Kids Are Winning the War Over College Affirmative Action."
At the elite colleges - dim white kids
AUTUMN AND a new academic year are upon us, which means that selective colleges are engaged in the annual ritual of singing the praises of their new freshman classes.
Surf the websites of such institutions and you will find press releases boasting that they have increased their black and Hispanic enrollments, admitted bumper crops of National Merit scholars or became the destination of choice for hordes of high school valedictorians. Many are bragging about the large share of applicants they rejected, as a way of conveying to the world just how popular and selective they are.
What they almost never say is that many of the applicants who were rejected were far more qualified than those accepted. Moreover, contrary to popular belief, it was not the black and Hispanic beneficiaries of affirmative action, but the rich white kids with cash and connections who elbowed most of the worthier applicants aside.
Researchers with access to closely guarded college admissions data have found that, on the whole, about 15 percent of freshmen enrolled at America's highly selective colleges are white teens who failed to meet their institutions' minimum admissions standards.
Five years ago, two researchers working for the Educational Testing Service, Anthony Carnevale and Stephen Rose, took the academic profiles of students admitted into 146 colleges in the top two tiers of Barron's college guide and matched them up against the institutions' advertised requirements in terms of high school grade point average, SAT or ACT scores, letters of recommendation, and records of involvement in extracurricular activities. White students who failed to make the grade on all counts were nearly twice as prevalent on such campuses as black and Hispanic students who received an admissions break based on their ethnicity or race.
Who are these mediocre white students getting into institutions such as Harvard, Wellesley, Notre Dame, Duke, and the University of Virginia? A sizable number are recruited athletes who, research has shown, will perform worse on average than other students with similar academic profiles, mainly as a result of the demands their coaches will place on them.
A larger share, however, are students who gained admission through their ties to people the institution wanted to keep happy, with alumni, donors, faculty members, administrators, and politicians topping the list.
Applicants who stood no chance of gaining admission without connections are only the most blatant beneficiaries of such admissions preferences. Except perhaps at the very summit of the applicant pile - that lofty place occupied by young people too brilliant for anyone in their right mind to turn down - colleges routinely favor those who have connections over those who don't. While some applicants gain admission by legitimately beating out their peers, many others get into exclusive colleges the same way people get into trendy night clubs, by knowing the management or flashing cash at the person manning the velvet rope.
Leaders at many selective colleges say they have no choice but to instruct their admissions offices to reward those who financially support their institutions, because keeping donors happy is the only way they can keep the place afloat. They also say that the money they take in through such admissions preferences helps them provide financial aid to students in need.
But many of the colleges granting such preferences are already well-financed, with huge endowments. And, in many cases, little of the money they take in goes toward serving the less-advantaged.
A few years ago, The Chronicle of Higher Education looked at colleges with more than $500 million in their endowments and found that most served disproportionately few students from families with incomes low enough to qualify for federal Pell Grants. A separate study of flagship state universities conducted by the Education Trust found that those universities' enrollments of Pell Grant recipients had been shrinking, even as the number of students qualifying for such grants had gone up.
Just 40 percent of the financial aid money being distributed by public colleges is going to students with documented financial need. Most such money is being used to offer merit-based scholarships or tuition discounts to potential recruits who can enhance a college's reputation, or appear likely to cover the rest of their tuition tab and to donate down the road.
Given such trends, is it any wonder that young people from the wealthiest fourth of society are about 25 times as likely as those from the bottom fourth to enroll in a selective college, or that, over the past two decades, the middle class has been steadily getting squeezed out of such institutions by those with more money?
A degree from a selective college can open many doors for a talented young person from a humble background. But rather than promoting social mobility, our nation's selective colleges appear to be thwarting it, by turning away applicants who have excelled given their circumstances and offering second chances to wealthy and connected young people who have squandered many of the advantages life has offered them.
When social mobility goes away, at least two dangerous things can happen. The privileged class that produces most of our nation's leaders can become complacent enough to foster mediocrity, and less-fortunate segments of our society can become resigned to the notion that hard work will not get them anywhere.
Given the challenges our nation faces, shouldn't its citizens be at least a little worried that the most selective public universities - state flagships - dominate the annual Princeton Review rankings of the nation's best party schools, as measured largely by drug and alcohol consumption and time spent skipping class and ditching the books?
Should Harvard, which annually turns away about 2,000 valedictorians and has an endowment of nearly $35 billion, be in the business of wasting its academic offerings on some students admitted on the basis of pedigree?
Peter Schmidt is a deputy editor of The Chronicle of Higher Education and author of "Color and Money: How Rich White Kids Are Winning the War Over College Affirmative Action."
© Copyright 2007 Globe Newspaper Company.
Statistics
This information is from the most current census data and is used for Affirmative Action planning in Oklahoma. This information if from the Oklahoma City MSA (Canadian, Cleveland, Logan, McClain, Oklahoma, and Pottawatomie counties)
More Statistics
This is a press release I found on the Princeton University website talking about how the removal of Affirmative Action would devastate minority admission based on studies.
Ending affirmative action would devastate most minority college enrollment
Study finds virtually no gain for white students
Princeton University researchers have found that ignoring race in elite college admissions would result in sharp declines in the numbers of African Americans and Hispanics accepted with little gain for white students.
In a study published in the June issue of Social Science Quarterly, authors Thomas Espenshade and Chang Chung examined the controversial notion that eliminating affirmative action would lead to the admission of more white students to college and found it to be false. The assertion that qualified white students are being displaced by less qualified minority students was a prime plaintiff argument in the 2003 U.S. Supreme Court cases against the University of Michigan (Gratz v. Bollinger and Grutter v. Bollinger).
"We're trying to put these admission preferences in context so people understand that lots of students, including those with SAT scores above 1500, are getting a boost," said Espenshade, the professor of sociology who co-authored "The Opportunity Cost of Admission Preferences at Elite Universities" with Chung, a senior technical staff member in the Office of Population Research. "The most important conclusion is the negative impact on African American and Hispanic students if affirmative action practices were eliminated."
According to the study, without affirmative action the acceptance rate for African-American candidates likely would fall nearly two-thirds, from 33.7 percent to 12.2 percent, while the acceptance rate for Hispanic applicants likely would be cut in half, from 26.8 percent to 12.9 percent. While these declines are dramatic, the authors note that the long-term impact could be worse.
"If admitting such small numbers of qualified African-American and Hispanic students reduced applications and the yield from minority candidates in subsequent years, the effect of eliminating affirmative action at elite universities on the racial and ethnic composition of enrolled students would be magnified beyond the results presented here," the report says.
The authors also cite other studies and the actual experience of the University of California system where affirmative action has been eliminated: "The impacts are striking. Compared to the fall of 1996, the number of underrepresented minority students admitted to the University of California-Berkeley Boalt Hall Law School for the fall of 1997 dropped 66 percent from 162 to 55.... African-American applicants were particularly affected as their admission numbers declined by 81 percent from 75 to 14, but acceptances of Hispanics also fell by 50 percent. None of the 14 admitted African-American students chose to enroll. Of the 55 minority students admitted, only seven enrolled in the fall of 1997, a falloff that had the effect of reducing the underrepresented minority share in the first year class to 5 percent in 1997 compared with 26 percent in 1994."
Removing consideration of race would have little effect on white students, the report concludes, as their acceptance rate would rise by merely 0.5 percentage points. Espenshade noted that when one group loses ground, another has to gain -- in this case it would be Asian applicants. Asian students would fill nearly four out of every five places in the admitted class not taken by African-American and Hispanic students, with an acceptance rate rising from nearly 18 percent to more than 23 percent. Typically, many more Asian students apply to elite schools than other underrepresented minorities. The study also found that although athletes and legacy applicants are predominantly white, their numbers are so small that their admissions do little to displace minority applicants.
The authors based their work on models previously developed in a 2004 study where they looked at more than 124,000 elite university applicants' SAT scores, race, sex, citizenship, athletic ability and legacy in combination with their admission decision. This more recent study honed in on more than 45,000 applicants. Both studies are part of the multidimensional National Study of College Experience, which is funded by the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation.
Espenshade, who is available for interviews and reachable by e-mail at tje@princeton.edu, is professor of sociology and faculty associate at the Office of Population Research at Princeton University. His research and teaching interests include higher education in the United States, the racial dimension of college admissions and campus life, intergroup relations on college campuses, social demography, and contemporary immigration to the United States. Espenshade joined the faculty in 1988 after receiving his doctorate in economics from Princeton in 1972.
STATISTICS:
More Polls and Statistics on Affirmative Action
POLLS:
NBC News/Wall Street Journal Poll conducted by the polling organizations of Peter Hart (D) and Robert Teeter (R). Latest: Jan. 19-21, 2003. N=500 adults nationwide.
"As you may know, the U.S. Supreme Court will be deciding whether public universities can use race as one of the factors in admissions to increase diversity in the student body. Do you favor or oppose this practice?"
"As you may know, the U.S. Supreme Court will be deciding whether public universities can use race as one of the factors in admissions to increase diversity in the student body. Do you favor or oppose this practice?"
Favor 26 %
Oppose 65 %
Not sure 9 %
Survey February 21 -27, 2002 by Harris Interactive for the journal American Demographics
(Fetto, John. "Help Unwanted." American Demographics (May 2002): 10-11.
- 77 % of whites and 64 % of Hispanics oppose the Affirmative Action because they think it dictates racial quotas,
- 80 % whites and 71 % Hispanics are against the special preference given by Affirmative Action,
- 84 % blacks think that Affirmative Action is still necessary
Oppose 65 %
Not sure 9 %
Survey February 21 -27, 2002 by Harris Interactive for the journal American Demographics
(Fetto, John. "Help Unwanted." American Demographics (May 2002): 10-11.
- 77 % of whites and 64 % of Hispanics oppose the Affirmative Action because they think it dictates racial quotas,
- 80 % whites and 71 % Hispanics are against the special preference given by Affirmative Action,
- 84 % blacks think that Affirmative Action is still necessary
STATISTICS:
Source: Source: U.S. National Center for Education Statistics, Digest of Education Statistics, annual
.http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/tables/09s0289.pdf
Women and Affirmative Action
Despite the enormous gains made by the civil rights and women's rights movements, women and people of color still face unfair obstacles in business and education.
The Federal Glass Ceiling Commission Report, December, 1995
The Census Bureau, Statistical Abstract of the United States, 1996
The U.S. Department of Labor, Women's Bureau, September, 1996
The Department of Transportation, 1995
The National Council of Women's Organizations, "Women Speak on Affirmative Action," 1998
- An astonishing 70% of schools are not in compliance with Title IX, the federal equal education opportunity law.
- For every dollar earned by men, women on a whole earn 74 cents, African American women earn 63 cents and Latina women earn 57 cents.
- According to the Census Bureau, only 25% of all doctors and lawyers are women.
- Less than 1% of auto mechanics are women.
- Women are only 8.4% of engineers.
- Less than 3% of federal contracts go to women-owned firms. In Washington, less than 10% of state contracts and purchasing dollars go to women-owned firms — even though women own 39% of firms.
- In Washington, women receive only 12% of doctorates in engineering, and women are substantially under-represented in computer science nationwide.
The Shape of the River, Bok, Derek and Bowen, William G., September, 1998
The Federal Glass Ceiling Commission Report, December, 1995
The Census Bureau, Statistical Abstract of the United States, 1996
The U.S. Department of Labor, Women's Bureau, September, 1996
The Department of Transportation, 1995
The National Council of Women's Organizations, "Women Speak on Affirmative Action," 1998
http://www.now.org/ (National Organization for women)
Who does and doesn't benefit from Affirmative Action?
After searching Google with about 20 different variations of "who benefits from Affirmative Action in Oklahoma" I was unable to find any direct statistics of the people who do and do not benefit from Affirmative Action. However, here are some national statistics.
Women:
White Males:
Because affirmative action gives preference to women and minorities, it may harm white males' chances at success. This group makes up about 35% of the American population.(census.gov) Affirmative Action may harm them in a number of ways.
Women:
A government study showed that women made greater gains in employment at companies doing business with the federal government, and therefore subject to federal affirmative action requirements, than at other companies.
- Female employment rose 15.2% at federal contractors, and only 2.2% elsewhere.
- The same study showed that federal contractors employed women at higher levels and in better paying jobs than other firms.
Many individual companies that have adopted affirmative action plans have demonstrated the impact on women.
- After IBM set up its affirmative action program, its number of female officials and managers more than tripled in less than ten years.
- Corporate commitment to women and minorities enabled Corning to double its number of female and black employees and increase the proportion of women managers to 29%.
- Motorola has been rewarded with an increased representation of women and people of color in upper-level management. The company had two women and six persons of color as vice president in 1989, but boasts 33 female and 40 minority vice presidents today.
- In 1978, the Labor Department's Office of Federal Contract Compliance (OFCCP) reviewed the employment practices of the five largest banks in Cleveland. Three years later, the percentage of women officials and managers at these institutions had risen more than 20%.
- When OFCCP first looked at the coal mining industry in 1973, there were no women coal miners. By 1980, 8.7% were women.
- Litigation against police and fire departments has resulted in affirmative action plans that have produced dramatic increases in the employment of women (and minorities) in these fields as well. In 1983, for example, women made up 9.4% of the nation's police, and 1% of firefighters. Sixteen years later, women are 16.9% of police, and 2.8% of firefighters.
Women-owned businesses, which have also benefited from affirmative action requirements, have increased since 1987 by 103%.
- Today, there are nearly 9.1 million woman-owned businesses, employing over 27.5 million people.
Blacks:
Progress of African Americans: 1959-1993
Poverty Unempl. Median Percent of
Year Rate Rate Income white median
--------------------------------------------------
1959 55.1% NA $5,998 44.6%
1960 NA 10.2% 6,200 47.0
1961 NA NA 6,525 48.6
1962 NA NA 6,814 49.4
1963 NA NA 7,423 53.7
1964 NA NA 7,929 56.2
1965 NA NA 8,155 55.4
1966 41.8 7.3 8,837 60.0
1967 39.3 7.4 9,443 62.9
1968 34.7 6.7 9,918 63.2
1969 32.2 6.4 10,430 65.8
1970 33.5 8.2 10,858 69.1
1971 32.5 9.9 10,632 67.4
1972 33.3 10.0 11,399 69.3
1973 31.4 8.9 11,555 70.1
1974 30.3 9.9 10,797 68.1
1975 31.3 14.8 10,693 68.9
1976 31.1 13.1 10,983 70.3
1977 31.3 13.1 11,059 70.2
1978 30.6 11.9 10,908 70.3
1979 31.0 11.3 10,783 71.8
1980 32.5 14.3 10,520 71.0
1981 34.2 14.2 10,367 70.7
1982 35.6 18.9 10,372 70.0
1983 35.7 19.5 10,283 68.2
1984 33.8 15.9 10,529 68.3
1985 31.3 15.1 10,882 69.3
1986 31.1 14.5 11,020 68.0
1987 32.4 13.0 11,425 69.5
1988 31.3 11.7 11,859 69.7
1989 30.7 11.4 12,052 69.7
1990 31.9 11.3 11,711 68.7
1991 32.7 12.4 11,471 68.8
1992 33.4 14.1 11,252 68.5
1993 33.1 12.9 11,614 70.7
(huppie.com)
During this period of about 40 years, African American living at or below the poverty line decreased from 55.1% to 33.1%. In addition, median income more the doubled. Many of these increases are related to Affirmative Action in both education and the work force.
White Males:
Because affirmative action gives preference to women and minorities, it may harm white males' chances at success. This group makes up about 35% of the American population.(census.gov) Affirmative Action may harm them in a number of ways.
- White males may be laid off at work so the employer may fulfill the mandatory white-to-colored employee ratio
- not accepted to a university due to preference towards other groups
- not be given a job for the same reason.
Impact of Affirmative Action
Only a small fraction of the public (16%) reports having been directly affected by affirmative action programs. Overall, 11% say they’ve been hurt, 4% have been helped. Among blacks, 14% say they have been helped by such programs, while 5% say they’ve been hurt. Among other non-whites, about equal numbers have been helped (11%) and hurt (13%).
Most Hispanics say they’ve been unaffected , but 4% say affirmative action has helped them and 8% say it’s hurt them. By a margin of 13% to 2%, whites say they’ve been hurt rather than helped and more white men (17%) than women (9%) say this. As many white liberals as conservatives say they’ve been hurt.
A significant number of people though much less than a majority perceive that affirmative action programs stigmatize minorities. Overall, 27% of Americans including 26% of whites and 37% of blacks say that most people attribute minorities’ successes in business and education to racial preferences, rather than their own skills and abilities.
Most Hispanics say they’ve been unaffected , but 4% say affirmative action has helped them and 8% say it’s hurt them. By a margin of 13% to 2%, whites say they’ve been hurt rather than helped and more white men (17%) than women (9%) say this. As many white liberals as conservatives say they’ve been hurt.
A significant number of people though much less than a majority perceive that affirmative action programs stigmatize minorities. Overall, 27% of Americans including 26% of whites and 37% of blacks say that most people attribute minorities’ successes in business and education to racial preferences, rather than their own skills and abilities.
Source: Pew Research Center
Conflicting Views of Affirmative Action
In general, when the details of specific affirmative action programs are raised, public reservations increase. Further, when people are questioned about programs involving preferential treatment for minorities, opinion turns negative. On all questions about affirmative action there are predictable racial differences in opinion, but significant gender differences are evident as well, even when the issue of gender inequality is not mentioned in the question.
Relatively few people white or black report having real life experiences with affirmative action: only 16% overall have been helped or hurt. Among those who’ve been affected, whites generally say they were hurt while blacks say they have been helped.
State Representative Sally Kern on Women and Blacks!
Relatively few people white or black report having real life experiences with affirmative action: only 16% overall have been helped or hurt. Among those who’ve been affected, whites generally say they were hurt while blacks say they have been helped.
Source: Pew research center
Oklahoma State Representatives and Senators on Affirmative Action
Report Cards of House and Senate votes
House Of Representatives
Yeas:85
Armes Fourkiller McNiel Roberts, D.
Banz Glenn McPeak Roberts, S.
Bennett Grau Moore Rousselot
Billy Hall Morgan Russ
Blackwell Hardin Mulready Sanders
Brumbaugh Hickman Murphey Schwartz
Cannaday Holland Nelson Sears
Casey Hoskin Newell Shannon
Christian Inman Nollan Stiles
Cockroft Jackson Ortega Sullivan
Condit Jordan Osborn Terrill
Coody Joyner Ownbey Thomsen
Cooksey Kern Peters Tibbs
Cox Key Peterson Trebilcock
Dank Kirby Pittman Vaughan
Denney Kouplen Proctor Watson
Derby Liebmann Pruett Wesselhoft
DeWitt Lockhart Quinn Wright
Dorman Martin, Sc. Renegar Mr.Speaker
Enns Martin, St. Reynolds
Farley McCullough Richardson
Faught McDaniel, R. Ritze
NAYS:7
Hamilton Scott Shumate Williams
McDaniel, J. Shelton
EXCUSED:9
Brown McAffrey Sherrer
Hilliard Morrissette Shoemake
Johnson Roan Walker
Senate
YEAS:37
YEAS:37
Aldridge Burrage Jolley Shortey
Allen Crain Justice Simpson Anderson David Marlatt Sparks
Ballenger Ellis Mazzei Stanislawski
Barrington Fields Myers Sykes
Bingman Ford Newberry Treat
Branan Garrison Nichols Wyrick
Brecheen Halligan Reynolds
Brinkley Holt Russell
Brown Johnson, R. Schulz
NAYS:8
Bass Eason Mc Laster Rice
Coates Johnson, C. Lerblance Wilson
EXCUSED: 3
Adelson Ivester Paddack
State Representative Sally Kern on Women and Blacks!
Blacks
Women
Democrats and Republicans on Affirmative Action
Generally, democrats tend to support it, while republicans tend to oppose it. However, not all democrats/republicans support their partys' views on the issue. Some democrats are against it while some republicans think it's a good idea. Many Americans support the idea of affirmative action but are against the way it is implemented. For example, some say that instead of looking at race as an indicator, income level, medical disadvantages etc. should be directly considered.
Obama's View:
Obama's View:
Citizen Groups on Affirmative Action
LULAC (League of United Latin American Citizens):
NAACP (National Association for the Advancement of Colored People)
Sources:
http://www.aclu.org/FilesPDFs/affirmative_action99.pdf
http://lulac.org/advocacy/issues/speech/
http://www.cairchicago.org/tag/affirmative-action/
http://www.naacp.org/blog/entry/the-debate-on-affirmative-action
http://www.now.org/issues/affirm/talking.html
http://www.tmariam.blogspot.com/
- Stance: Supports it.
ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union) :
- Stance: Supports it.
NOW (National Organization of Women)
- Stance: Supports it.
NAACP (National Association for the Advancement of Colored People)
- Stance: Supports it.
CAIR (Council on American Muslim Relations)
- The necessity of Affirmative Action has been a hot topic in American society for a number of years. Affirmative Action was established in 1965 by President Johnson in order to redress the discrimination that was evident in employment, education and business despite the civil rights laws which made such discrimination illegal. The purpose of Affirmative Action is to provide opportunities for minorities and women; it is not meant to create quotas.
- Stance: Supports it.
Sources:
http://www.aclu.org/FilesPDFs/affirmative_action99.pdf
http://lulac.org/advocacy/issues/speech/
http://www.cairchicago.org/tag/affirmative-action/
http://www.naacp.org/blog/entry/the-debate-on-affirmative-action
http://www.now.org/issues/affirm/talking.html
http://www.tmariam.blogspot.com/
Media Coverage on Affirmative Action
Articles/Broadcasts:
The Tulsa World:
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=11&articleid=20110427_11_0_TheOkl298226
The New York Times:
http://topics.nytimes.com/topics/reference/timestopics/subjects/a/affirmative_action/index.html
TIME magazine:
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,460435,00.html
npr:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=16337441
NEWSWEEK magazine/ http://www.thedailybeast.com/:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2010/02/17/don-t-call-it-affirmative-action.html
TV Shows/ broadcast news:
The Tulsa World:
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=11&articleid=20110427_11_0_TheOkl298226
The New York Times:
http://topics.nytimes.com/topics/reference/timestopics/subjects/a/affirmative_action/index.html
TIME magazine:
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,460435,00.html
npr:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=16337441
NEWSWEEK magazine/ http://www.thedailybeast.com/:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2010/02/17/don-t-call-it-affirmative-action.html
TV Shows/ broadcast news:
Citizen websites/blogs/groups created to discuss Affirmative Action
Personal Blogs:
- tmariam.blogspot.com
- tmariam.blogspot.com
- rantingaboutgovernment.blogspot.com
- layansalous.blogspot.com
- sanasandhu786.blogspot.com
- maryamsalus.blogspot.com
- amina-elbaz.blogspot.com
- amptoons.com/blog/category/affirmative-action/
- affirmact.blogspot.com
- affirmativeactionnews.blogspot.com/
- ofccp.blogspot.com/
Effect of media on Government regulation of Affirmative Action
In all honesty, there is no way to tell this. Google doesn't have an answer and neither does any Affirmative Action interest websites. However, it is undoubtable that media play a huge part in government policy. The way things are portrayed to people on the TV or in an article will be one of the most crucial contributing factors in their decisions at the polls. It also has a huge impact on political campaigns and platforms. Interviews and show appearances are usually the most common way for candidates to reach out to voters
Affirmative Action: My take.
I support Affirmative Action. I feel that it is important for minority achievement and that the benefits outweigh the risks. Throughout my research I never really saw any strong statistics that showed the negative impact of Affirmative action. I feel that the government is wrong to try to end Affirmative Action. While prejudice, racism, and sexism still exists in this country why can't affirmative action? Affirmative action is not the only thing keeping us from a color blind society. Also, if kids are using things like money or contacts to get into college or to get a job, who's to say they can't use race?
As for whether or not I qualify for Affirmative action, the answer is no. There is no affirmative action consideration whatsoever for Pakistani's and none for Asians as well. However, I found these comments on http://www.asian-nation.org/.
Since affirmative action programs were first implemented, many Asian Americans have achieved remarkably high levels of education, economic, and occupational attainment. This socioeconomic success has led many colleges and companies to no longer consider Asian Americans as an "underrepresented" minority group and therefore, are no longer eligible to be included in such affirmative action guidelines and programs.
Unfortunately, in doing so, many colleges and companies demonstrate that they have not learned the fundamental lesson that not all Asian Americans are the same, and that not all are successful. Specifically, many Pacific Islanders and some Southeast Asian groups (i.e., Laotian, Cambodian, Hmong, etc.) are still struggling socioeconomically, are still "underrepresented" in such institutions, and therefore should still be included in such affirmative action programs.
The question still remains, do Asian Americans still benefit from affirmative action or are they being hurt by it? Again, it all depends on the specific program and set of guidelines in question and whether or not they include Asian Americans (or which specific APA groups) as an underrepresented group. For example, recent data has shown that after residents voted to end affirmative action programs in California, Florida, and Texas, enrollments of Asian Americans in the top public universities in these states increased while conversely, the numbers of Black, Latino, and even (ironically) White students have declined, along with a decline in the number of male students.
Data like this suggests that Asian Americans benefit the most when affirmative action programs are eliminated. On the other hand, other studies show that Asian American enrollments actually declined in law schools in California, Texas, and Washington after affirmative action was ended in these states and that the real reason for instances of increasing enrollments is not the elimination of affirmative action per se, but instead, is based on eliminating simple discrimination and judging Asian American applicants equally with other applicants
Letter to the editor:
As for whether or not I qualify for Affirmative action, the answer is no. There is no affirmative action consideration whatsoever for Pakistani's and none for Asians as well. However, I found these comments on http://www.asian-nation.org/.
Since affirmative action programs were first implemented, many Asian Americans have achieved remarkably high levels of education, economic, and occupational attainment. This socioeconomic success has led many colleges and companies to no longer consider Asian Americans as an "underrepresented" minority group and therefore, are no longer eligible to be included in such affirmative action guidelines and programs.
Unfortunately, in doing so, many colleges and companies demonstrate that they have not learned the fundamental lesson that not all Asian Americans are the same, and that not all are successful. Specifically, many Pacific Islanders and some Southeast Asian groups (i.e., Laotian, Cambodian, Hmong, etc.) are still struggling socioeconomically, are still "underrepresented" in such institutions, and therefore should still be included in such affirmative action programs.
The question still remains, do Asian Americans still benefit from affirmative action or are they being hurt by it? Again, it all depends on the specific program and set of guidelines in question and whether or not they include Asian Americans (or which specific APA groups) as an underrepresented group. For example, recent data has shown that after residents voted to end affirmative action programs in California, Florida, and Texas, enrollments of Asian Americans in the top public universities in these states increased while conversely, the numbers of Black, Latino, and even (ironically) White students have declined, along with a decline in the number of male students.
Data like this suggests that Asian Americans benefit the most when affirmative action programs are eliminated. On the other hand, other studies show that Asian American enrollments actually declined in law schools in California, Texas, and Washington after affirmative action was ended in these states and that the real reason for instances of increasing enrollments is not the elimination of affirmative action per se, but instead, is based on eliminating simple discrimination and judging Asian American applicants equally with other applicants
Letter to the editor:
Dear Mr. Editor,
I am writing to talk about State Question 759, which will be appearing on state ballots. I feel that this is unnecessary, and even harmful to Oklahomans. Prejudice still exists today, and affirmative action is, I believe, one of the ways to combat it. There are so many “unfair” ways that people use to get in to college such as money, connections, and even cheating. And without affirmative action, minorities would be lost. For example, When a similar stature was enacted in Washington State, they saw a decrease of over 25% in the share of Seattle public works contracts awarded to women or minority owned firms. This shows that in order for society to progress, affirmative action is a must. Until we live in a completely color blind society, we are always going to need affirmative action one way or the other. So be sure to vote NO on state question 759.
Sincerely, Uzma Sandhu
