Web Search powered by YAHOO! SEARCH
06.22.2009 8:58 pm

Arizona voters to decide if affirmative action should end

St. Louis Post-Dispatch
  • Email this
  • Print this

The Associated Press is reporting that “Arizonans will vote next year on a proposed state constitutional amendment to generally prohibit state and local governments from discrimination and preferential treatment based on race, ethnicity and sex.”

AP’s Paul Davenport reports:

The proposed constitutional amendment does not use the words “affirmative action,” but supporters said it would end discrimination and preferential treatment in public education and government employment and contracting.

The measure was championed by California activist Ward Connerly, president of the American Civil Rights Institute, and the Arizona Civil Rights Initiative, a group that circulated petitions trying to get the amendment on the ballot .  AP quotes Connerly, avowed critic of affirmative action programs:

“We’re still dividing the American people into these arbitrary groups and making distinctions about them on the basis of how they spell their last name or the color of their skin and where their great-granddaddy came from.”

AP reports that four other states — California, Nebraska, Michigan and Washington — have approved versions put on the ballot through voter petitions. Colorado voters last November became the first in the nation to reject it.

AP reports:

Sen. Rebecca Rios, D-Apache Junction, said she voted against the resolution because some preferences are still needed.

“I don’t think we’re there yet. I think we’ve made tremendous gains, but I think in certain situations there’s still the need for this, whether it’s with women-owned businesses or … certain situations where gains need to be made,” Rios said after the Senate vote.

1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (No Ratings Yet)
Loading ... Loading ...
68 comments

Comments are closed.

What about the Native Americans? Should they not recieve the same AA? How about the Irish, who were oppressed starting in the late 1800’s and lastint well past the abolishment of slavery. Catholics were discriminated against in this country, does that mean they have some “catching up” to do that AA could help with? What about women? What about Homosexuals, they were repressed for many centuries, should they not recieve AA.

As much as I understand that racism went well into the 1960’s….at what point do we get rid of AA? Who decides? Bottom line (and correct me if i’m wrong) AA is a racist piece of legislation….it is based on the color of ones’s skin….how far removed from the African race do you need to be to still recieve benefiets?

It is flawed, and needs to go.

— the Bard
11:23 am June 23rd, 2009

Okay. Lets say we do get rid of affirmative action, the NAACP, UNCF, I would say BET but heck, that is just TV. Are we guarnteed that we will not slip back to pre civil rights again? Can we be sure that things have changed enough that we will be treated fairly?
As for Taxpayers 12% rule. I hear cry’s from whites all the time that the most qualified should get the job. Which I happen to agree with. So, how can limiting the number of minorities be fair? I have no problem if a white person is the best person for the job. Can y’all say the same about a person that is a minority. If that person is hispamic, asian, Native American or black? That if they are the best for the job then it is theirs. Or would you trot out the poor white mans tribulation once again.

— Thomas Franklin
11:46 am June 23rd, 2009

I don’t think you can be sure of anything in this world. But I don’t think the NAACP and AA could stop that anyway.
How about a compromise, we keep affirmative action in ex-confederate states (really the only place it is needed) but abolish it in the abolishionist states.

— the Bard
12:10 pm June 23rd, 2009

No, spyguy, I don’t and that is my point. Without affirmitive action, that won’t wouldn’t happen. I’ll know that everyone got way they on merit only.

— A CENTRIST
12:17 pm June 23rd, 2009

Here’s a thought. What about populations that have a lot of “minorities”; like Saint Louis or Detroit. Would AA be needed in these cities as well? Discuss.

— Mike Meyers
12:44 pm June 23rd, 2009

Of course you don’t. No one does. That is the privilege of being white. We can become whatever we want without others assuming that we didn’t earn our place, even if we, in fact, didn’t “earn” our place.

— spyguy
1:06 pm June 23rd, 2009

Bard- I have an even better idea. How about we let the southern states seceed and let them have their own laws, and let them decide what sort of society they want, like every other country in the world. You know, rule of the majority? Self-determination? Isn’t that why we fought in Europe twice? Oh, wait, the South tried that once before and got invaded and plundered for asserting their rights as described in the Declaration of Independence. Lets face it, the Feds will always dictate to us, depite what the will of majority might be.

— taxpayer
1:12 pm June 23rd, 2009

Here we go again. Affirmative action is NOT racist. It was a program, approved by WHITE lawmakers mind you, that was needed to counter-act overt white racism. People, white people, were hiring just based on skin tone. The best and the brightest were not being hired, the best of the whitest were being hired.

There is a very racist assumption shared by many on this blog that AA gets unqualified minorities hired. That is not the case. It gets qualified minorities an opportunity that they were being denied by white employers. To think that an ER doctor who is a minority may have gotten his job because of AA, and is therefore less qualified, borders on complete and utter stupidity. Here is why he may have been hired: Gasp!- he/she might have been more qualified than a white person. Befor AA, this minority may not have been given the chance. Now, he/she has that chance. The fact that we assume minorities are less qualified in the first place shows that we still need AA. Apparently we are not as enlightened as we thougt we were. Our thought process has not changed much since the sixties.

Also, there was a lot of “victim” talk on the last blog. Black people need to stop playing the “victim” card and take responsibility. Fair enough. That seems logical. I am a little dissapointed in my white brothers, though. When the topic of AA comes up, we immediately are the victims. We are being discriminated against. It has to stop. Why de we not feel this same sense of “End Discrimination Now!” for our minority brothers and sisters? That is a little hypocritical.

Anyway, as we all know, white males are in charge of this country, more or less. I think we would agree on that. After all, we are the majority, and majority rules. How in the world though can we stop the white male from discriminating against his own kind? How can we stop the racist practices of the white male against the white male? They are keeping us down! I demand that this stop. White on white discrimination is the gravest danger facing this country. Of course I am being silly. The white male is not a victim, he is not being held down, he is not being dicriminated against. Until white people, white males in particular, stop playing the victim card, race relations will never improve in this country. We say that enough about black people; now it is time to look at ourselves.

— clyde
1:19 pm June 23rd, 2009

The fact is that each state is a member of the United States. This being said the U.S. Constitution is supreme as well as the laws made in pursuance thereof. Arizona being a state in the United States will be expected to abide in the law. This is part of a pattern of sedition the Republican party is spreading in the Southern parts of the United States. It is attempting to disparage the rights of especially democrats. The democrats should take the offensive and remove thousands if not millions of Republicans from the public payroll. These folks are attempting to undermine the government as usual and the law should be upheld. See at this time they have a slim majority on the Supreme Court, and they are attempting to exercise power from there in defiance of the election. This needs to be nipped in the bud the Administration will not be negated by the least representative of the three branches of government. It is Republican stock in trade to undermine the government while agitating for it to whither away. See the Republicans in league as usual with Communists, Socialists, and Royalists there is not a good American among them. We should rid ourselves of this tyranny as should as possible.

— Michael Mullarkey
1:24 pm June 23rd, 2009

Michael, drop the pathetic rhetoric. I’m a Republican. Read my post and see if I fill your description. I know PLENTY of white Dems that echo the “drop AA” and “AA is racism” type talk. Stop being so intellectually lazy and debate the points at hand instead of slipping into indoctrinated mantra mode…

— Tim
1:53 pm June 23rd, 2009

Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 » Show All