Affirmative Inaction

Comments (14)

Affirmative Inaction

By: Gary Whittaker

One of Abraham Lincoln's claims to fame is the fact that he is best known for abolishing slavery. While he may have felt some personal satisfaction from liberating the Negroes from their bondage, Economy was the main reason why he made his emancipation proclamation. He wanted all of America to move into the Yankee version of capitalism. Over half a decade later, and after a series of civil rights "victories", the roots of Affirmative Action were laid into law. This was at a time when black civil rights leaders where being assassinated, churches were being bombed, and dogs were not the black man's best friend. Some blacks had managed to prosper in a separate, but equal America. They become lawyers and businessmen and doctors. However, very few businesses employed blacks in a management position, as they knew their white employees would not adhere to their direction.

There was a time when all that were true. It was the same time that smokers were not treated as social pariah; professional athletics made less than the average worker and the only way to send mail was in an envelope. Times have changed. The social landscape has evolved. Technology has made a huge impact in our social fabric. Millions of families have found a home, and built their families in North America from across the globe. Blacks are no longer the scorn of White America. And while the Civil Rights amendments apply to all races, colors, and ethnic peoples, let's face it, it is primarily applied to the African-American. Between Affirmative Action and demands for reparations, the black community has continued to ask for government handouts needlessly for almost 2 decades. It is time for this to end.

When Italians and Irish peoples first came to Ellis Island, they were not treated any better than the people that were already settled. They faced most of the same persecution and challenges being directed to the black community as well. But they adapted. They formed close ties with their communities, and bought their way into mainstream America. That is the same for the Jews. Throughout history, no peoples have been persecuted to the same levels as the Jews. Laws, throughout history, were made to keep them out of public office, and some times legitimate business, yet still they prosper. What are their secrets? Banding together as a community. Forming strong business groups. Supplying needed services or products to mainstream America. For some reason, since the wholesale pillaging of Africa, African-Americans cannot seem to imitate other ethnic communities in that regard. They continue to follow the African model of exploitation so that a few can maintain a hold over the many.

What I have stated may be controversial, but it is nevertheless factual. In your company, if a new Italian person is hired, he will be eating with other Italians by lunch. That is the same across most other ethnic communities, except the black community. Black people will look into themselves to find differences (Haitian against Jamaican, American against African, etc). I believe that this goes against the spirit of Affirmative Action. Its purpose is to give a foothold into long-held white only corporations and their management staff. Most blacks today, once elevated into that position, try to take on the genetic make-up of those in the same position as them. They will not seek to promote other black candidates, in fear of looking too sympathetic, or incompetent. So no matter how many blacks may be working in the bowels of the company, the way blacks have applied Affirmative Action even amongst themselves does nothing but try and maintain a 2% average, even if there are more highly qualified blacks ready to get promoted.

The tide appears to be changing, as more and more black people have benefited from the explosion on their culture in White America, or with the incredible salaries now paid to athletes. They have re-invested into their communities to make a difference in both education and job opportunities. That being stated, if there were no more government sponsored welfare-type programs, those communities would be forced to band together to create a better environment for all their peoples. Why should the government continue to fund programs and departments meant to uphold this archaic view of corporate practice, when for the most part, they are already in place. Let the communities speak for themselves. If a company has suspect-hiring practices, let the community speak out, and only then should the government get involved. Instead, the government should be focusing on getting kids of all ethnic communities the same opportunities for education afforded to those of privilege. Let's put affirmative action into the hands of each individual, to succeed in whatever profession they excel in, instead of limiting their own job opportunities to about 2% in each company.

About The Author

Gary Whittaker is the editor of T.E.N Magazine, a social commentary webzine with balls! Check out more articles at


jarynth3 03.10.2006. 01:49

Exactly how small of a minority do you need to be to qualify for "affirmative action" benefits? Is it against the idea of democracy to demand that there should be someone of my religion in Congress? A one-man religion?


Admin 03.10.2006. 01:49

Yes, it is against the idea of democracy to demand that there be someone of your religion in Congress- they werent e l e c t e d and that's what democracy is about.

If you want to be a one-manned religion, move to New York, find a soap box and a crowded street corner.

Affirmative action...trace your family history- maybe you already qualify...and maybe affirmative action is an affirmation of inaction.


Aaron 11.05.2010. 05:29

is it illegal to not report an illegal immigrant? Can I be liable or prosecuted if the authorities find out about an illegal immigrant that I knew of but did not inform them? What if the illegal committed a crime? What about if I know an employer that is hiring illegal immigrants? Am I liable or committing a crime if I know but don't tell in general?


Admin 11.05.2010. 05:29

New laws being fashioned to deal with the invasion appear to be moving toward supporting affirmative answers for your question(s). At this point, you're not likely to find much policy favoring accountability for inaction or aiding and abetting the massive group seen as mostly entry-level law breakers. All the same, outside of a disturbingly large group of people who insist accountability and laws are cruel and unusual, there are others on the opposite end of the spectrum who expect laws to be upheld as well as individual behaviors and actions to reflect moral grounds that stem from basic recognition of right from wrong. And while that's at the core of much debate, with liberals insisting morality has no place in our policies or politics, its importance appears to be driving conservatives to move forward with legislation favoring more individual accountability measures.

Absence of accountability or laws supporting the collective good leads to a pathway ending in anarchy. That's where the illegal immigrant horde wants to take us with their refusal to recognize, honor, or adhere to laws they somehow don't believe should apply to them. It's really just the same as having no laws at all when individuals or groups of individuals insist they should only apply to someone else.

For those who support the revolution espoused by La Raza and Aztlan proponents, of course laws and adherence to the rule of law is anathema and something that must be diminished or defeated. The rest of us believe policies that include increasing measures of accountability may be necessary for a reasonable quality of life for our country's citizens, and more than that, a substantive response to the Reconquista movement's goals may be the only way to preserve precious lives and lands that we're not ready to relinquish to the illegals.

U.S. citizens, the first step called for is to take a stand over this critically important issue! Dont waiver or delay. Do you really believe tens of millions of illegals willing to suggest their numbers are already insurmountable are deserving of stealing, or in their words "reclaiming" lands they insist belong to them? We must have laws together with a willingness to take actions that support protecting our citizens, our rights and our lands.


Desert Sienna 09.09.2007. 04:55

Do you think people confuse equality of opportunity with equality of results? Array

Desert Sienna

Admin 09.09.2007. 04:55

Yes, most people confuse between equality of opportunity and equality of results because of either ignorance or jealousy or political advantage, etc.Some people strongly believe that eqaulity of results or outcomes among all people is what brings justice. Equality of opportunities cannot automatically bring about equality of results. The issue is whether equality of results is a meaningless concept. Consider how to ensure equality do we kill the father of child X when the father of a child Y of the same age dies. How do we ensure that all future generations have no identified parents and all children get the same level and basket of consumption throught their lives and all chindren are males only ( or all are females). Equality of results is a desire of the weak minded and a schme of the crook to exploit political advantage. How do we make people work and contribute equally when every one is assured of the exactly same level of living? However there is a need to introduce equality in transformation: eg. each student of a class will be taught in a manner that the disadvantages of any child in learning is compensated by additional coaching. Now read the following:
Equality of opportunity vs. equality of results are two competing theories of an equality outcome in a just society. They are closely related to the concepts of negative rights and positive rights. Equality of opportunity means that every person is afforded the same access to a benefit as every other person. Equality of outcome, a more socialistic philosophy, means that every person actually receives the same benefit as everyone else. For example, equality of opportunity would exist in a raffle for a cake in which each person received one raffle ticket. However, this would not provide equality of outcome, because in the end one person would have cake and everyone else would have none. Equality of outcome would be when the cake is divided into equal slices, apportioned to each person.
The legal consequences of this dichotomy relate to the role of the government. Traditionally, the government is thought to ensure equality of opportunity by its inaction -- through "negative rights", such as allowing everyone to speak freely, practice their religion, and keep their property safe from the government, irrespective of whether they are a member of a group that might be favored or disfavored. Likewise, the government is thought to ensure equality of outcome through its action -- such as the creation of social welfare programs for the poor, affirmative action for certain minorities, etc.
Equality of opportunity and outcome are themselves somewhat open to interpretation -- equality of opportunity is sometimes derided with the joke that "X is a free country, in which every man, rich or poor, has the right to buy an elephant". Obviously, the poor man cannot exercise this so-called "right". This, however, ignores the fact that with equality of opportunity, everyone has the chance to become rich. Similarly, in the cake example, above, one could argue whether an equal-sized slice is the "outcome" or whether those who are hungrier should get larger slices, so that in the end everyone is equally sated. This would appear to reward people for becoming fat.
Philosopher John Rawls created a thought experiment for evaluating societal outcomes such as the competing equality models called the veil of ignorance. In this experiment, Rawls imagined that the future citizens of a society did not know in advance what their situation would be (rich or poor, male or female, handicapped or able-bodied, etc.). Rawls speculated that behind this "veil of ignorance" rational people would choose to set up society so that the least well-off person was as well-off as possible. However "well-off" can be interpreted along either dimension -- equality of opportunity or equality of results.
There is a very good article worth reading at
Equality of outcome is a form of egalitarianism which seeks to reduce or eliminate differences in material condition between individuals or households in a society. This usually means equalizing income and/or total wealth to some degree.
In theory, equality of outcome can be distinguished from equal opportunity. Outcomes can usually be measured with a great degree of precision, opportunities cannot. That is why many proponents of equal opportunity use measures of equality of outcome to judge success. To the extent that inequalities can be passed from one generation to another through substantial gifts and wealth inheritance, it is unclear that equality of opportunity for children can be achieved without greater equality of outcome for parents. Moreover, access and opportunity to various social institutions is partially dependent on equality of outcome. Proponents recognize that greater equality of outcome can be a force preventing co-optation of non-economic institutions important to social control and policy formation, such as the legal system, media or the electoral process, by individuals and coalitions of wealthy people.
A progressive taxation system is likely to increase equality of outcome, and so is a welfare state. However, these will tend only to reduce social inequality, not eliminate it entirely. A much further reduction in social inequality is the goal of most forms of socialism.
Greater equality of outcome is likely to reduce relative poverty, leading to a more cohesive society. However, if taken to an extreme it may lead to greater absolute poverty if it negatively affects a country's GDP by damaging incentives to work harder. Critics of equality of outcome argue that it is more important to raise the standard of living of the poorest in absolute terms. Some critics additionally disagree with the concept of equality of outcome on philosophical grounds.
A related argument is often encountered in education and more specifically in the debates on the grammar school in the United Kingdom and in the debates on gifted education in various countries. According to that argument, people by nature have differing levels of ability and initiative which lead some to achieve better outcomes than others. Therefore, it is considered impossible to ensure equality of outcome without imposing inequality of opportunity. Advocates of equality of outcome usually respond with the argument that it is society which makes it easier for some individuals to surpass others, and that the natural differences between people are merely a matter of different people being better at different activities, rather than some being overall superior to others.
John Rawls, in his A Theory of Justice (1971), developed a "second principle of justice" that economic and social inequalities can only be justified if they benefit the most disadvantaged members of society. Furthermore, all economically and socially privileged positions must be open to all people equally. Rawls argues that the inequality between a doctor's salary and a grocery clerk's is only acceptable if this is the only way to encourage the training of sufficient numbers of doctors, preventing an unacceptable decline in the availability of medical care (which would therefore disadvantage everyone).


gwar01 14.12.2008. 21:21

Hey can you think of some contentions for my debate? hey i have to write a LD debate speech for school for both the aff and the neg. and i cant think of anything! here is the resolution: It is morally permissible to kill one innocent person to save the lives of more innocent people! i really hope u guys can help..i am just so brain-dead!
hey actually just give me some negative information..


Admin 14.12.2008. 21:21

Affirmative: It is morally permissible to kill one innocent person to save the lives of more innocent people.

Talk about how in situations like this, someone is going to die either way. Taking action by jeopardizing one person to save the rest is cutting down on losses. Through your actions someone has died, but through inaction many more could have died.

Negative: It is NOT morally permissible to kill one innocent person to save the lives of more innocent people.

Talk about how it is not the average person's decision whether another person lives or dies; that duty belongs to God, the judicial system, etc. Perhaps present the alternative of killing yourself to save innocent people, instead of killing another person- it's one thing to make a choice about your own life, but another thing entirely to make a choice about someone else's.

Hope this helps.


Stoned Prophet 23.01.2011. 12:45

why some religions (appear to) promote violence? Some scriptures promote violence in the excuse of protecting the religion.

And the learned members of the same religion say that their religion is actually a loving and tolerant religion and does not promote violence. These statements always contradict the words in scriptures and contradict the actual violent action of the majority followers in some countries or minority followers in many countries.

Why does all other religions can notice this irony but not the followers of that religion? Not only do the followers fail to realise, how do they come up with all those justifications not to correct the defective interpretations of ancient codes and pacively allow further continuance of violence.

Why does non of the religious leaders or religious authorities all around the world who claim their religion is loving and tolerant have never issues domestic or global edicts renouncing or banning violent attacks, suicide bombings and innocent killings ?

Why is there no affirmative actions by the religious leaders of any government to urgently correct their religious education system to correct any misinterpretation(or perhaps correct interpretation) which permits or promotes violent actions ?

How are followers of other religion suppose to understand or emphathise with this religion if your actions and explanations contradict at many levels and if there is grave inaction to immediately calm tensions at violent hotspots ?

Stoned Prophet

Admin 23.01.2011. 12:45

In many of the cases you quoted, it is the religious leaders that control both the politics and the media. Many, not all, leaders have their own agenda. The Bible was crafted in the third century and many books were omitted from consideration. The Koran was written by a man during many mood swings and subject to his views at the moment. Much of the Torah was borrowed from other sources found in the Great Library created by Gilgamesh. Several sects of Buddhism took only sections of the Lotus Sutra while others are based on early teachings when there were over 200 commandments for men and more that 500 for women. So you would need to study all religious writings to piece together what the intent really was. The same can be found in listening to Fox, CNN and the BBC. The truth is often between the lines but still open to subjective interpretation.


Mutt 23.07.2009. 09:37

Why should a White cop apologize for arresting a Black man that was verbally abusive...? ...but if a White man was verbally abusive to a Black cop, no one would care?

Is this Affirmative Action in action (or maybe inaction?)
To wondering: "...the guy threw a nutty..." - Maybe we should him the Nutty Professor!


Admin 23.07.2009. 09:37

He was charged with disorderly conduct after he followed the police office to his car,shouting insults,before this he refused to show his I.D. to the police,then later showed his I.D.
This incident was caused by an angry man,who turned something small into a big incident.
Should we have police of all races on patrol,so if its a African American we have a African American police officer make the arrest the same for Caucasian and other races?
This is the case of an angry Professor.


William C. 10.04.2011. 18:26

WHere in the united states constitution does it say i "must buy health insurance"? or furthermore that i must purchase any product whatsoever?
scott b- do yourself a favor- get eduacated!!!!

William C.

Admin 10.04.2011. 18:26

The Obama administration is making two terrible arguments.

1 - That the government can force you to purchase health insurance because of the power to tax. The problem is that no court, even the ones that have supported Obamacare, has upheld that this constitutes a tax.

2 - Commerce clause: basically, that your non-purchase affects interstate commerce substantially enough to warrant the mandate.

The opposing argument, that the government can't punish you for inaction, is much more constitutionally sound. Think of it this way: if the commerce clause affects action and inaction, then there's essentially NO limit on what the government can regulate.

*Edit: auto insurance is not quite the same because the driving of a car is an affirmative action, whereas not having health insurance is a negative action (non-action). What's more, it's a state law and state laws don't rely on the commerce clause. Federal laws do.


Write a comment

* = required field





* Yes No