Jim Crow laws are the segregation of public schools, public places, and public transportation, and the segregation of restrooms, restaurants, and drinking fountains for whites and blacks. The U.S. military was also segregated, as were federal workplaces In the United States, the most notorious Black Codes were laws passed by Southern states in 1865 and 1866, after the Civil War. These laws had the intent and the effect of restricting African Americans' freedom, and of compelling them to work in a labor economy based on low wages or debt Slave codes were laws in each U.S. state, which defined the status of slaves and the rights of masters. These codes gave slave-owners absolute power over the enslaved Virginia, 1639 “Act XI. All persons except Negroes are to be provided with arms and ammunitions or be fined at the pleasure of the governor and council.” Virginia, 1662 “Whereas some doubts have arisen whether children got by any Englishmen upon a Negro shall be slave or Free, Be it therefore enacted and declared by this present Grand assembly, that all children born in this country shall be held bond or free only according to the condition of the mother." Maryland, 1664 “That whatsoever free-born [English] woman shall intermarry with any slave [...] shall serve the master of such slave during the life of her husband; and that all the issue of such free-born women, so married shall be slaves as their fathers were.” Virginia, 1667 “Act III. Whereas some doubts have arisen whether children that are slaves by birth [...] should by virtue of their baptism be made free, it is enacted that baptism does not alter the condition to the person as to his bondage or freedom; masters freed from this doubt may more carefully propagate Christianity by permitting slaves to be admitted to that sacrament.” Virginia, 1682 “Act I. It is enacted that all servants [...] which shall be imported into this country either by sea or by land, whether Negroes, Moors [Muslim North Africans], mulattoes or Indians who and whose parentage and native countries are not Christian at the time of their first purchase by some Christian [...] and all Indians, which shall be sold by our neighboring Indians, or any other trafficking with us for slaves, are hereby adjudged, deemed and taken to be slaves to all intents and purposes any law, usage, or custom to the contrary notwithstanding.” Virginia, 1705 [1]"All servants imported and brought into the Country...who were not Christians in their native Country...shall be accounted and be slaves. All Negro, mulatto and Indian slaves within this dominion...shall be held to be real estate." South Carolina, 1712 "Be it therefore enacted, by his Excellency, William, Lord Craven, Palatine.... and the rest of the members of the General Assembly, now met at Charles Town, for the South-west part of this Province, and by the authority of the same, That all negroes, mulattoes, mestizo's or Indians, which at any time heretofore have been sold, or now are held or taken to be, or hereafter shall be bought and sold for slaves, are hereby declared slaves; and they, and their children, are hereby made and declared slaves..." 1961 – Executive Order 10925,[33] issued by President Kennedy Established the concept of affirmative action by mandating that projects financed with federal funds "take affirmative action" to ensure that hiring and employment practices are free of racial bias. 1964 – Section 717 of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 1965 – U.S. Executive Order 11246 and Executive Order 11375 The Johnson administration embraced affirmative action in 1965, by issuing U.S Executive order 11246, later amended by Executive order 11375. The order, as amended, aims "to correct the effects of past and present discrimination". It prohibits federal contractors and subcontractors from discriminating against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, skin color, religion, gender, or national origin. The order requires that contractors take affirmative action to ensure that "protected class, underutilized applicants" are employed when available, and that employees are treated without negative discriminatory regard to their protected-class status. The order specifically requires certain organizations accepting federal funds to take affirmative action to increase employment of members of preferred racial or ethnic groups and women. Any organization with fifty or more employees and an aggregate revenue exceeding $50,000 from a single federal contract during a twelve-month period must have a written affirmative action plan. This plan must include goals and timetables for achieving full utilization of women and members of racial minorities, in quotas based on an analysis of the current workforce compared to the availability in the general labor pool of women and members of racial minorities. The order is enforced by the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs of the Employment Standards Administration of the U. S. Department of Labor and by the Office of Civil Rights of the Justice Department. 1969 – Revised Philadelphia Plan During the Nixon administration, affirmative action was adopted as a federal mandate for companies with federal contracts and for labor unions whose workers were engaged in those projects. This revised Philadelphia Plan was spearheaded by Labor Department official Arthur Fletcher.[34] 1971 – Executive Order No. 11625,[35] issued by President Nixon This order claims to build upon the Office of Minority Business Enterprise (MBE) established in 1969 by clarifying the Secretary of Commerce's authority to "(a) implement Federal policy in support of the minority business enterprise program; (b) provide additional technical and management assistance to disadvantaged businesses; (c) to assist in demonstration projects; and (d) to coordinate the participation of all Federal departments and agencies in an increased minority enterprise effort." 1971 – Griggs v. Duke Power Company 401 U.S. 424 (1971) Griggs V. Duke Power Company was a court case in December of 1970 and was ruled in favor of the prosecutor in March 1971. The case was arguing that Duke’s requirement of a high school diploma and an IQ test was discriminating against African-Americans. When compared to white candidates, African-Americans were accepted far less for positions. It was found that Whites that had been working the jobs who fulfilled neither requirement did it just as well as those who did. The Supreme Court ruled that under title VII of the Civil Rights Act that if the requirements were impeding minorities, the business had to demonstrate that the tests were necessary for the job.[36] They ruled that these tests were not necessary, and Duke was found in violation of the Act. 1973 – Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 Section 717 of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 require all United States Federal Agencies to implement affirmative employment opportunity programs for all federal employees. EEOC Equal Employment Opportunity Management Directive 715 (MD 715) provides guidance as to how such programs are to be implemented. 1974 – DeFunis v. Odegaard 416 U.S. 312 (1974) 1978 – Regents of the University of California v. Bakke 438 U.S. 265 (197 The Supreme Court held that the UC Davis medical school admissions program violated the equal protection clause with the institution of quotas for underrepresented minorities. However, Justice Lewis Powell's decision in the majority upheld diversity in higher education as a "compelling interest" and held that race could be one of the factors in university admissions. 1979 – U.S. Executive Order 12138[37] Issued by President Carter, this executive order created a National Women's Business Enterprise Policy and required government agencies to take affirmative action in support of women's business enterprises. 1989 – City of Richmond v. J.A. Croson Co., 488 U.S. 469 (1989) (strict scrutiny standard to state and local programs). 1989 – Wards Cove Packing Co. v. Atonio, 490 U.S. 642 (1989) revised the standards established by the 1971 Griggs decision. 1990 – Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 People with disabilities as a group were more fully recognized as being protected by this act. 1995 – Adarand Constructors v. Peña, 515 U.S. 200 (1995) established strict scrutiny standard of review for race and ethnic-based Federal Affirmative Action programs. 1996 – Hopwood v. Texas, 78 F.3d 932 (5th Cir.1996) (first successful legal challenge to racial preferences in student admissions since Regents of the University of California v. Bakke). 1998 – President Clinton's Affirmative Action Review 2003 – Grutter v. Bollinger (02-241) 539 U.S. 306 (2003) 2006 – Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1 [38] 2009 – Ricci v. DeStefano 2012 – Fisher v. University of Texas California 1946 – Mendez v. Westminster School District Penn/Stump v City of Oakland, 1967 This Consent Decree stated that men and women should be hired by race and gender as police officers in the same percentage that they are represented in the population of the city. This process took more than twenty years to achieve. At the time, there were approximately 34 black police officers on the Oakland Police department and no black females among them. At this time, the militant Black Panther Party had formed in part due to police brutality at the hands of Oakland's overwhelmingly white police force. The City of Oakland, by contrast, had a population that was nearly majority African American, prompting the push for recruiting minority police officers.[39] Proposition 209, 1996 This proposition mandates that "the state shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting."[1] Prop 209 was controversial because it was promoted as civil rights legislation, although it was essentially a ban on affirmative action.[40] Proponents argue that the measure ensures that the civil rights of whites and Asian Americans are protected by ensuring parity between races. Senate Constitutional Amendment No.5, 2014 This initiative proposed an amendment to the Constitution of the State to delete provisions of California Proposition 209 related to public education, in order to allow the State of California giving preferential treatment in public education to individuals and groups on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin. In consequence certain individuals and groups may be denied their rights to public education.[41] Washington Initiative 200, 1998 in Washington was overwhelmingly passed by the electorate. Taking effect on December 3, 1998, it applies to all local governments, including counties, cities, and towns. I-200 prohibits "preferential treatment" based on race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in public employment, education, and contracting. Smith v. University of Washington 233 F.3d 1188 (9th Cir. 2000) :[42] Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1, 149 Wn.2d 660, 72 P.3d 151 (2003), 2003 The Washington State Supreme Court interpreted I-200 to forbid affirmative actions that promote a "less qualified" applicant over a "better qualified" one, but not programs that sought to achieve diversity without consideration of individual merit. In the beginning, racial classifications that identified race were inherently suspect and subject to strict scrutiny. These classifications would only be upheld if necessary to promote a compelling governmental interest. Later the U.S. Supreme Court decided that racial classifications that benefited underrepresented minorities were to only be upheld if necessary and promoted a compelling governmental purpose. (See Richmond v. J.A. Croson Co.) There is no clear guidance about when government action is not "compelling", and such rulings are rare. Michigan Grutter v. Bollinger, 2003 The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5–4 that race could be used as one of several factors in professional school admissions without necessarily violating the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. The Court found that the University of Michigan Law School's narrowly tailored policy which considered race and other factors, with no quota or predetermined weight associated with the factors, was constitutional and appropriate "to further a compelling interest in obtaining the educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body." Gratz v. Bollinger, 2003 The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the University of Michigan's undergraduate admissions system, which granted extra "points" to minorities based on race, and which determined admissions status based on cumulative points, was unconstitutional because it is too mechanical and does not appear to consider the individual's actual contribution to the educational environment. An attorney who filed an amicus brief on behalf of Pennsylvania legislators and former legislators in Grutter v. Bollinger, Rep. Mark B. Cohen of Philadelphia, said that "The cumulative effect of the Bakke, Grutter, and Bollinger cases is that no one has a legal right to have any demographic characteristic they possess be considered a favorable point on their behalf, but an employer has a right to take into account the goals of the organization and the interests of American society in making decisions. This is a moderate, inclusive position that ably balances the various legal interests involved." Proposal 2, 2006 After Grutter and Gratz, in November 2006, voters in the State of Michigan made affirmative action illegal by passing Proposal 2 (Michigan Civil Rights Initiative), a state-wide referendum amending the Michigan Constitution. Proposal 2 bans public affirmative action programs that give preferential treatment to groups or individuals based on their race, gender, color, ethnicity or national origin for public employment, public education or public contracting purposes. The amendment, however, contains an exception for actions that are mandated by federal law
Yeah I did. In the first part of the post, I posted about the laws that discriminated against African Americans when they weren't fashionable, and in the second part of the post, I posted affirmitive action laws that discriminate against white males now that they aren't fashionable.
I say help the poor no matter the race... there is no need for reparations on top of it, could offer reservations like we did the Indians for those that want them, but doubt there would be many takers one question... would a black descendent of a slave owner get reparations too? .
Isn't helping the poor of any race being done now? Social services are open to everyone regardless of race and now Affirmative action has been expanded so far that most people in the country are covered by it. Reparations isn't an open and shut case with me because I recognize that there is a moral claim on this country for that. I just doubt if there is a legal or practical claim, for the very reason you mention; it would be almost impossible to come up with a fair way to distribute it when we're generations away from the actual crime, and all the participants are dead.
Not really, there are many people still alive today that were victims of Jim Crow segregation, discrimination and racism in the South.
I don't think slavery is the only time when the wrong was done, Jim Crow segregation is also a part of the wrong that was done.
But when we're talking about reparations, it's always been suggested it's for slavery. I've never heard even an unserious argument that there should be reparations for Jim Crow or discrimination in general. That's what affirmative action is supposed to be about.
I think Jim Crow segregation was another part of slavery. If that is the case then why do white women benefit from it more than black folks and to say that AA was created as a form of reparations for Jim Crow segregation is a joke.
I think there is a pretty clear historical dividing line between slavery and segregation. Like I said, I've not heard that argument made. White Women benefit from it because they gamed the system. These days, you don't even hear Affirmative Action described as a method to correct past discrimination. I don't think I've heard that argument since the 80's. Now, it's all about "diversity" so that everyone except for one particular segment of society (you know who I mean!) could get a cut. That's how someone like blond haired, blue eyed Elizabeth Warren used it to get a Harvard professorship. So yes, I agree it's a "joke" as you would put it. But the problem is, unless the courts do it, it's pretty much unreformable. Why? I blame you. We've had similar conversations before and you've defended affirmative action, even though in the same breath you acknowledge that it primarily benefits white women. But you still don't want it to end or reform it. If it was really going to help alleviate the past inequities brought about by decades of discrimination, it would have to be reformed to only cover African Americans (no, not Nigerians or Jamaicans). But you've previously made clear, affirmative action is forever, so I'm not sure what you are complaining about.
Name a culture that had no slavery. Name a nonviolent culture that survived contact with one that did not embrace pacifism. You are mistaken about the time frame of European culture. Ancient Greece is generally agreed to have begun about the 8th century BC. That would be about 2800 years.
Gays? After all, we are new blacks. Not really. White women were rising up burning their bras and staying in the workforce after WWII and before AA. Why? Are Nigerians in the US not African-Americans? By all measures they are literally African-Americans.... Won't be forever, but it is certainly still needed. Take away the quota system for government contracts, and it is still all good.
Ancient Egypt was not non-violent. It simply had no contact with other cultures. Once it came into contact, it was as warlike as any other. Try again.
How did you get gays out of what I said? That doesn't make sense in the slightest. The ancestors of Nigerian Americans were not brought over here as slaves. Their ancestors were on the other side of the Atlantic selling slaves. So why should they be eligible for slave reparations?
Because they're black hence why his response demonstrates that affirmative action is nothing more than racism and sexism...
kemet was non violent, thats accepted by so- called aceademia. obviously you know nothing about afrikan history, thats ok, americans know nothing of history beyond 400 years
I don't think there is a divide, we went from one to the next. Well if your mother, wife, aunt, sister or cousin benefit from it then so do you. Could that be because you get 90% of the cut. I don't have a problem reforming it, but I don't think 30yrs of AA reforms over 300+ yrs of racism and discrimination. I don't recall ever saying that AA should last forever.
why should icare whether you believe it or not. if you had studied egyptology you would have an understanding but you havent, have you?
So, no evidence other than your unsupported word. Why should anyone believe you? Your claim to a decent education is given the lie by your spelling and punctuation. In point of fact I did have an overview on Ancient Egypt. The pharaoh you appear to be basing your claim to pacifism on, Akhenaten. Most egyptologists say this is a historical misinterpretation. Link: http://osirisnet.net/docu/akhenat/e_akhen2.htm
