American Renaissance
Previous Story       Next Story       View Comments       Send This Page       Date Archives       Category Archives

Block on Affirmative Action Headed to Ballot

More news stories on Racial Preferences in Hiring

Howard Fischer, Capitol Media Services, June 22, 2009

{snip}

On a 17-11 vote the Senate gave final approval to a proposed constitutional amendment to prohibit preferential treatment or discrimination by government on the basis of race, sex or ethnic origin. The measure, which already has been approved by the House, now goes on the 2010 ballot.

It will be the first time Arizonans get to vote on the issue. A similar initiative drive in 2008 failed when backers did not get enough signatures.

{snip}

The measure is aimed at any law, rule or regulation that would give any group preference in public employment, contracting or education. These range from admissions to the state’s two publicly funded law schools to the set-aside and bid preferences offered by Tucson for minority-owned businesses.

“It is unconscionable that we are allowing government to discriminate in these areas,” said Rep. Steve Montenegro, R-Litchfield Park. “That’s not equal treatment.”

Connerly, who pushed through a similar measure in his home state in 1996, said it “sets the tone that government should not be discriminating against its citizens or granting anyone preferential treatment.”

{snip}

“We sometimes forget that these laws are not just there for women and minorities,” [Connerly] said.

“They’re there to apply to everybody,” Connerly continued. “Black people aren’t the only ones to have civil rights.”

{snip}

“If you could convince me that there was compelling evidence that brown-skinned people, black people, Latinos, Native Americans, are genetically inferior and therefore we are disabled . . . I would probably say, ‘Yes, we need to allow preferences to make sure that those individuals could have a proper role in American life,” [Connerly] said.

While Connerly says the measure is crafted to ensure that government treats everyone equally, it contains no prohibition against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

Connerly said he wanted to keep this measure simple by mirroring the language of the 1964 federal Civil Rights Act and did not want to invite litigation by adding other issues.

{snip}

Original article

(Posted on June 23, 2009)

     Previous story       Next Story       Post a Comment     Send This Page      Search

Comments

1 — Alexandra wrote at 7:17 PM on June 23:

“If you could convince me that there was compelling evidence that brown-skinned people, black people, Latinos, Native Americans, are genetically inferior and therefore we are disabled … I would probably say, ‘Yes, we need to allow preferences to make sure that those individuals could have a proper role in American life,” [Connerly] said.

________________

Ironic, isn’t it? He believes we’re all equal, therefore no affirmative action.

I believe in equal treatment (give everyone a chance) but not in forcing equal outcome. Let’s face it, if you hire just the ones that are qualified, you are not going to see an equal outcome.

There’s no way I’d ever be a physicist…but it doesn’t matter, there are other things I’m good at.

2 — Mrs. Cosgrove wrote at 11:53 PM on June 23:

“While Connerly says the measure is crafted to ensure that government treats everyone equally, it contains no prohibition against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.”

And indeed, it shouldn’t. Race can proven; gender can be proven; sexual “orientation” cannot. “Orientation” is a liberal misnomer for “preference” and preferences can change to suit the individual and the circumstance.

3 — Anonymous wrote at 12:12 AM on June 24:

But blacks hispanics ARE intellectually inferior. What Connerly is saying is we need whites to be their partial slaves for eternity.

Same deal for lower class whites. A white who gets an engineering degree will, therefore, have to pay for a white who cannot.

This isnt the America I signed up for, nor one that I respect. If the lower class white/black/hispanic can appeal to the ‘better instincts’ of the upper class white…all good and well - but when you point a gun at the upper class guys head and force him to help - thats the end of freedom.

Pathetic.

4 — fred wrote at 3:40 AM on June 24:

Ward Connerly takes a lot of heat from a lot of people and special interest groups. And it’s not just black groups that criticize him. There are plenty of liberal white groups who bash him as well. And he stands up to them on our behalf when many white politicans and leaders won’t. And he is NOT an Uncle Tom, either. Because he has bucked his supporters by standing up for gay rights, too. The man just supports equal rights for all. He is a moral warrior with principles of steel.

5 — Anonymous wrote at 8:11 AM on June 24:

Here, Here. Its about time that some action was taken. If we give everyone equal opportunities, then they will perform to the best, and we will avoid having people at the top who barely have the ability to think, let alone lead. Affirmative action doesn’t mean quality; but equal opportunity does.

6 — Anonymous wrote at 11:04 AM on June 24:

“If the lower class white/black/hispanic can appeal to the ‘better instincts’ of the upper class white…all good and well - but when you point a gun at the upper class guys head and force him to help - that’s the end of freedom.”

It’s called ‘democracy’. What you seek is a reform of democracy. Or perhaps just one person somewhere, with influence, who agrees with what you have to say. Simply saying ‘whites are better than other races’, and not in a joking kind of way, or a subtle ‘suggestive kind of way’ - even if this may be true (and it might not be true also) isn’t going to get many people to agree with you - lol even if they believe it too. But of course, I’m pretending that most people who say that on this site, “whites good”, “blacks bad” are being genuine.


Home      Top      Previous story       Next Story      Send This Page      Search