To All: what do you think of affirmative action?

It was just a curiousity, nothing to do with any point system. When you sign up, what is the minimum time you must serve? One year, three years?
 

ohioboy said:
It was just a curiousity, nothing to do with any point system. When you sign up, what is the minimum time you must serve? One year, three years?
Click to expand...
AH ... I did edit my post to try and answer your question. It varies. Could be two, three, four ... even six. Varies somewhat by branch and type of enlistment.

My edit: The minimum time in service varies. My minimum time was longer than most because of the Advanced Electronic Schools I was required to attend for my rating. The schools were two years long and in order to get those schools, I was required to enlist for a minimum of 6yrs. Part of the reason being that in the civilian world, that education could easily be turned into making MUCH more money than paid by the military for enlisted service and the military wanted something back out of the benefit of advanced schooling.

Also just to add and clarify ... my 6yrs minimum was a standard 4yr enlistment with a 2yr extension because of the schools. Also, at the end of 6yrs I got a $20k 4yr reenlistment bonus because of the valuable schools and rating. The military wanted and needed us to stay. The reenlistment bonus did go up to $30K but by then I was no longer eligible. Only applied to first term reenlistment. There are other ratings that get reenlistment bonus too ... and those vary as well. I think those in the nuclear rating fields got as much as $60k reenlistment bonuses at the time. Those jobs were in high demand in the civilian sector. I've been retired from the military since 2006.
 
Last edited:
They stopped the draft before I turned 18. If all had to go through the boot camp type regime, I would not have made it, bad back, very weak shoulder, etc. There would have been no way I could have done all that push up, rope climbing rigor.
 

ohioboy said:
They stopped the draft before I turned 18. If all had to go through the boot camp type regime, I would not have made it, bad back, very weak shoulder, etc. There would have been no way I could have done all that push up, rope climbing rigor.
Click to expand...

Sounds like you likely would have gotten a medical waiver/deferment even had there been a draft.
The draft was still going on when I turned 18 and I registered for the draft ... still have my draft card around here somewhere.
I too got a deferment ... I went off to college the fall I turned 18. College education was worth a 1-H draft deferment.
After college, the draft was still going on but it was a lottery system based on date of birth and I got lucky my number didn't come up.
After 1973 when they did away with the draft, I stopped worrying about it.
Thing was, I felt obligated to serve my country and finally joined of my own free will. I was 33 when I joined. An "elderly recruit" :ROFLMAO:
 
Please pray tell, exactly what are the benefits of a diverse student body? Many Asian students enter colleges on their own merits and contributed to the diversity game. Matter of fact some of these Asians are purposedly kept out of the colleges in order to increase their diversity. Really! Strange!

If the US really want to increase diversity at the colleges, they would start at grammar school and continue onto high school. the US should contribute more to primary and secondary school enrichment programs and strive to give the black students an equal primary and secondary school education.

The failure of the blacks in higher education is a reflection of the failure of the US governments in providing the black students an adequate and equal education in primary and secondary schools.
 
Naturally said:
Sounds like you likely would have gotten a medical waiver/deferment even had there been a draft.
The draft was still going on when I turned 18 and I registered for the draft ... still have my draft card around here somewhere.
I too got a deferment ... I went off to college the fall I turned 18. College education was worth a 1-H draft deferment.
After college, the draft was still going on but it was a lottery system based on date of birth and I got lucky my number didn't come up.
After 1973 when they did away with the draft, I stopped worrying about it.
Thing was, I felt obligated to serve my country and finally joined of my own free will. I was 33 when I joined. An "elderly recruit" :ROFLMAO:
Click to expand...
A Soldier may submit a 1-A-0 conscientious objector application when the Soldier is sincerely opposed because of religious or deeply held moral or ethical (not political, philosophical or sociological) beliefs to participating as a combatant (including training in tactics or weapons) in war in any form. This what I did in 1970. After completion of the 2 year mandatory service, ( which has to be as "sacrificing" as military duty), I can not receive veteran benifits...medical-educational...etc. Why!!!! I was discriminated against. Where was AA then for those who gave up 2 years of their life?
 
As far as preference points for veterans they have earned those points by defending the country. They are proven workers who have learned to follow direction on a job and have experience doing so. To an employer a veteran should be considered far more valuable than someone just out of school who has no experience or only experience in the civilian world.

If I am not mistaken employers used to be required to hold jobs for veterans who were called up to serve the country.

What is the USERRA Act of 1994?

The Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA) is a federal law, passed in 1994, that protects military service members and veterans from employment discrimination on the basis of their service, and allows them to regain their civilian jobs following a period of uniformed service.
 
ohioboy said:
When you join up, what is the minimum time you have to serve?
Click to expand...
When I graduated from college, Vietnam hadn’t happened, but I was draft eligible. Believing that no employer would want me with the draft hanging over my head I joined the Navy with a 3 year active duty commitment and OCS. After OCS I finished my 3 years on a carrier, eventually supervising 60 men. Then was offered 2 years shore duty in Spain if I agreed to extend my enlistment. With five years under my belt I got out and got the first job I applied for, which was civilian. I knew nothing about “points” and in any case had no interest in a government job.
 
Last edited:
In my Transition Packet they gave me when I retired, there were blank copies to apply for Federal employment.
Also included in the packet was a printout of my AFSC's (military jobs) and the civilian jobs they related to.
They reminded me about the 5 points.
Later, the VA sent me a letter that I was now a 10-point Vet.

Never applied for any Federal jobs for some nonrational feelings.
Think my last 4 years as an instructor and being deployed continually, cemented that.

After all those years watching civilian people do their jobs, open their lunch boxes, kick back without a care in the world.
I wanted that so bad. To just grab my lunch, jump in my truck, do my job and not take my job home.

Sorry to get so far off-field about AA.
 
Buckeye said:
As an aside, arm wrestling over admission to Harvard is the wrong place to focus our efforts. It needs to start waaay earlier than that. For example, there are a number of studies that show that white kids have twice the working vocabulary as black kids when entering Kindergarten. 5 years old. Theories abound, but the common fact is that the black child is born to a poor family, which limits all sorts of things. 70% of black children are born to a single parent household, vs 28% for white children. I personally thing both of these numbers are way to high, but the reality is that the black child is disadvantaged at conception. And that's where the changes have to start. You want to improve the admission stats at Harvard? By then, it's really kinda too late.
Click to expand...
I agree with that so much. Not only is it too late at the Harvard level, those AA scholarships at college level can be heart breaking in many cases. I once read an article saying that many of those students who were admitted through AA, without being as well qualified as the other students, failed out and felt so bad about it when it was never their fault, they were just thrown in over their heads.

We need head start programs and good daycares with language and learning readiness part of the care. We need every K-12 school in America well equipped and with fully qualified teachers. Some of our intercity and rural high schools are so run down the restrooms don't work, the classes are over crowded, and the teachers only show up a few days a week. The kids bring their music and talk and dance all period.

Then we need affordable commuter colleges in every town. No one should need their student loans forgiven, they should be able to get a good degree locally without spending a fortune.
 
"Affirmative Action" should be structured such that everyone has an equal opportunity to make a good life for themselves. If they are unwilling to take advantage of such programs, they can find "sympathy" in the dictionary.
 
Della said:
I agree with that so much. Not only is it too late at the Harvard level, those AA scholarships at college level can be heart breaking in many cases. I once read an article saying that many of those students who were admitted through AA, without being as well qualified as the other students, failed out and felt so bad about it when it was never their fault, they were just thrown in over their heads.

We need head start programs and good daycares with language and learning readiness part of the care. We need every K-12 school in America well equipped and with fully qualified teachers. Some of our intercity and rural high schools are so run down the restrooms don't work, the classes are over crowded, and the teachers only show up a few days a week. The kids bring their music and talk and dance all period.

Then we need affordable commuter colleges in every town. No one should need their student loans forgiven, they should be able to get a good degree locally without spending a fortune.
Click to expand...

I agree that if you want to help all succeed it starts way before college ........
Lets take k-12 education usually the basic outline and curriculum is written by state ......... then school districts implement..... so look around in your own community or check the best rated schools ...... many in more expensive neighborhoods but not always ..... if in same district and same system how does one school out perform another ?
Simply put student and perhaps also parent involvement ............
what have many schools done in last few years .... skip tests so those who do poorly on tests do not FEEL bad. How is that helping? ........ identifying and helping those who need it is better then treating school as a social and move everyone along.

when kids are engaged and motivated IMO has little to do with the building shape or amenities or diversity.
 
I didn't know anything these prestigious school "legacy admissions." Believe me, I've never been anywhere near any prestigious school. I have heard a call if afirmative action for admissions is eleminated, then these need to go also and I 100% agree.

What do I think of affirmative action? I'm not 100% sure. I think people can use a hand up. But there are people who can use it, that won't get it. I get sick of someone like Van Jones on CNN playing a victim. He says he was first in his family to go to college. And wow did he. I went to school with a woman who was the same. But no one cared about her.
 
Feelslikefar said:
I knew that 'Veteran Preference' would enter into this thread.

Yes, a Veteran can get 5 extra points for some goverment jobs,
and 10 points to Disabled Veterans.

When a person enlists, they set aside any advancement in the civilian work force.
Be it 4 years, 6 years or 20+ years of commitment to their country, it is a Commitment.

I realize this upsets some and they think it unfair.
To me, it seems to be a small thank you for putting things on hold.

It Is Not A Hand-Out.
Click to expand...
Well said!
What is the racial make up of the veterans in the U.S. or is the assumption that only whites are veterans who go on pursue a career?
 
Naturally said:
AH ... I did edit my post to try and answer your question. It varies. Could be two, three, four ... even six. Varies somewhat by branch and type of enlistment.

My edit: The minimum time in service varies. My minimum time was longer than most because of the Advanced Electronic Schools I was required to attend for my rating. The schools were two years long and in order to get those schools, I was required to enlist for a minimum of 6yrs. Part of the reason being that in the civilian world, that education could easily be turned into making MUCH more money than paid by the military for enlisted service and the military wanted something back out of the benefit of advanced schooling.

Also just to add and clarify ... my 6yrs minimum was a standard 4yr enlistment with a 2yr extension because of the schools. Also, at the end of 6yrs I got a $20k 4yr reenlistment bonus because of the valuable schools and rating. The military wanted and needed us to stay. The reenlistment bonus did go up to $30K but by then I was no longer eligible. Only applied to first term reenlistment. There are other ratings that get reenlistment bonus too ... and those vary as well. I think those in the nuclear rating fields got as much as $60k reenlistment bonuses at the time. Those jobs were in high demand in the civilian sector. I've been retired from the military since 2006.
Click to expand...
Thank you for standing up for America.
 
Murrmurr said:
Particularly if the job includes lots of contact with customers and/or teams within the company. If there's diversity in the customer base and/or among co-workers and team members, you want someone who's relatable. Or at least someone who appears relatable.
Click to expand...
The problem with a rule that permissible is that it could and would be misused. In the case of college admission, set a non racial standard such as an SAT score and leave it at that. If too many qualify, then raise the standard. Those current Lowell High demographics I quoted in a different post are based on grades and test scores without regard to race, and like it or not would be typical of a non racial admission standard. BTW The superior race in terms of IQ is not European/American White, it's East Asian. Both are topped by Ashkenazi Jews. Why? I believe there is good reason to believe that it is genetic.
 
ElCastor said:
The problem with a rule that permissible is that it could and would be misused. In the case of college admission, set a non racial standard such as an SAT score and leave it at that. If too many qualify, then raise the standard. Those current Lowell High demographics I quoted in a different post are based on grades and test scores without regard to race, and like it or not would be typical of a non racial admission standard. BTW The superior race in terms of IQ is not European/American White, it's East Asian. Both are topped by Ashkenazi Jews. Why? I believe there is good reason to believe that it is genetic.
Click to expand...
Yes. That's why I pointed out that civil rights laws are enough and Affirmative Action is a waste of money.
 
I can not venture an opinion about this without seeing who actually benefited and the year they received the benefit of affirmative action. Without a doubt I believe that diversity in general should be considered in educational settings. After all….is not that the argument used to integrate profoundly disabled children into our classrooms? Or…how about women in sports? Without some of that particular guidance Harvard and Yale could look pretty darn…white.
 
Muskrat said:
I can not venture an opinion about this without seeing who actually benefited and the year they received the benefit of affirmative action. Without a doubt I believe that diversity in general should be considered in educational settings. After all….is not that the argument used to integrate profoundly disabled children into our classrooms? Or…how about women in sports? Without some of that particular guidance Harvard and Yale could look pretty darn…white.
Click to expand...
No apologies here for being white. I suppose some run while watching their feet, but others want to contribute to society, like my cousin who was murdered in her senior year of college. This isn't about really disabled children who do often exceed through hard work.
What will the next generation demand and when will it ever end?
 
  1. LII
  3. Wex
  5. affirmative action

affirmative action​

Primary tabs​

Affirmative action is defined as a set of procedures designed to; eliminate unlawful discrimination among applicants, remedy the results of such prior discrimination, and prevent such discrimination in the future. Applicants may be seeking admission to an educational program or looking for professional employment. In modern American jurisprudence, it typically imposes remedies against discrimination on the basis of (at the very least) race, creed, color, and national origin.

Legal Origins​

While the concept of affirmative action has existed in America since the 19th century, it first appeared in its current form in President Kennedy's Executive Order 10925 (1961): "The contractor will take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin."

Employment:​

Government Contractors​

In 1961, President John F. Kennedy issued an executive order mandating government contractors to "take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin." (Executive Order 10925) Since 1965, government contractors have been required to document their affirmative action programs through compliance reports, to contain "such information as to the practices, policies, programs, and employment policies, programs, and employment statistics of the contractor and each subcontractor . . . " (Executive Order 11246). Enforcement is conducted by the U.S Department of Labor’s Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs.
In Richmond v. Croson, 488 U.S. 469 (1989), the Supreme Court held that strict scrutiny applies to state statutes which set standards for affirmative action.

General​

Employers who contract with the government or who otherwise receive federal funds are required to document their affirmative action practices and metrics. Affirmative action is also a remedy, under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, where a court finds that an employer has intentionally engaged in discriminatory practices.
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, created by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, enforces the following employment anti-discrimination laws:
  • Equal Pay Act of 1963
  • Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (race, color, religion, national origin)
  • Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (people of a certain age)
  • Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Sections 501 and 505 (people with disabilities)
  • Titles I and V of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
  • Civil Rights Act of 1991

Education:​

Recipients of federal funds are required to document their affirmative action practices and metrics. Educational institutions which have acted discriminatorily in the past must take affirmative action as a remedy. (34 CFR § 100.3(6)(ii)).
The Office of Civil Rights enforces the following education anti-discrimination laws:
  • Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (race, color, religion, national origin)
  • Age Discrimination Act of 1975 (people of a certain age)
  • Title IX of the Educational Amendments of 1972 (gender)
  • Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (people with disabilities)
  • Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
  • The Boy Scouts of America Equal Access Act (Section 9525 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001) (equal access for outside community groups to school facilities during non-school hours)

Supreme Court Decisions Related to Education:​

In chronological order, here is a non-exhaustive list of Supreme Court decisions related to affirmative action.

Brown v Board​

In Brown v. Board of Education, 374 U.S. 483 (1954), the Supreme Court held that public schools may not exclude minoritystudents from white schools by sending the minority students to a school that separately services minority students. This decision acted as a precursor to many of the education-based affirmative action cases in the Supreme Court which followed in later years.

Regents v. Bakke​

In Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265 (1978), the University of California's Medical School at Davis reserved 16 spots in each entering class of 100 students for minority students. The Court did not hold a majorityopinion, but the main legal takeaway from Bakke is that the Constitution prohibits a school from having racial quotas.

Gratz v. Bollinger​

In Gratz v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 244 (2003), the University of Michigan's Undergraduate Admissions Office used a points-based system in its admission process. The office added points for an applicant who was an underrepresented minority. The Supreme Court held that the race-based methods must use strict scrutiny. The Court held that the generalization of "underrepresented minorities" failed the narrow tailoring requirement that strict scrutiny imposes.

Grutter v. Bollinger​

In Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003), the University of Michigan Law School Admissions Office used race in its admissions process. However, the school did not assign points based on race. Instead, the school used race as one of a number of factors; race could not automatically result in an acceptance or a rejection (which contrasts with Gratz, in which those 20 points used in Gratz could have resulted in admission or rejection).The Court held that this plan is narrowly tailored enough to satisfy strict scrutiny because the "program is flexible enough to ensure that each applicant is evaluated as an individual and not in a way that makes race or ethnicity the defining feature of the application . . . The Law School engages in a highly individualized, holistic review of each applicant's file, giving serious consideration to all the ways an applicant might contribute to a diverse educational environment." In dicta contained in the majority opinion, Justice O'Connor wrote, "The Court expects that 25 years from now, the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary to further the interest approved today."

Fisher v. Texas​

In Fisher v. University of Texas, 579 U.S. (2016), the University of Texas at Austin used a Top Ten Percent Law, in which any student who graduated in the top 10% of their high school class would be granted admission to the University. If an applicant was not in the top 10% of his or her high school class, the University would create an Academic Index (AI) and a Personal Achievement Index (PAI) for each student.
The AI calculated SAT scores and high school academic performance, the PAI considered applicant’s essays, as well as a full-file review" which included leadership and work experience, extracurricular activities, community service, and other “special characteristics” that might give the admissions committee insight into a student’s background; race was included as one of these special characteristics.
The Court found that the University's use of race constitutes a "factor of a factor of a factor," which, as one factor in the University's holistic review process, is narrow enough to meet strict scrutiny. The Court also held that there is a compelling interest in "obtaining the educational benefits that flow from student body diversity." As such, strict scrutiny is satisfied, and the Court held that the use of race in the University's admissions efforts was constitutional.

Additional Resources:​

For more information on affirmative action, see this Harvard Law Review article, and this Michigan Law Review article.

Supreme Court & Case Resources​

  • University of California Regents v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265 (1978)
  • Fullilove v. Klutznick, 448 U.S. 448 (1980)
  • Wygant v. Jackson Board of Education, 476 U.S. 267 (1986)
  • United States v. Paradise, 480 U.S. 149 (1987)
  • City of Richmond v. Croson, 488 U.S. 469 (1989)
  • Adarand Constructors v. Pena, 515 U.S. 200 (1995)
  • Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003)
  • Gratz v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 244 (2003)
  • Alexander v. Sandoval, 532 U.S. 275 (2001)
  • Pennsylvania State Police v. Suders, 542 U.S. 129 (2004)
  • General Dynamics Land Systems Inc. v. Cline et al., 540 U.S. 581 (2004)

Documents​

  • Executive Order 10925 (1961)
  • Executive Order 11246 (1965)
  • Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. Ch. 21)

Agencies​

  • Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs, Department of Labor
  • Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
  • Office of Civil Rights, Department of Education

Federal Material​

Federal Statutes​

  • USC §§ 1981, 1981a, 1983, 1988 - Nineteenth Century Civil Rights Acts
  • 29 USC § 206 - Equal Pay Act of 1963
  • 42 USC Ch. 21 - Civil Rights Act of 1964
  • 29 USC §§ 621 - 634 - The Age Discrimination in Employment Act (1967)
  • 20 USC §§ 1681-1688 - Title IX Education Amendments (1972)
  • 29 USC §§ 791, 793, 794(a) - The Rehabilitation Act of 1973
  • 38 USC § 4212 - Vietnam Era Veterans' Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974
  • 42 USC Ch. 126 - Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
  • Civil Rights Act of 1991

Federal Agency Regulations​

  • 34 CFR Chapter I - Office of Civil Rights
  • 34 CFR 100.3(b)(6)(i)
  • 29 CFR Chapt. XIV - Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
  • 41 CFR Part 60-2 Affirmative Action Programs - Office of Federal Contract Compliance

Federal Judicial Decisions​

  • U.S. Supreme Court:
    • Recent Decisions on Affirmative Action

Additional Topics:​

[Last updated in June of 2022 by theWex Definitions Team]
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top