AP, November 7, 2008
{snip}
Nebraska’s educational institutions, cities and counties are beginning to scour their programs to see if they violate a ban on race- and gender-based affirmative action approved this week by voters.
{snip}
At the University of Nebraska, administrators are expected to review a wide range of programs and policies aimed at boosting diversity—including a math camp for high school girls, Native American Day, the recruitment of foreign students and a law college policy that uses race as a factor in deciding which students to admit.
{snip}
The Nebraska constitutional amendment prohibits public agencies from giving preferential treatment on the basis of race, sex or ethnicity when hiring and performing such tasks as awarding contracts and granting scholarships.
The ban passed with almost 58 percent of the vote. {snip}
The League of Nebraska Municipalities is reviewing how the amendment might affect hundreds of local governments across the state, Executive Director Lynn Rex said. Some federal grants, such as those for affordable housing, are tied to affirmative action, she said.
{snip}
Milliken and other university officials are concerned that Nebraska’s status as one of a handful of states to pass an affirmative action ban could project a cold image, hindering recruitment efforts. Similar measures were previously approved in California, Michigan and Washington.
{snip}
“Affirmative action is something often done on the front end of the hiring process to make sure you have a job description that doesn’t limit candidates, and that you have a recruitment process,” Soto said. “Ninety percent of affirmative action has nothing to do with … using race or gender to make a hiring decision. It’s to provide open access to opportunities.”
{snip}
But the Election Day victory for Connerly and his supporters in Nebraska is being challenged.
Opponents of the ban have filed a lawsuit arguing that petition signatures needed to put the issue on the ballot were gathered using a “pattern of fraud and illegality.” If successful, the lawsuit could invalidate the results of Tuesday’s vote.
Original article
(Posted on November 7, 2008)
Comments
Affirmative Action is like a receptor which a virus needs in order to infect. If you disable it, you can stay healthy.
Practically all known civilizations mastered the art of draining swamps in order to provide the productive with water and deny it to the mosquitos.
“Ninety percent of affirmative action has nothing to do with … using race or gender to make a hiring decision.”
Of course blacks want to have their cake and eat it too. There’s no excuse to have Affirmative Action anymore since their Messiah got into office. They’ll grab all they can until all of us whites are wiped off the map.
Nebraska no longer has the right to make decisions like this unless they choose to secceed from the US. All of us. Every single last one of us lost all of our rights, probably permanently, unlesss drastic measures are taken, and soon. We no longer live in a de facto democracy. Sure, the apparatus is in place, but from now on the ballots will be stuffed with votes from people anti-democratic in the extreme.
Our country is now an extreme anti-white national socialist state. To our shame, the most rabid anti-white racists are our own people.
We have options to save ourselves….armed rebellion, seccession, emmigration. However, none of these involves democracy. What our forefathers built is now gone. And we will never get it back.
In retrospect, our founding fathers place waaaay too much faith in us. We simply were not up to the responsibility that democracy demands of a people.
Nebraska is to be commended for the attempt….but it is decades too late and far too little to make any difference whatsoever. And even if they succeed, what difference does it make? The law will just be ignored. Too many white people think too little of themselves or our way of life to cooperate with something like this.
If McCain would have vigorously championed a ban against affirmative action he probably would have won. It’s so bizarre that Whites voted for continuation of racial discrimination against themselves and their sons.
When “Liberals” win an election then it’s “the will of the people” that no one dares to challenge or even question.
But if they lose then they have no respect for “the will of the people” and seek creative ways to overturn it.
I tell you (again), deport the “Liberals” first, preferably to the mainland China.
I wouldn’t be too surprized to see this Amendment overturned by the Federal Courts. After all, that is what Federal Courts (particularly the U.S. Supreme Court) do best. The Federal Courts have “evolved” to check-mate the power of the citizenry, thus undermining our (so-called) democracy and “representative government”. I believe this is one reason so many Americans are so detached and apathetic from the government, after all why get involved with trying to effect change or pass referendums when all one can expect is that some unelected power-drunk
All a journalist has to do it dig out those articles, enter one into his computer as a template, and then find the corresponding people in Nebraska to get quotes from. If those people have any trouble coming up with something to say, the journalist can provide a selection of quotes for them to choose from.
“In retrospect, our founding fathers place waaaay too much faith in us. We simply were not up to the responsibility that democracy demands of a people.”
> Posted by at 8:52 PM on November 7
The problem is not that the founders put too much faith in the people to self govern, the problem is that their true presumptions of what defined society, or simply American civilization, are no longer considered valid.
I am certainly no student of history, but even in my casual readings of the debates related to both the Declaration and Constitution I have surmised that above all else the founding fathers primary goal was for the individual American to rise or fall based on their own merit. They intended to limit the power and control of central government and presumed that what had been their heritage of leadership and control (read: white, male, Christian) would simply continue unabated.
For example, they did not believe in direct state sponsored welfare but rather in private charity; Christian morality being a means to that end. They did not believe in universal voting rites, not for women, and certainly not for African slaves or Indians. They assumed the states would at times be contentious neighbors but that their shared strength as a Union, coupled with enough state sovereignty to satisfy individual liberty, would bind us together with a shared sense of destiny.
Look at how fractured we have become in the past century alone. Our language, our culture, our multi-ethic obsessions, even the most natural definitions of family, or the place of male and female in society, is constantly redefined to the point of madness. Today most of what were the intentions of our founders are either outlawed by the Judiciary, mocked by the lazy and self-enlightened of a fallen age, or most sadly, both.
“In retrospect, our founding fathers place waaaay too much faith in us. We simply were not up to the responsibility that democracy demands of a people”
Our Founding Fathers did not put faith in us, which is why they rejected democracy for a constitutional republic of loosely bound states, and granted voting privileges to some and not voting rights to all. If our government followed the boundaries imposed on it by the Constitution, there would be no Affirmative Action. Since the government does not restrict itself according to the Constitution, it is, in fact, lawless. This is what liberals want, and for which their useful idiots vote.
“Since the government does not restrict itself according to the Constitution, it is, in fact, lawless. This is what liberals want, and for which their useful idiots vote.”
I would say the government does follow the constitution. The law is just not enforced. That would be racist!
“If McCain would have vigorously championed a ban against affirmative action he probably would have won. It’s so bizarre that Whites voted for continuation of racial discrimination against themselves and their sons.”
Not discriminating against whites, or not hating them in the correct way, is ‘divisive’.
Much of the present disarray we see in the matters of personal rights vs the “rights” of the State to apportion unequitable favors in hiring, scholarly admissions and contracts is traceable to the Lincoln adminitstration. That administration suborned the rule of law in this country during the Civil War and its effect is still being felt. I am not referring to the Emancipation Proclamation but rather to the related War Powers assumed by the Lincoln Administration during the prosecution of the war and afterwards. Reconstruction has had a very long aftermath and the totality of power envisioned by the Federal Government is still being used. The Marxists have idolized Lincoln and see his politics of subordination of the Anglo-Saxon ideal of personal freedom as a primary goal.
“Affirmative action is something often done on the front end of the hiring process to make sure you have a job description that doesn’t limit candidates, and that you have a recruitment process,” Soto said.
Can anyone interpret this mumbo-jumbo?!?
Is he saying that they’ll look at the candidate and then “shape” the job description to fit the (non-White) candidate’s lack of qualifications? E.g., the job description for “doctor” becomes someone who knows LESS about medicine but MORE about “urban cultural issues”?
They’ll do anything to circumvent the law, justice and common sense.
What’s the point of voting if some Judge can overturn it? We’ve tried using the court system legitimately, but it continues to conspire against its own people. That’s why we must turn inward and promote white tribalism instead of a strong, federal government.
I would like to know more about the ‘opponents of the ban’. These people should be humiliated in public and shunned as anti-democratic, anti-white, bastards. It would certainly be nice to have their names and phone numbers.
I guarantee that once these illegitimate and corrupt judges begin to come up missing this sedition will end once and for all…
As of Nov.4, 2008, affirmative action should be declared an action that no longer is designed to lift the minority up but to hold the white man down.
No White who supports affirmative action intends or expects that it will apply to him or his family. They are fundamentally wannabe aristocrats: one law for them and another for ordinary people. I once asked someone why race quotas shouldn’t be applied to him as they did to me, and he said: “I’m working for change.” That is, he believed that he was a superior person to the productive White workers who have always been the ones who got things done in this country. He, of course, did not work with his hands, he did no work at all. He was in his 12th year of college, living off grants and loans as he unsuccessfully sought a PhD in “communications.” The perfect model of a modern aristocrat: lazy, vain, and convinced that he was intrinsically better than anyone else.
Schoolteacher,
I think you let the cat out of the bag. It’s the aristocratic elites, too often in positions of influence & power - and usually living in nice white neighborhoods and sending their kids to nice private schools - who try to make the rest of world to “do right” by those groups they know they likely won’t have to be around – and really don’t want to be around.
The “affirmative action” injustice is something created by elite white people and they – not really angry blacks - have always been our biggest problem.
Why go to all of that trouble only to see ones results undermined by a judge projecting their Marxist opinions on the Constitution? What we have in fact is a “plastic democracy” run by a “globalist corporate plutocracy” and guarded by a “judicial dictatorship”. Why get involved?
One must know one’s enemy. Weapons are our friends, get them while we still can. Seriously!
