personal anecdote, back when my dad taught organic chemistry in college, a girl of chinese origin who was adopted into a white family had her parents harrass us because she got a C out of the class. she claimed he favored the white students. point of fact most of the A's in the class were give to students of asian origin and the average grade was a C+....

Your nutshell synopsis left me thinking (before I read the article) that it was about people adopting racist beliefs as a way of boosting their self-image in the face of failure. But it turns out that it's about blaming racism, or using perceived racism as a crutch... maybe a better summary would be good.
Anyway, I agree with the main point of the article - although I think that advising someone to just work harder if confronted by actual racism is not always the best advice. Sometimes confrontation is called for.

Good article.

Affirmatve action is just the enforcement mechanism for racial equality. It isn't invoked unless there is racial inequality. So how can it be racism?

barney,
you can't be serious. affirmative action is racism against the majority. the premise is that if a minority and a white person are both equally qualified (or if the white person is better qualified), the minority should be hired instead if the company needs to fill a quota. in other words, in every company you must have a certain number of jobs reserved for minorities. on my planet, this is called racism and it is the antithesis of capitalism.

Ah I see the problem-you're going by what Rush Limbaugh tells you what affirmative action is. You are aware his corporate masters pay him to lie to you every day? Quotas have already been ruled against, BTW.

Here it is in steps.

1. First there's the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

2. The act has various subsections Title I - Voting Rights, Title II - Desegregation of Public Facilities etc. Let's go to Title VII - Equal Employment Opportunity

3. Then go to Section 706 - PREVENTION OF UNLAWFUL EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES

4. Finally, go to paragraph (g) - If the court finds that the respondent has intentionally engaged in or is intentionally engaging in an unlawful employment practice charged in the complaint, the court may enjoin the respondent from engaging in such unlawful employment practice, and order such affirmative action as may be appropriate,...

As we all know, people who want to break laws are infinitely crafty in finding ways to do so. What if a company hires blacks, but only as janitors? (What if the company is a janitorial services company?) What if they hire blacks, but all the blacks are put in one building? What if they are all fired after 10 weeks? This is the kind of thing the EEOC and administrative law judges do all day.

All the objections you can come up with have very likely long since been covered. Everyone knows there are more blacks in Birmingham than Boise. Everyone knows a chinese restaurant can't be expected to find white cooks. Statistical variations, family businesses, small employers, etc.

5. So the 'affirmative action' is whatever the judge decides is the appropriate remedy for that case.

Seeing as the law is about racial crimes, I don't see how the statement "any form of affirmative action based on race is, well, racism." isn't anything except silly.

It's like saying putting a criminal in jail based on the crime he committed is...unfair to the criminal.

Civil Rights Act of 1964

Barney, its exactly the fear of the type of punitive actions you outline that cause the most egregious misuse, usually against the majority, of the system established in the laws that you cite.

The remedies aren't simply used to fix those 'tricking' the system, which happens these days a lot less often than people will admit, they're used to intimidate companies into hiring simply based on race. And that is wrong. The key phrase is and should be equal - equal opportunity. It is extremely rare that two candidates for a position are going to be exactly, no other distinction 'equally' qualified for a position - and if they are almost indistinguishably close, the current way the wind is blowing, then race is taken into consideration, and the minority will most likely get the slot. And that isn't competition.

Any program which uses race as its determinant is racism - the consideration of race. That is exactly what affirmative action does. Call it silly, but it is the truth.

barney,
the civil rights act was an important piece of legislation, necessary for its time. however, it is now a tool to promote quotas and "diversity" of the workplace. at the time it was enacted, the cry went up.. "you have to let these poor disadvataged people have a chance". and they were right 30 years ago. however, with an emerging minority middle class, i'd say the law is now a tool of oppression of the majority. it guarantees quotas in the workplace to people that no longer need help from quotas.

the fact that you can't see that while the CRA is supposed to protect race as a discriminator for hiring, it openly discriminates against the majority for those same reasons in the workplace. i call that racism and i don't listen to Rush. i made up my own mind.

Well, if you two guys with one great website have some research supporting your claims, I'd be happy to look at it.

That red circle with a line through it, of what looks like a man hugging a palm tree-what is that?