The affirmative action debate has grown very serious. The president has announced that he will cause a full review to be made of the programs. Presidential candidates have taken strong stands against affirmative action. There are congressional oversight hearings. A few angry white men have cried “reverse discrimination.” The U.S. Supreme Court recently decided in a 5-4 decision that the “government may treat people differently because of their race only for the most compelling reasons.” . . . → Read More: Affirmative Action Debate: Nation Must Not Set Aside Gains Made By Minorities

Just as the affirmative action debate soared in the turbulence of partisan politics, the U.S. Supreme Court effectively struck down the mother of all affirmative action…race-based congressional districts. It is ironic that Justice Clarence Thomas voted with the majority in the five to four decision. Ironic because many of Justice Thomas’ detractors during his confirmation process to the court went to great length explaining how he benefited from affirmative action. Branding the future United States Supreme Court Justice as a recipient of affirmative action was intended to stigmatize him, imply that he was unworthy to be a supreme court justice. . . . → Read More: Affirmative Action Debate: Discrimination Would Remain Illegal in Nation

In 1965, President Lyndon B. Johnson defended affirmative action by arguing that you could not expect people who had been “hobbled” by years of segregation to compete equally. Today, affirmative action is under attack from several fronts. There are cases in Federal courts challenging racial preferences in laying off teachers, awarding contracts and admitting students. The new Republican majority in congress uses affirmative action to beat up on the Democratic Administration. On the campaign trail, Republican presidential candidates will surely run against affirmative action. And more states are certain to follow California’s lead; where organizers are trying to put an initiative on next year’s ballot banning state-sanctioned “preferential treatment” based on race or gender. . . . → Read More: Race, Gender Gains Anger Some Males