Affirmative Action, never saying what it means, never meaning what it says.

October 5, 2023 at 5:00 pm | Posted in Affirmative Action, African American, Alan Bakke, American history, black inferiority, Brown v Topeka, Civil Right's Act 1964, democracy, discrimination, education, Equal Opportunity, equality, Ethnicity in America, European Americans, fairness, I have a dream, justice, language, Martin Luther King Jr., Race in America, social conditioning, U.S. Supreme Court | 2 Comments
Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

When Dr. Martin Luther King spoke during the March on Washington in 1963, his message was not a pep talk, but a protest of the government for not living up to its promise of civil rights for African Americans. Since that time, the shift away from the problems of the African Americans has been steady and deliberate. In 1964, the Civil Rights Act changed the focus away from the African Americans to any American feeling treated unfairly and as before, places the burden of proof on the victim. One of the changes made because of the 1964 Act was the introduction of Affirmative Action, a phrase that sounds positive, but promises nothing. In an article published recently, “Trickle-Down Diversity,” Nation writer, Adolph Reed Jr. discussed the effect of the Supreme Court’s action relative to Affirmative Action.

Reed stated at the beginning of the article that “I’ve long been a supporter of affirmative action, but it has never been a means of reducing actual inequality.” He sights statistics indicating the effect affirmative action has had on African Americans: “By 2018, 7 percent of Black Americans earned more than $150,000. Similarly, more than three-quarters of so-called wealth is held by the richest 10 percent of Black people.” From this information he concluded that “Over the course of a half-century of widening national inequality, the goal of affirmative action has not been to combat that inequality but to diversify its beneficiaries.” So, the promise of the government to focus on relieving many of the problems experienced by African Americans are still not addressed. If we examine the language used by the government, we find that while it appears to address the issues, it is like cotton candy, sweet to the taste but lacking substance.

What does “affirmative action” mean when we try to get a fixed meaning? Reed offered his own definition: “At is core, affirmative action is a technique in the implementation of antidiscrimination law, based on an understanding that overt prejudice is too limited a standard for identifying redressable discrimination.” In other words, affirmative was never intended to address the real problems facing African Americans. So, what about the programs dealing with diversity, equity, and inclusion? Do they make an impact on the discrimination problems facing African Americans? The simple answer is no.

The problem with diversity programs begins with the word diversity. If diversity training is geared to orienting new employees to a company or organization, then the meaning and intent of the program is fixed and has nothing to do with ethnic identities. However, if the program and training is to address the concern of ethnic variety in the workplace, then it fails. The fact that diversity training is offered by a company or organization indicates that a superiority and inferiority context has been established with the agent instituting the program claiming the superiority identify.

The same is true with the word diversity. How does one define a diverse individual without including self? If all Homo sapiens belong to the same species, what constitutes a diverse individual? The word diverse carries the connotation of biological or genetic differences that indicates an ethnic bias. The effect is that when individuals are identified by any of the social elements that make them different, that identity places them in a so-called minority category and they are viewed as inferior. Also, they lose any individuality/uniqueness; they become stereotypes associated with the characteristics of their group; they are treated by society in conjunction with the stereotypes of the group. The individual, in essence, becomes less than a human being. A better approach to diversity training would be ethnic or cultural awareness education.

The word equity suggests that inequality exists from the start. So, how does one identify the inequality, own it, and reckon with it? How does one eliminate inequalities through training that does not underscore inferiority? Many articles focusing on diversity training programs indicated that many of the non-European American participants felt more isolated from the group at the end of the training than at the start. What is the goal of the diversity program and training focusing on equity? What does equity mean and how is it acquired? Those questions must be addressed for the program to have any value.

Again, if the subject of inclusion is directed at a company or organization, then the goal is fixed. But if the objective is to blend individuals of various ethnic cultures, then the inclusion must be larger than the company or organization because one size does not fit all. The contrast between superior and inferior is established by the word inclusion because it suggests that there is an idea of inclusiveness, and some people are not included. Those not included must be inferior to those included. So, how does that get fixed?

Another program developed from affirmative action was the “Equal opportunity” program which was without value from the beginning. If we examine the language of the phrase, we find nothing with a fixed definition. Equal is a mathematical word and has no meaning with reference to human beings. First, what is equal and who determines whether its administration is fair? What is the model for equality?

Likewise, the word opportunity is the same as a crapshoot, no fixed value except chance. We all have the same opportunity to bet on a horse, but the only value comes with the chance to pick a horse and bet. So, what assurances comes with equal opportunity that would benefit the majority of African Americans? We know that language has the power to control society and that language is a powerful tool that can influence our thoughts, actions, and even our worldview. 

When we consider the language and effects of affirmative action and its programs involving diversity and equal opportunity, we can conclude, along with Reed, that 90 percent of African Americans have not benefited from affirmative action. On the contrary, African Americans have lost ground in trying to obtain their civil rights. The language of civil rights changed in 1963 and so did the focus on African American injustice.

Paul R. Lehman, America as a post-racial society is foolish thinking

September 20, 2014 at 7:09 pm | Posted in Affirmative Action, African American, blacks, Civil Rights Ats, democracy, desegregation, discrimination, employment, equality, European American, fairness, identity, integregation, justice, liberty, Prejudice, President, President Obama, race, segregation, skin color, socioeconomics, U.S. Supreme Court, whites | 3 Comments
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Shortly after President Obama was elected a cry of America being a post-racial society was heard. The thinking was that since America had elected an African American president that all the concerns about race and its negative derivatives had been addressed and was now in the past. The truth of the matter is that America has yet to deal internally with the concept of race other than to continue its illusion. What might be passing for social progress is mostly illusion since not much has changed for the betterment of African Americans relative to employment, education, and incarceration. Certainly, we can point to a number of areas where African American involvement and participation in society have made them more visible, but that visibility usually underscores their ethnicity rather than their being viewed as simply Americans. The stigma of race (ethnicity) always accompanies the African American and the attention, positive or negative, received. In a democratic society the resolution of one problem usually represents the creation of two or more problems. A case in point was school desegregation beginning in 1954. Using a phrase from Charles Dickens, “It was the best of times; it was the worse of times,” when we examine some of the repercussion visited on African Americans as a result of desegregation.
Education in America prior to the Brown decision in 1954 was separate, but certainly, not equal. Education in America can never become equal, because that term pertains to mathematics, not sociology—nothing involving human beings can ever be equal. That term was used to create an illusion of fairness. The idea that African Americans wanted to attend school alongside European American students for social reasons was false; they just wanted an education comparable to that of the European American students. Fortunately, and unfortunately, the only way to ensure that all students receive a fair and comparable education was to discontinue segregated schools. For the African American community, that created numerous problems, two of which involved education and economics.
When the schools were segregated, the African American students were the recipients of information relative to African American history, past and present–information that helped to created a positive self-image as well as one of self-value. The history underscored the many individuals who time and time again triumphed over challenges to achieve some measure of accomplishment. These examples helped the students to develop the courage and desire to accept the many challenges they must face in an ethnically biased society. American history from an African American perspective was not simply an objective look at past events, but a continuing story of the struggles of African Americans to gain fist-classed citizenship in America.
Once the schools were desegregated, many of the former African American teachers were dismissed in favor of European American teachers. Of course, we would be remiss if we did not note that once desegregation became the law, many European Americans who could afford it, moved to suburbs in an action that came to be known as “white flight” because they did not believe in ethnic mixing in any context, but especially at school. As a result of “white flight” the court required bussing of students to achieve desegregation. Since most of the African American schools were physically inferior to those of the European American schools, African American students were bussed to European American schools. These changes, white flight” and “bussing” had a dramatic affect on the African American students.
Once the African American students were bussed to their new schools, they had to adjust to totally new and different environments where they were generally in the minority. Without a doubt, European American students had to make adjustments as well, but they had the benefit of attending their home schools and being taught by familiar teachers. No special considerations were made for the African American students relative to their social adjustment; they were expected to simply “fall in line” along with the majority students. One major difference existed relative to the African American students involved in this desegregation experience; they no longer received or learned African American history. The fact that the majority teachers had no background and little or no knowledge of the African American historical experience, they could not bridge the ignorance gap that could have provided some insight into the problems that created the need for desegregation in the first place. In this case, all students were disadvantaged.
A second negative affect of desegregation to the African American community was the loss of an entrepreneurial class of business men and women. Once the schools became desegregated, many chain-store businesses came into the community and ended much of the “Mom and Pop” businesses that existed in the community because the chain-store business could easily offer goods, services, and products at a lower price. The smaller, African American owned businesses could not compete with the larger ones; so many African Americans who formerly worked at these businesses were displaced. So, the immediate affect of desegregation for the African American community was mixed in that while the African American students would share classrooms with European American students, and thereby receive a comparable education, the African American community would lose many of its entrepreneurial members and businesses and be changed forever.
So, the people who would like to think that America is in a post-racial present might want to reconsider that thought when they examine areas of: education, where we learn that schools today are rapidly becoming more segregated rather than integrated; or consider the wealth gap among ethnic Americans of color compared to European Americans, and the unemployment rate that contributes directly to the standard of living; or to the recent and current news items from Florida, to New York, from Illinois, to California, and places in between where young African American men have been killed by law enforcement agencies; or the fact that many of the previous accomplishments relative to social progress have been eroded, like voting rights, affirmative action, and economic upward mobility in general.
Rather than talking about a post-racial society, America should be looking at the debunking of the illusion of race. One of the primary problems in America today is that too many people do not want to face facts and the reality of those facts—race is and always has been an illusion. The idea of America as a post-racial society is an oxymoron.

Paul R. Lehman, George Will and Affirmative Action rejection

April 29, 2014 at 2:30 am | Posted in Affirmative Action, African American, American Indian, blacks, Civil Right's Act 1964, Civil War, college admission, Constitutional rights, democracy, desegregation, discrimination, equality, Ethnicity in America, European American, fairness, integregation, justice, Prejudice, President Obama, skin color, Tea Party, The Oklahoman, The Thirteenth Amendment, The U.S. Constitution, University of Michigan, whites | 2 Comments
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Sometimes, when some people do not want to accept facts that contradict their believes, they discard the facts and hold on to the beliefs they created. When they hold on to these beliefs for a long period of time, the beliefs change from myths, Illusions, or fiction to facts to the people who hold on to them. For some people, the concept of race fits that bill. We know that race is not biological, but the created concept of it is real. That concept makes race a powerful social idea that gives some people special access to opportunities and resources. Over the years, our government has given social advantages disproportionately to white (European Americans) people. These advantages affect everyone whether they are aware of them or not.
In first recognizing the results of the social disadvantages heaped upon African Americans and other ethnic Americans, the government has tried to correct the injustices by creating programs that address the problems and work towards alleviating them, the process has been long and challenging. For some people, they pretend that race does not exist at all and so no social problems associated with race exist. Many of these people believe that others in society use race as a way of seeking social justice or advantages over other people. For example, George Will, in his article, “What a tangled web we can weave,” (The Oklahoman, 4/27/14) makes the following claim:
Anodyne euphemisms often indicate an uneasy conscience or a political anxiety. Or both, as when the 1976 Democratic platform chose ‘compensatory opportunity’ as a way of blurring the fact that the party favored racial discrimination in the form of preferences and quotas for certain government-favored minorities in such matters as government hiring, contracting and college admissions.
What Will suggests here is that the Democratic Party decided to address and try to correct some of the injustices American society had placed on the African Americans and other minorities through the program called “Affirmative Action.” Will believes that no person or group of people should receive preferential treatment because to do so would be unconstitutional in that it would have a negative affect on the other people. In the event of any disagreement between contesting parties, the state, not the Federal Government, should get the final word through a vote of the people. Will references a number of decisions from the Supreme Court and comments from a number of Justices concerning the question of preferential treatment based on race. His quote from Justice Harlan underscores Will’s contention:”Our Constitution is colorblind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens.
The fact of the matter is that preferential treatment was written into the Constitution—Article 1, Section 2, paragraph 3. The paragraph begins with the following: “Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.” So, contrary to the good Justice Harlan’s comments regarding the Constitution, we note that it does imply color and class.
Will seemingly avoids American history that deals directly with the status of African Americans as well as other minorities. His attitude suggests that the Constitution must stand alone as if an idealistic atmosphere where all people have shared the same experiences as Americans with everything being fair and equal. His notion relative to the majority of voters of a state having the final word would have been an injustice to African Americans as well as Indians after the Civil War, not to mention the condition of women. If as Justice Harlan and Will believe that the Constitution is colorblind and respects no social classes why do we have the Amendment XIII and Amendment XIV? America was built on ethnic and class prejudice from the Pilgrims and Puritans to the Dixiecrats and The Tea Party. Anyone who chooses to ignore that fact fails also to acknowledge today’s reality. Regardless of the fact that America created the two so-called races of black and white, and instituted laws that showed preference to the white one, some people still do not want to accept the existence of injustices that are constantly appearing and need addressing.
In his last paragraph, Will states: “The court’s continuing fissures regarding ‘race-sensitive’ policies—six justices used four opinions to reach the result—indicate Harlan’s principle remains too clear for the comfort of a court still too fond of euphemisms. That is shameful.” In reality, for the court to follow Harlan’s principle would be for it to mimic an ostrich by sticking its head in the sand—to avoid the real challenge of ethnic discrimination. One wonders how the treatment of President Obama by some Americans can be interpreted as something other than ethnic bigotry.
For the record, ethnic bias will continue as long a people reject the fact of a human family with no particular group in the family being superior to another, or acknowledge the truth of Americans History that is tied directly to ethnic and class bigotry. In order to correct the problem, we must first admit that a problem exists. Some Americans today still raise the questions of President Obama’s birth place or his ability to lead the country knowing full well that had there been any concerns prior to his first election, they would have been brought forward.
Social progress is being made daily in America by people challenging the negative stereotypes of a society that believed in white superiority and black inferiority. Because of these changes, some people who do not want the changes are fighting against them. They fight in vain because we cannot stop the progress from occurring. Most ethnicities have moved from a color reference to an identity that respects their culture and/or geography. We know that the Constitution is not colorblind or classless, but we continue working in that direction as a society. We will know that progress is being made when people like Will and others stop referring to themselves as white men.

Paul R. Lehman, Civil Rights Act of 1964 still misunderstood by many relative to African Americans

February 6, 2014 at 4:51 pm | Posted in academic qualifications, Affirmative Action, African American, American Racism, Bigotry in America, blacks, college admission, Constitutional rights, democracy, desegregation, discrimination, Equal Opportunity, equality, Ethnicity in America, European American, fairness, integregation, justice, liberty, minority, Prejudice, public education, segregation, skin color, skin complexion, The U.S. Constitution, whites | Leave a comment
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Today, some fifty years after the Civil Rights Act was signed many Americans still do not know what it was about and some of the results of the signing. From a political and historical perspective, the 1964 signing of the Act by President Lyndon B. Johnson spelled the beginning of the end of the Democratic Party in the South. For African Americans, women, and other American minorities, it represented the beginning of new opportunities for life, liberties and the pursuit of happiness. Many European Americans viewed the Civil Rights Act as the government’s efforts to give special privileges to African Americans. The reason for the Act was due to many ethnic and minority Americans not being able to enjoy the rights and privileges of a first class citizen.
Many European Americans believe that the Civil Rights Acts was written specifically for African Americans because Martin Luther King, Jr.’s name has been associated with it. The truth is that the Act says absolutely nothing about African Americans or any other Ethnic Americans. So, the critics that try to discredit the Act by claiming it is for African Americans are just plain wrong. If one is serious about wanting to find fault with the ’64 Civil Rights Act, they need to take a time out and look at what has happened since the Act was signed.
Women and other minorities were prevented from attending some of the most renowned colleges and universities simply because the colleges had the right to pick and choose who they wanted at their institutions. For proof, all one needs to do is look at the graduation class pictures of any of these schools and count how many women and minorities are included. Then find a picture of a recent graduating class and compare the number of minorities and women. Chances are the results will show a drastic increase of women and minorities in the recent pictures. Why, because the Civil Rights Act made it unlawful for institutions to discriminate against individuals because of their color and/or gender. As a result many women European American as well as African American women have benefited from the new opportunities provided by the Act.
The first paragraph of the Act states that:
To enforce the constitutional right to vote, to confer jurisdiction upon the district courts of the United States to provide injunctive relief against discrimination in public accommodations, to authorize the Attorney General to institute suits to protect constitutional rights in public facilities and public education, to extend the Commission on Civil Rights, to prevent discrimination in federally assisted programs, to establish a Commission on Equal Employment Opportunity, and for other purposes.
If we look at the results that the Civil Rights Acts have had on African Americans, we discover a mixed- bag of experiences. The purpose of the Act was to ensure justice and fairness for all Americans because before the Act, only European American males enjoyed the liberties and privileges afforded the first class citizens. Discrimination against African Americans, women, and other American minorities existed in education, employment, public accommodations as well as some federal programs. Since the passage of the Act many Americans have experienced opportunities to improve their lives, none more than the European American female. So, for someone to say that civil rights is for African Americans is false; all Americans have civil rights, it is just that African Americans, women, and other Americans minorities were never provided with the opportunity to enjoy theirs.

The passage of the ’64 Civil Rights Act did not bring immediate relief to those Americans who had been discriminated against since the beginning of American society. A brief reminder of the past tells us that the American women did not get the vote until 1920; African Americans attended segregated public schools until 1954; and it was not until the 1964 Civil Rights Acts that women began making headway in the medical and legal professions. Again, we are not speaking of African American women, but all American women.

Much of the recent progress of African Americans, women, and other minorities comes as a result of programs like Affirmative Action and Title IX of the Civil Rights Act. Many people today take for granted the participation of women in the legal, medical, athletic professions, not to mentions the areas of service like law enforcement, postal workers, fire fighters, construction workers, and a host of others that were closed to women and minorities for many years.

African American and other minority males have benefited from the Civil Rights Act, but not to the extent that women have and still are benefiting. For example, more women attend and graduate from college than men. That is not the say that all Americans are treated fairly because of the Act. That would be false. The fact concerning the Civil Rights Act is that many Americans who never understood it are still against it. Some individuals continue to challenge programs like Affirmative Action because they believe it discriminates against the European Americans in areas like college and university admissions where they believe African Americans are given a preference.

After more than three-hundred-years of segregation, discrimination, and bigotry American society making a smooth transition to a fair and just society would be a miracle. Change takes time because some people who were born into a society where they received privileges and power, come to believe those things came with their birth and skin complexion. These people need to become acquainted with the Constitution under which they live so they will realize that the rights and privileges they presume to have are no longer given to people because of their skin color.

So, the next time someone makes the claim that civil rights are only for African Americans, like some individuals of national repute have done, they should be required to back-up those claims with documented proof. After all, the preamble to the Constitution states that “We the People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United State of America.” Nowhere is there a reference to color, gender, or ethnicity in that statement. All Americans should enjoy their civil rights.

Paul R. Lehman, George Will’s Commentary on the high courts challenge for Michigan on race lacks good reasoning.

October 14, 2013 at 9:17 pm | Posted in Affirmative Action, African American, American Racism, blacks, Civil War, college admission, democracy, desegregation, discrimination, Equal Opportunity, equality, Ethnicity in America, European American, fairness, integregation, justice, Michigan, minority, Prejudice, segregation, Slavery, The Oklahoman, The U.S. Constitution, U.S. Supreme Court, whites | Leave a comment
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

One of the ironies in America today is the lack of acceptance of the fact that America, from its beginning, was a biased society. Europeans who called themselves white, created a society of two so-called races—one white, one black. The character of each so-called race was also created; the white race was to be superior to the black race in every way. The problem with this creation of races from the beginning was that it was not logical because race was never defined, just assumed. Shortly after Africans were introduced into American slavery, the problem of race reared it ugly head in the form of children produced by individuals representing each so-called race. Society met this problem by creating laws based on its conception of race to keep the separation in place. The laws, however, were based on the assumption of race by color, an assumption which nature and biology did not share. Society, nevertheless, continued to ignore nature and biology while creating and enforcing as best it could laws to address the continuing racial problems. Had America used another form of separation in its creation of and assumptions of races by color, the problems society is incurring today might not be so challenging.
One such problem was published in The Oklahoman by George Will in his “Commentary “(10/13/13)on the Supreme Court’s up-coming hearing on the use of race by the University of Michigan in its admission’s policy. Will stated that “the U.S. Constitution’s 14th Amendment says ‘No state shall…deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.’” He added that “the following provision of Michigan’s constitution violates the Equal Protection guarantee: No public university, college or school district may ‘discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis or race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin…” The provision continued with the conditions “in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting.” The laws seem to cancel out each other, so Will believes the court will rule in favor of the 14th Amendment.
The problem with this case can be seen in the use and lack of definition of the word race and the history of America’s prejudice. From the end of the Civil War to 1954, America practiced segregation and discrimination, separate and unequal polices based on race. In 1964 when the Civil Rights Act provided relief from the practices of separate and unequal practices in public institutions, many states complained that the rights of some of it citizens were being denied because preferential treatment was being given to African Americans and other ethnic minorities. What society and Will does not say is that for over two-hundred years the equal protection in the 14th Amendment was not applied to African Americans, women, and other ethnic minorities, so the suspension of equal protection guarantees had to be put in place while an attempt to try and remedy the injustices of the past could be addressed.
Now the question of should race be included in consideration for admission to the University of Michigan, and if it is, will that serve as a form of discrimination against other students? Common sense should dictate a reasonable approach. How can an injustice be addressed by simply retaining the status quo, which is what the Michigan state provision suggests. The suggestion of fairness seems to reflect the idea that all citizens are equal have the same rights. History tells us that the concept of race has and still does play an important role in how some people; especially African Americans, women, and other minorities are treated. For someone to suggest that bias, prejudice, and discrimination does no longer exist in society is to ignore today’s reality.
The fact that Michigan created the law requiring that “”No public university, college or school district may ‘discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to…” anyone, suggests that many people believed that some people, African Americans and others, were receiving these preferences. They also believed that the preferences worked to the disadvantage of the majority population, regardless of the fact that they were not discriminated against in the past. Regarding those who were discriminated against in the past, the law suggests that they automatically and magically became equal and no program for addressing the inequities of the past need be instituted.
Interestingly enough, Will stated that “Michigan’s attorney general correctly argues that the voters who passed the amendment in 80 of the state’s 83 counties were not ‘restructuring’ the political process, they were using the process to give constitutional dignity to the valid ideal of a colorblind society.” One wonders if Will truly believes that the people in the 80 counties were voting without consideration of so-called race and color. If those voters in the 80 counties were not conscious of race during their voting, there would be no reason to vote. After all, the law was written to stop what they considered unfair treatment of themselves and preferential treatment of African Americans.
Part of the problem facing the court has to do with the concept of race and how the university might apply it in admissions. Because biased and prejudiced citizens accused the government of using race as a partial method to help remedy segregation and discrimination of Africans Americans in the past, and the Supreme Court agreed in part with them, the emphasis was redirected by the universities towards using race as a form of academic “diversity.” Now the practice of the University of Michigan in using race as a form of bringing diversity into the academic community is being challenged by people who believe that is also a form of granting preferences. At some point society will have to ask the question concerning addressing the injustices of the past to African Americans, women, and other ethnic minorities. So far, most of the people receiving complaints of preferential treatment in college and University admissions are African Americans. We rarely read of complaints of women receiving preferential treatment.
As a society, we must accept the fact that race was created to serve as a form of separation and discrimination and that society employed the concept of race by color to employ forms of preferences for European Americans while creating walls and roadblocks for African Americans and other minorities. The mere fact that Will made the statement that the people of Michigan voted “to give constitutional dignity to the valid ideals of a colorblind society” represents a form of hypocrisy, deceit, and ignorance. How can we believe in the ideal of a colorblind society when the majority population identify themselves as “white”?

Cherrios commercial a positive sign of growth in America accepting its ethnic diversity

June 9, 2013 at 1:14 pm | Posted in African American, American Dream, American Racism, blacks, commercials, desegregation, Disrespect, equality, Ethnicity in America, European American, integregation, justice, Media and Race, minority, mixed-marriage, Prejudice, Public housing, segregation, skin color, U.S. Supreme Court, whites | 2 Comments
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

All the negative comments concerning the ethnic Americans in the Cheerios commercial are signs of growing pains in American society. The pains come from both African Americans and European Americans having to deal with the ignorance, segregation, and bigotry that have been part of the social atmosphere since slavery. The commercial is doing double duty by forcing society to see what is happening in the real world while challenging those ignorant, isolated, and bigoted people to reevaluate their perspectives.
Many Americans today still believe in the concept of multiple biological races with the so-called white race being special and different from all the so-called other races. That being the case, any examples of race mixing involving a European American (white) with any other ethnic American diminishes the strength of the white race. Therefore, all races mixing involving so-called whites are frowned upon. Because of the social value placed on the European American by European Americans, for one to be intimately involved with an ethnic American is a sign of low self-esteem and self-worth. Although most Americans know that to hold and express those beliefs is an indication of ignorance relative to America’s social environment today and a far cry from reality. For some people, the so-called white identity is the only thing of value they have, so to have that threatened is of major concern. For some people, loosing their white identity would be devastating because they have no idea of who they are without that identity. They choose not to accept the truth and progress of America’s diverse society, and like children not wanting to hear something they already know, stick their fingers in their ears thinking that if they do not hear what is being said, it will not exist. Such is ignorance.
Segregation and separation of ethnic Americans present opportunities to create stereotypes that living in an integrated or even desegregated society could easily debunk. After World War II ended and the troops came home, the government found that housing was a problem, so it created help for the veterans through the GI Bill and FHA. While these programs were great for the country, they provided little help for the African Americans. The new housing additions that were created were segregated. The housing additions led to the creation of segregated communities that included churches, school, and public facilities. For example, in Oklahoma City before 1954, African Americans could visit the public zoo only on Thursdays; state parks were off limits for African Americans also. So, without direct interaction with other ethnic Americans, European Americans were free to create any stereotype they desired.
To be sure, African Americans living in a segregated society and communities also held stereotype of European Americans. The belief that European Americans were superior to other ethnic groups was part of the educational package taught to all students while the negative stereotypes were constantly underscored in the newspapers, movies, radio and television. The idea of the African American knowing “his place” had to do with the African American knowing that the European American had more social value than he and that he must respect that superiority regardless of the social and economic status of the European American and that of the African American. For some Americans that concept of European American superiority still exists and should remain forever. So, when a commercial presents a mixed ethnic American couple and their child, some people who live segregated lives, fear the change because of what they believe they will lose as a group.
One of the primary reactions to the Cheerios commercial can be identified as ethnic bigotry. A large segment of the European American population born and raised in America entered this world that was filled with ethnic bias against African Americans. All the social institutions promoted the concept of American being a European American country that permitted other ethnic Americans to live here. But make no mistake about it; they believe that American belonged to only them. The concept of democracy, equality, fairness, freedom for all is fine as far as lip service goes, but when it comes to actual change in the direction of diversity, the game changes. When they see or witness things that go contrary to their beliefs, they become upset and angry.
What the commercial has done is bring a touch of reality and changes in society to the forefront. The fact that American’s diverse population is growing and gaining more power is reflected in the commercial. Another thing that was not so obvious but well supported was the fact that the old European American standard of beauty is under attack. Most reasonable viewers would consider all the actors to be attractive, handsome, or good-looking. In essence, if the European American female finds the African American male handsome, then the concept of European American standard of beauty is being ignored. That fact alone is enough for bigots to feel threatened and fearful. At one point in American society, the color of one’s skin determined if beauty could even be considered let alone recognized and appreciated. Now, along comes this commercial that throws a monkey wrench into the entire concept of so-called race and separation.
Whether it was intentional or not, the Cheerios commercial brought to public scrutiny a major problem many Americans must face—a changing society and world. The problem is not the fact that people from different ethnic groups form relationships, because diversity has always been a part of the American experience. The problem is that the diverse relationships had always been kept in check through segregation and out of the public eye. When an example of a diverse ethnic couple came to public view, it was always viewed as extraordinary, unusual. For years legal segregation and biases created boundaries that made miscegenation unacceptable to society. After the Supreme Court ruled in 1954 that public facilities must be opened to all Americans, other laws soon followed that made it possible for different ethnic groups to interact with one another in public. That interaction today is a common occurrence and generally accepted as normal behavior.
So, for those folks who found the Cheerios commercial negative and uncomfortable, they need to realize that their idea of America needs to catch up with reality. Society changes whether we want it to or not. If we choose not to accept the reality of change, we will be left angry and frustrated wondering what is the world coming to. Recognizing the changes does not mean our readily accepting them, but it does mean that they exist and have been validated by at least a significant segment of society. So, here’s to Cheerios– Eat up! They’re good for your heart!

Paul R. Lehman,The concept of a post-racial society conceals the misdeeds of America’s past and present.

April 14, 2013 at 12:52 pm | Posted in Affirmative Action, African American, American Bigotry, American Racism, blacks, Civil War, college admission, desegregation, discrimination lawsuit, equality, Ethnicity in America, European American, fairness, identity, integregation, justice, minority, Race in America, segregation, skin color, Slavery, The Thirteenth Amendment, The U.S. Constitution, U.S. Supreme Court, University of Texas, whites | 2 Comments
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

An article that appeared in the grio posed the questions:”has the nation lived down its history of racism and should the law become colorblind?” (4/1/13) These questions were asked in conjunction with the two cases before the Supreme Court, one case deals with affirmative action, the other focuses on voting rights. Although both questions involve some aspect of the same topic, race, they need to be addressed separately, and in a different context from the general public concept. Let us look first at the question about racial preference and racism.
The first thing we need to address is the fact that America and the government created race based on color. Two races were created, one black and the other white. These races were not created on anything other than the color for a person’s skin. Later many scientists, scholars, ministers, and a host of other players tried to justify race from a biological perspective, to no avail because any person who looked white could be white. So, while the definition protected people with fair complexions, it was no guarantee that the race of these people was correct or valid. So, society added ancestry to the definition of race via color, but only African Ancestry. In other words, if a person had any African ancestry, that person was considered black regardless of how they looked. The problem with race defined by color was finally addressed by U. S. law in Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) but proved to be something of a joke– Homer Plessy’s complexion was so light, that his arrest for sitting in a seat reserved for white-only had to be staged. None the less, the law was kept in place.
America made these two races distinct in that they represented opposite values. The so-called white race was given power, privilege, and prestige. If one was upper-classed white, wealthy or educated, then he or she was considered normal. Otherwise, being white just placed one above all other non-whites. For the so-called black race or Negroes, as they were also called, they represented negative stereotypes that included ignorance, laziness, worthlessness, untrustworthiness, and repulsiveness along with a host of other despicable characteristics. All these elements were promoted by the so-called white race to be biological features of the so-called black race. Society created, promoted and enforced laws and practices that discriminated against and segregated people of the so-called black race.
Before and during the time of the Civil War many people, European Americans as well as African Americans worked towards eliminating slavery and discrimination of African Americans. Once the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments were passed by Congress with pressure from President Lincoln and others, African Americans were recognized as citizens of the United State of America. That meant that only whites and blacks were citizens since no other race was recognized.
For African Americans, being citizens of the United States did not end discrimination, hatred and bigotry. As a matter of fact, negative feelings against African Americans began to manifest in acts of violence by so-called white vigilante gangs that included acts of lynching. Although America has always been a diverse society, it acted like a monolith of European Americans. They still held on to the philosophy of Manifest Destiny—this country belongs to them because God gave it to them to take and possess. Although many diverse societies existed in America, the country projected two so-called races—black and white, under the rubric of one country, America. The so-called black race was never treated fairly nor equally by society until the laws of the country was challenged in courts, and especially, the Supreme Court. The 1954 Supreme Court decision of Brown v. Topeka began the change in the social structure of America. According to the law, African Americans could no longer be treated as unequals in public facilities. Unfortunately, the change in the law did not affect the minds of many American who saw the law as a form of discrimination against their rights. Therefore, they continued to maintain and enforce an atmosphere of segregation and discrimination against African Americans until the Civil Rights Acts of 1964, 1965, 1968.
During the time from the beginning of America creating to two races until the Civil Rights Acts, the race America called white enjoyed the liberties of freedom, life and the pursuit of happiness without reservation. Now that America has decided to live up to its promise of fair and just treatment for all its citizens, the so-called white race wants to cry discrimination because it cannot continue to discriminate on the basis of its so-called race. The court case involving university admissions at the University of Texas is said to be based on racial preference for African American students. Actually, if the University of Texas did not show some preference to African American students, it would still be discriminating against them based on past social history and practice. They were formerly denied admission based on their so-called race, so not to consider their so-called race for admission would be seen as unjust or unfair.
Another problem exists regarding this case, that is, how will race be defined since color is not a reliable indicator of race and DNA will show that all people have some African ancestry? The fact that America created two so-called races based on color has come back to haunt and trouble us since the European Americans no longer control the definition of race in America. Race should have been replaced by ethnic group and ethnicity since the 1940s, but to do that would have meant a loss of power, privilege and prestige for the European Americans. What society could not bring it to do; Mother Nature is doing for it. In a few more years, the ethnic minority in America will become the majority and the concept of a black race and white race will become so complex and confusing that it will have to become a thing of the past.
So, if the court wants to avoid the problem of having to deal with race, it should simply look at the people who have been denied social and economic justice in our society and do the fair and just thing by them without regard to a so-called race. The idea of a post-racial society is just a way of trying to avoid the realities of discrimination and bigotry that have been a part of America’s history. America created the problem; it can resolve it.

Paul R. Lehman, Judge’s comments to convicted man appear biased

February 24, 2013 at 1:52 pm | Posted in African American, American Bigotry, Disrespect, equality, fairness, justice, Oklahoma, Prejudice, The Oklahoman | 4 Comments
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Tim Willert, a writer for The Oklahoman, reported on a case involving the shooting of an off-duty Oklahoma County sheriff deputy (2/22/13). At the sentencing of the man convicted of the offence, the judge made several questionable comments in additional to the sentencing that indicate a bias, a lack of information or a lack of fairness.
The first statement uttered by District Judge Kenneth C. Watson, according to Willert’s article was “You are a disgrace to your family.” Unless the judge knows the convicted man, Christopher Travis Baker, and his family, his comments appear biased and focused on the individual rather than the crime committed. If he does not know Baker and his family, his comments, although well-intended, should not be uttered unless they are uttered to all persons convicted of the same or similar crimes. If the comment was made to impress the family, chances are the family was already aware of the social affects the crime had on the family. If the comment was meant for Baker, what was the purpose? He could not undo the crime; he could only apologize to his family if that was his desire. The comment should have not been uttered for whatever reason the judge might offer; it served no useful purpose.
The next comment made by Judge Watson was “You are a disgrace to our race.” Again, if the judge is having Baker serve as a representative of the human race and he makes the same assessment to all the individuals who appear before him, then his comments are well-taken. However, if he singled out Baker for this comment, then he was not being fair. The judge also showed a lack of current information if his reference to “our race” was meant to be interpreted as “African American people.” The only race of human beings is the human race—Homo sapiens. One wonders why the judge would place on one individual the reputation of an entire ethnic group. Evidently, if the judge sees Baker as a member of a separate race, then he must also see each person from his or her ethnic group as representatives of a separate race. If this is the case, the judge need to be better informed about the changes in society regarding the concept of race.
Before we get to the Judge’s last comment, we want to underscore the point that we understand the rights of a judge to make whatever comments or statements he or she feel important to the convicted person, their family and the courtroom audience at the time. Our concern is that the comments be made without a biased or unfair undertone that somehow makes an example of the convicted in addition to what the law provides. If the Judge uses his or her comments and statements on a regular basis to all individuals without prejudice, then we have no compliant; however, when a person is singled out for criticism based simply on so-called race, then the Judge owes the convict, the family, and the court an apology. The Judge’s job is to administer justice. The convicted are punished for the crimes they commit, not defects in their character or stereotypes associated with their ethnic group identity.
The third comment made by Judge Watson was “You are a disgrace to the African American race.” This statement has a number of problems because it assumes a number of things that are not accurate. The first is that Baker does not represent anyone but himself. Yes, he is a member of the human race, but that does not make him a representative of all human beings. Yes, he committed a crime for which he is going to be punished, but he is not the crime, so the actions should be condemned, not the person. The person can change, the crime cannot be undone. If no hope exists for change, why waste the people’s money by sending him to prison?
The reference to “disgrace” seems to suggest that a certain show of behavior is expected by Baker, in effect, he is to be viewed as a discredit or a humiliation not only to the human race but also to the African American group. Unlike some Asian and non-western cultures, the individual members of a family do not carry the reputation of the family with them. In America, we look to the individual to represent him or herself, that is why we respect the rights of each individual. The reputation of the family does not take preference over the individual.
When the Judge uses the phrase “African American race” he is showing a lack of information. Science has shown since the results of the Human Genome Project that all human beings belong to the same race. Individuals can pick and choose their culture, but not their ancestry. So, an individual of Asian ancestry can be identified as an Asian, American or Asian American, but not a member of the Asian race. Likewise, a person of European ancestry can use his or her culture as a form of identity, but not white race or Caucasian race; biologically, it does not exist. So, when the Judge uses the phrase “African American race,” he is misinformed. Chances are he meant African American ethnic group, not race.
We know that changes come slowly, especially social changes. However, we expect our judges to be better informed than the average citizen regarding changes in our society. After all, they are the guardians of our system of justice; we are reminded that justice is blind. If that is the case regarding Baker’s trial, then Judge Watson owes an apology to Baker, his family and the court for his biased comments.

Paul R. Lehman,Tonya Battle and another case of ethnic discrimination

February 17, 2013 at 1:03 pm | Posted in Affirmative Action, African American, American Bigotry, American Racism, blacks, discrimination lawsuit, Disrespect, Equal Opportunity, equality, European American, fairness, integregation, justice, minority, Prejudice, President Obama, Race in America, segregation, whites | 3 Comments
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Ethnic prejudice is still so engrained in the psyche of some Americans that they continue to do irrational, illogical, and stupid things. A case in point was reported by The Huffington Post (2/16/13) in an article, “Tonya Battle, African American Nurse, Sues Michigan Hospital For Race Discrimination.” According to the article the lawsuit states that “Tonya Battle was barred from treating an infant patient at Hurley Medical Center because she is African American.” In addition, the article noted that in the complaint, “Battle claims that the newborn’s father showed her supervisor ‘a swastika of some kind’ and asked that no black people be involved in his child’s care.”
Why would someone living in a diverse society like America, make such a request thinking it was a proper thing to do? The answer is that at one time, not very long ago, ethnic prejudice against African Americans was common practice. The laws against such practices began to change in 1954 and continued through the 1960s to today; however, the psyche of many Americans still remain entrenched in ethnic prejudice. If blame is to be placed on anyone in this case, it should be with the hospital and its representatives. Three things happened in succession that should not have taken place when the request was made: acknowledgement, acceptance, and activation.
The problem began when Battle’s supervisor acknowledged the request as legitimate and reasonable. Anyone can make a request for anything, but to acknowledge the request as reasonable usually takes an understanding of what is being requested and if the request is appropriate. Evidently, the supervisor did not stop to consider her African American co-workers when she acknowledged the request. Instead of discounting the request as being absurd, inappropriate, and unreasonable, her actions made it seem legitimate and reasonable.
After the requested was acknowledged, the supervisor then took the next step and accepted it as legitimate. Her actions, in essence, indicated to the father that she agreed with the reasonableness of his request. Again, the fact that her acceptance of the request affected other people at the hospital seemingly did not cross her mind, or if it did, she quickly dismissed it. The supervisor, apparently, was not awareness of, thinking about or was ignorant of U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) regulations that prohibit discrimination. In any case, she was not conducting herself appropriately in her position with respect to her co-workers. She must have thought that European Americans still have to power and privilege to discriminate when they desire to do so.
The next step taken by the supervisor, putting the request into action, is the most serious action of all because it not only ignored the well-being of the African American nurses but also put the hospital in jeopardy. The article noted that Nurse Battle said that she “was shocked, offended and in disbelief that she was so egregiously discriminated against based on her race and re-assigned.” We are told in the article that “Battle, who was taken off the case, was allegedly later told by a supervisor that the patient’s request was granted. The [law] suit also states that a note was appended to the patient’s file that read ‘No African American nurse to take care of baby.’”
Today, as American citizens, we look around and see examples of how society is starting to embrace its diversity in a positive way, and we often forget that just because laws were written and instituted to remove elements of discrimination in society that all is well. We need look on further that our political system to verify that all is not well. Many Americans have yet to accept Barack Obama as President simply because he is African American. We must acknowledge that the prejudice that was ingrained in the European American’s psyche for several hundred years will take some time to be removed, if ever. In some cases we will rely on mother nature for assistance, otherwise we must look to education and information for help.
The Battle lawsuit should serve as a reminder to all of us that much work remains to be done regarding eliminating ethnic prejudice. Some of that work should come in the form of education that debunks the false concept of multi-biological races. Science has proven beyond a doubt that all human being are 99.9% alike; that skin color, eye color, hair texture are all superficial elements. Human blood and organs are not assigned an ethnic designation regarding use, so why should we be so ignorant about physical appearance? The longer we accept and recognize the false concepts and assumption about race, the more we will see examples like Battle’s.
The hospital where this incident took place should institute a program of ethnic education for all its employees in order to avoid a repeat of the Battle experience. The education should not focus on how different we are, but how much alike we are and the minor differences are just that, minor. The fact that the supervisor acknowledged, accepted and activated the biased request showed ignorance and a lack of regard and sensitivity towards all the African American employers, not just the nurses. The supervisor’s decision led to a collapse of communication of among professionals, a reassessment of standards and values by everyone involved in the hospital environment. An apology will not be sufficient to remedy the harm that has been done to the African American employees because from the action of the supervisor, the problem is systemic, not arbitrary.
We as a society need to get to a point where anyone making a request that discriminates against any ethnic person or group would feel uneasy doing so because he or she knows that it will not be granted. Getting to that point, however, will require consistent attention and hard work. Evidently, we still have a ways to go

Paul R. Lehman, Civil rights for all Americans is a constant battle

December 2, 2012 at 4:38 pm | Posted in Abigail Fisher, Affirmative Action, African American, American Bigotry, blacks, college admission, desegregation, Equal Opportunity, equality, European American, fairness, integregation, justice, minority, Prejudice, segregation, U.S. Supreme Court, whites | 3 Comments
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Most Americans do not dwell on the fact that America was created as a biased society and that the government was one of the prime movers in creating, maintaining, and promoting segregation and discrimination. After all, the government is not some strange, mysterious organization that influences the lives of the people. No, the government is not strange and mysterious; the government is the people and the mind-set and perceptions of the people in control of the government does affect and influence the lives of the people. Since American society had distinct biases against African Americans that were spelled out in the laws, those laws had to be challenged in order to effect change. Many of the laws were neither just nor fair, but they were legal. Many of the laws created problems for society because they were contrary to the ideals and values that America promoted to the world. For example, the government sanctioned laws of segregation that discriminated against African Americans.

The rights of the people are protected by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, so any challenge to an existing law must eventually go through the Supreme Court.  For example, the concept of separate but equal laws that supported segregation in society had to be challenged and brought before the Supreme Court.  In 1954 the case Brown v. Board of Education which involved a young African American student, Linda Brown, who was prevented from attending a white neighborhood school, was successfully argued before the Supreme Court. As a result, the law was changed and schools were ordered to desegregate. To some Americans, this ruling was wrong because it took away their rights to segregate in spite of the fact that to do so was considered un-American. The anger came from the fact that the government had been aiding and abetting the concepts of segregation and discrimination against African Americans, women, and other ethnic Americans since after the Civil War. Many citizens believed that America belonged to European Americans only and that they had the right to live any way they pleased. The concept that living in a society had responsibilities as well as benefits for all individuals was lost on many European Americans.

So, when groups like the NAACP began challenging some of the laws that had prevented African Americans from enjoying the pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness, they were vigorously opposed. The belief was that when a law was changed to correct a long-standing abuse, that change in the law gave the plaintiffs an unfair advantage. The resentment of some Americans regarding the rights given to African Americans in particular, resulted in a number of cases challenging, for example, Affirmative Action that allowed race to be considered in college and university applications for admission. Several cases have become part of our common knowledge including a recent case involving Abigail Fisher, a young European American female who claimed she was discriminated against because she was white. In essence, she claims that she was denied admission to the University of Texas in favor of an African American with lesser academic qualifications. What most Americans do not know is that Miss Fisher’s case was used as a test case to challenge the use of race in college and university admissions.

In a November 15, 2012 article in The Washington Spectator,” Lou Dubose, the writer, introduces us to the crusader who wants to undo many of the civil rights laws: “Edward Blum’s campaign to dismantle statues and case law that provide advantages to minority groups began in 1992. After Blum, who is white and ran as a Republican, failed to unseat a black Democratic congressman, he filed his first lawsuit.” Blum is the behind-the-scene backer of the Fisher case. Although what Blum does is legal, one wonders why he believes hundred of years of preferential treatment favoring European American is acceptable and need not be changed when we witness the results of years of injustice in education every day. Dubose notes that “Blum confirmed that his litigation is funded by Donors Trust and that the names of contributors to the fundraising collective are not available to the public.” Dubose does mention that there might be some connection with the Koch brothers via the Donors Trust.

So, while many Americans view the language in our national documents that describe life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for all its citizens, some American have yet to accept the concept of democracy and the diversity that make this country strong. Many of the people Blum represents in his lawsuits have a mind-set that speaks to the idea of “just us” as apposed to “justice.” He identifies these people and says “The Reagan-era cabal of Federalist Society lawyers and think-tankers co-opted the “equal rights” language of the civil rights movement and managed to turn the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment against the people it was intended to protect.”

What this writer finds difficult to understand is how the courts can omit or discount the conditions that resulted from the laws and not consider them in the reasons for wanting to over-turn the laws. If Affirmative Action was created to address some social ills based on race, how can race be removed when trying to correct the problem? If race is removed, what is left to combat the problems of segregation and discrimination that existed before Affirmative Action? None-the-less, Dubose notes that “Meanwhile, the consensus of legal scholars has the Court wiping out some, if not all, of the race-based college admissions practices that Fisher and Blum are challenging in Texas.”

What seems to be the primary reason for some Americans wanting to proscribe the rights and privileges of ethnic and minority Americans is bigotry. In spite of our history of injustice, discrimination, segregation, prejudice, and bigotry, some people would like society to not address these detrimental features in an effort to create a better, more democratic and just America. They, in fact, want to destroy the progress we as a society have made. So, now we know that the fight for civil rights for all Americans is a continuous battle.

Next Page »

Blog at WordPress.com.
Entries and comments feeds.