Home Education Affirmative Action and Black America Discrimination

Affirmative Action and Black America Discrimination

by admin
Published: Last Updated on 149 views

Background

During the American Revolution, their shared interest in establishing a new nation and adopting a common Constitution put the difference between Northern and Southern states on the back burner. But the differences between the economically prosperous northern states and the less privileged southern states that depended primarily on an agricultural economy and a slavery-based social order to support it were steadily widening. Slavery abolition became a bone of contention between the North and the South. This culminated in the Civil War (1861–65) between the so-called ‘Union’ northern states and the ‘Confederacy’ seceded southern states. Ultimately the Union overcame the opposition, and the process of reconstruction started to bring back the devastated southern states economy. The 11 Confederate States rebelled had to be restored to their position within the Union and provided with loyal governments. Throughout southern society, the position of the emancipated slaves had to be established and settled.

Affirmative Action and Black America Discrimination

Slavery took on a new shape following the conclusion of the Civil War, viz segregation (Columbia, 2007). New Black Laws were introduced in the South, limiting the rights of the newly freed slaves. White supremacy was restored methodically by underground terror groups, such as “Ku Klux Klan.” It was quite tricky for Southern Whites to follow a social order independent of slavery. This led to what has become popularly known in US history as “Jim Crow Laws.” Such laws were passed in the early 1880s and allowed segregation of blacks. The name of the enactments leads one to believe that a person named ‘Jim Crow’ was the author of such rules, a dance performed with blackface by the white comedian Thomas Dartmouth as it derives from a popular minstrel song ‘Jump Jim Crow.’ Black codes enacted during the years 1865–66 limited African Americans’ constitutional rights. Ridiculous’ poll tax prevented them’ and unjust ‘literacy tests’ and intimidation from voting. Blacks had particular parts earmarked for them to attend individual schools and universities, train cars and buses. They were not even allowed to sit for public amusements with the whites, and therefore refused inclusion in cultural life in the mainstream. Even workplaces had been segregated. In the case of Plessy v. Ferguson ( 1896), the protagonists of these savage laws got a shot in the arm when the US Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the so-called separate but equal housing. Over the era from 1900 to 1920, segregation spread to schools, prisons and even churches that enshrined a full-fledged apartheid system.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964

Dr Martin Luther King, the US civil rights movement crusader, said: “I have a dream that my four children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the colour of their skin but by the content of their character”.

Until we go through the Civil Rights Act of 1964, we have to note that it had a precedent “The Civil Rights Act of 1957”, This was introduced during the presidency of Eisenhower but never saw the light of day. Eisenhower was not known for his civil-rights support. He believed that one could not force people to change their convictions; such changes had to come from the heart of the people involved and not from Washington legislation.

The 1964 Civil Rights Act was John F Kennedy’s brainchild which became president in 1960 (National, 1964). He decided to address the injustice which had continued through civil rights legislation and constitutional protections. The new president faced some unquestionable facts about African Americans, like:

  • Around 57 per cent of African American residential settlements were listed as unacceptable.
  • African American life expectancy was seven years lower than that of whites.
  • Relative to whites, their child mortality was twice as high.
  • It was tough for Blacks to secure mortgages from mortgage lenders.
  • Any time an African American family moved to a community that was not a ghetto, property prices fell.

Those were the heydays of the cold war, and Kennedy found it very difficult to criticize the Russian treatment of East European nations when unpardonable human rights violations were taking place in his own country.

After Kennedy’s assassination his vice-president, Lyndon Johnson, suddenly found himself sworn in as president. Johnson wanted to preempt the advocates of an aggressive approach to the civil rights movement that was menacingly gaining ground. Being from the southern state of Texas, Johnson found it easier to win over the Southern hard-liners, who always categorized blacks as ‘lazy lot and not interested in self-improvement’. An opinion poll in January 1964 showed that 68 per cent supported a meaningful Civil Rights Act and President Johnson using the emotional card of Kennedy’s murder signed the Civil Rights Act 1964. However, he was not an elected President. Regardless of several hurdles from various quarters of the society, many historians maintain that the 1964 Act was a defining moment in America’s political and social progression.

Affirmative Action 

Addressing the graduating class at Howard University, President Johnson underlined the concept of Affirmative Action and asserted that Civil Rights laws alone are not enough to remedy centuries of discrimination:

“You do not wipe away the scars of centuries by saying: ‘now, you are free to go where you want, do as you desire, and choose the leaders you please.’ You do not take a man who for years has been hobbled by chains, liberate him, bring him to the starting line of a race, saying, ‘you are free to compete with all the others,’ and still justly believe you have been entirely fair. This is the next and more profound stage of the battle for civil rights. We seek not just freedom but opportunity—not just legal equity but human ability—not just equality as a right and a theory, but equality as a fact and as a result.”

Affirmative action was one of the policies arising in the 1960s from the civil rights movement. It was designed by federal lawmakers to ensure that a certain percentage of African Americans was adequately represented in business, higher education, and government jobs, which was later expanded to include women and other minorities (Columbia, 2007)3Affirmative Action, healing from the Jim Crow hangover, was a welcome sigh to moderate American society. Many citizens at the time felt the need for affirmative action to address the grim conditions that plagued the black community, and to open the doors of opportunity that had been shutout on them.

Accordingly, in 1972 the federal government brought out two Executive Orders viz “The Equal Employment Opportunities Act (1972)” and “Contractors Act”. These executive orders required that government contractors and educational institutions are receiving federal funds to develop programs to overcome discrimination. A Commission was set up to oversee its implementation. In the late 1970s, racial quotas in the name of Affirmative Action brought charges of what was called “reverse discrimination”, which the US Supreme Court accepted in Regents of the University of California v. Bakke case (1978). By the 1980s, the federal government’s role in affirmative action programs was considerably diluted. In three cases in 1989, the Supreme Court upturned lower court-approved Affirmative Action plans by giving importance to claims of reverse discrimination. The Civil Rights Act of 1991 reaffirmed the federal government’s commitment to Affirmative Action. But a 1995 Supreme Court decision placed limits on the use of race in awarding government contracts, which the government circumvented coining a new terminology called “socially disadvantaged.” In the late 1990s, California and other states banned the use of race and sex-based preferences in state and local programs in a public backlash against perceived reverse discrimination; At the same time, a 2003 Supreme Court decision concerning Affirmative Action in universities allowed educational institutions to consider race as a factor in admitting students as long as it was not applied in a mechanical and formulaic manner.

America is a different country made-up of all denominations from European, Hispania, African and Asian origins. Despite that today no American is known as a Jewish American, Spanish American and Irish American or for that matter a Latino or Pole. Even the large Asian community does not flaunt their moorings. Whatever their heritages and lingua franca maybe, collectively they weave the larger fabric called American nationhood. It is only the descendants of Africa that prides in a suffix to announce their origin and speak Ebonics, a naive English without any slants to his primordial tribal dialect lost in history. This leads us to the origin of race syndrome. The general grievance is that the whites keep the race issue alive; howsoever the blacks may try to extinguish it. To a large extent, centuries of slavery and decades of Jim Crow are at the root of this problem (Whorter, 2004). The psychosis resulting from centuries of slavery, and decades of segregation has created a mental barrier for the blacks to be seen along with the whites as partners in progress. Centuries of this rub off have made blacks feel more hopeless about their dream of an egalitarian society. How such recluse mindset works against the grains of community integration is beautifully portrayed in The Hughleys sitcom where a black man moves along with his family to a suburb and leads a fearful life of losing their cultural blackness due to daily contact with whites. Unfortunately, it is such a mindset that fuels anti-integrationist trends and keeps the torch burning that burdens the black community.

Time to Discard Affirmative Action

Critics like Whorter argue that affirmative action has outlived its intended purpose, which was to uplift the blacks and other disadvantaged groups. Advances were remarkable. Of example, black and white high school graduation rates today are the same, and black married couples earn just a ‘little less’ on average than those who are white (Abigail, 1997) 5. America is likewise more tolerant of race than ever before. More than 70 per cent of both blacks and whites now claim to have the other race’s “good friend.” Just a small fraction of blacks say they don’t have white neighbours. In almost every place, segregation in residential areas is down.

Whorter has identified three islets in the ocean of problems faced by the US black community. The first is the Victimization Cult, the tendency to admire being victimized by the whites, which creates slush benefits. Therefore, blackness is an adorable embellishment to be eternally worn as an identity to be nurtured rather than a problem that should be solved. The ‘Howard chapter’ reveals how edgy blacks are and how quickly they succumb to stretched imagination. David Howard, the white ombudsman to the Mayor of New York, made an innocent remark about his budget spending to be “niggardly”, meaning miserly. Though the word meant nothing racial, his black colleague took exception to it and created a row ending in Howard’s resignation. The word is traced to Scandinavian Viking invaders of Britain in the 800s, in whose dialect ‘nig’ meant “miser.” Its resemblance to the racial slur ‘nigger’ is accidental. Blacks have been ascribed with many qualities, good and bad, but “stingy” is not one of them.

Acquittal of the black national footballer, O. J. Simpson, of murder charges despite material evidence against him reinforces victimization psychosis. The American public believes that he received a racial benefit. An NBC poll supported this view. Seventy-seven per cent of 1,186 people sampled felt Simpson was guilty. Further breaking down these figures, only 27 per cent of blacks in the sample believed so compared to 87 per cent of whites that believed. Unfortunately, the gravity receded into the background when many blacks regarded Simpson’s acquittal as a sort of compensatory victory for blacks, giving them a sense of racial solidarity, a very undesirable sense of togetherness.

The second manifestation is Separatism, i.e. the trend to avoid all activities and forums that are deemed ‘white’, a natural result of Victimization. This can be termed constituency building, and the most glaring example of it is the acceptance of Howard’s resignation by the Mayor. He felt it wise to let Howard go to show his allegiance to the predominantly black constituency that he served. This demonstrates the stranglehold of Separatism on the community. Majority blacks were under the impression that three out of four of their class lived in ghettoes; factually, only one lived out of five. Surprisingly these tinted notions have permeated the consciousness of a large number of black Americans in all walks of life.

Separatism spawns the third manifestation, a strong tendency toward Anti-intellectualism at all levels of the black community. It reveals the inability of African Americans to walk the corridors of intellectual pursuit. Vestiges of this could be traced to the typical problem of underclass youth who had been kept away from schools because of poverty and disenfranchisement and view schools as ‘white’ enterprises. This has now become an infection nurtured by distrust of the former oppressors. It is this anti-intellectualism and not the unequal distribution of educational resources, that is at the root cause of the infamous lag in black students’ grades and test scores, regardless of class or income level. Like Victimization and Separatism, racism offers a fertile breeding ground for this mentality to flourish. Poverty as an explanation for academic underperformance does not hold on individual facts and figures. In 1960 every other black was poverty-stricken whereas by 2000 it was reduced to every fourth black. In 40 years, 2/3rd of the black population was elevated into the middle class and above category.

Further, SAT scores of white students whose parents earned just $10,000 per annum were much better than that of black students whose parents earned a higher annual income of $50,000. Poverty, therefore, cannot be the sole explanation for this performance gap. Since racial abuse cases have progressively declined underperformance excuse cannot be foisted upon racial discrimination also.  

According to Whorter, anti-intellectualism, once crucial to the maintenance of black self-esteem, has for several decades functioned as a decisive impediment to black advancement. It is for this reason that black students of whatever social standing continue to perform at levels well beneath that of their white and Asian counterparts. Sociologists do not have a convincing explanation as to why Asian and Novo African immigrants, many of who come from poverty and a banal English, academically far exceed their black inner-city compatriot. Black students underperformance cannot be just swept under the impoverished carpet of racism and poverty. It is the squalor-culture borne out of centuries of oppression and allergic reaction to its medication through doses of Civil Rights Act and Affirmative Actions; perhaps the latter has more potential to turn the allergy fatal.

As long as black students believe that their paltry efforts will result in more than deserving rewards, they will entrench themselves into an undeserving entitlement regime. They will have no incentive to engage in scholarship seriously, thus blunting their competitiveness and worst of all, will never be sure about their latent abilities. This creates a social divide in the society with a beneficiary group and an aggrieved group, with the latter feeling that their interests have been sacrificed to promote the career interests of the less eligible candidates.

These three philosophies are becoming institutionalized in black America and are becoming part of the black American culture. Black intellectuals have to give serious thought to the emergence of such a situation. The aim of the Civil Rights Movement was not merely to achieve social parity between blacks and whites but had a broader plan to position African-Americans as an integral part of the American society to enjoy and suffer all the goodies and travails of the country. Such a dream is impossible to realize without wholesome non-discriminatory education system.

By channelling blacks to these thought patterns, whites are now blamed of replicating the same historical blunder their ancestors made. It may be an attempt to repent and wash off their past sins. Well-intended social policies like ‘open-ended welfare’ and ‘permanent affirmative action’ to help blacks overcome their laggardness in practice further weakens the black community. Interracial relations in America have unwittingly encouraged black people to preserve and reinforce their status as a pitiable, weak and unintelligent ‘other’.

A section of the intelligentsia dismisses this syndrome as fringe issues and sees nothing wrong with them. They even consider them evolutionary transition, which identical groups would benefit by adopting. Unfortunately, blacks refuse to realize that these very trilogies hold them back from true freedom that many consider whites are denying them. In short, these three cerebral exhibits are neither trivial inner-city ills, nor mere cynical ploys by politicians or smug fantasy churned out by ivory-tower intellectuals. They are endemic to black culture today, and a logic personified. In other words, these defeatist outlooks have become the bedrock of black identity. Lack of claim to a heritage of their own gives Africa Americans nothing to be culturally pride of and to fill up this vacuum and the urge to synchronize with other culturally rich cohabiters; they work on their own black culture that will take ages to evolve and fructify.  

Race-based Affirmative Action was necessary for the transformation to start. Crutches were needed during the preliminary stages but leaning on it as an unalienable appendage of ones life is undesirable. It habituates a person to dependency and makes him a parasite on the social system. This stifles efforts of black students to break out of the shackles and does not fetch them full credit for their scholarly achievements. In the evolving situation where the ranks of suburb-dwelling African-American professionals are swelling day-by-day continuation of Affirmative Action is phoney. However, after leaving educational institutions to blaze through business and government contracting hurdles, some sops may be necessary to penetrate structural barriers that continue to obstruct minorities.

Protagonists of Affirmative Action

Contrary to Whorter and Abigail’s arguments that time has come to withdraw Affirmative Action privileges, ground realities still support the continuation of the rights. According to a 1998 study conducted by the Fair Housing Council in Washington, DC, minorities are discriminated twice out of five times they attempt to rent apartments or buy homes. Congressman Robert C. Scott, citing another study conducted that year by the Fair Employment Council and Urban Institute, revealed that “African-American and Latino job applicants suffer blatant and easily identifiable discrimination once in every five times they apply for a job.” Furthermore, the Federal Glass Ceiling Commission reports that African-American men with a Bachelor’s Degree earn as much as $15,180 less than their white counterparts. In an investigation conducted by the Fair Housing Center of Greater Boston during October 2005 to January 2006, found discrimination by mortgage lenders in Greater Boston against African American, Latino, Asian, and Caribbean homebuyers (The Gap, 2006). It revealed differential treatment being meted out to coloured and white loan seekers.

On the education front, it was observed that after the withdrawal of affirmative actions from California University, minority admissions declined to the prestigious California schools. Of the 828 students admitted to the law school at the University of California at Berkeley in 1997, only fifteen were black compared to seventy-five in the previous year. Supporters of affirmative action argue that these numbers are proof that an admissions system based only on grades and SAT scores is culturally biased and that Affirmative Action Programs are needed to ensure minority students a place at America’s prestigious institutes of higher learning. If test scores and grades were used alone to determine admission to leading universities, the percentage of African Americans who attend significant colleges or universities would drop significantly.

Supporters of affirmative action argue that as long as racism is present in institutes of higher learning and the professional world, race-conscious policies will be needed to jumpstart minorities. They contend that such programs check preferential treatment granted to white people simply because their skin is white. “The favouritism for certain groups in the United States is so strong that it can only be remedied by actively encouraging the promotion of other groups,” asserts Paul Butler, Associate Professor of Law at the George Washington College of Law.  Favoritism for white people in the United States is so secure and inviolable that African Americans need built-in safeguards to have a fair chance to access the national pie. A US Census and US Labor Department data 7 collected during 1978 and 2003 reveals some very impressive and some no so impressive achievements (Richy, 2003).  It indicates that advances have been made on many social parameters. Abandoning Affirmative Actions at this juncture will be unfair and amount to a half-hearted work. For a logical conclusion of the endeavour, there is a need to persist with Affirmative actions.

 A panel of experts from the American Law School briefing The United States Commission on Civil Rights Held in Washington, DC on June 16, 2006, pointed out that Graduation rates of Black Student in Law Schools were generally lower at 78 per cent for blacks and 90 per cent for whites except at the top three where the rates are 91 per cent for blacks, and 96 per cent for whites (Law School, 2006). Similarly, the Bar Exam pass rates for minorities have been 74 per cent for blacks 96 per cent for whites with the gap narrowing at the top three schools to 84 per cent for blacks and 96 per cent for whites, indicating selective universities have been successful in attracting better quality coloured students. Figures also indicate that at quite a few Law Schools, more than 60 per cent of black matriculates never become attorneys. Such information emphasizes the need to continue with Affirmative Actions in Law Schools. 

Chang-Lin Tien, of the University of Californiaclaims Affirmative Action programs have fostered an atmosphere of diversity and racial tolerance on college campuses across America. Students who are taught in a culturally diverse setting are better equipped to succeed in a multicultural and multiracial society. Because it promotes interaction between people of different races, affirmative action can be a useful tool in bridging racial intolerance, the lofty aim of social equity. James A. Buford Jr., Management Consultant and Professor at Auburn University’s College of Business feel that although discrimination is not as rampant as it was in the past, minorities and women continue to be underrepresented in many types of jobs. Affirmative action programs will ensure that qualified minorities and women join the pool of qualified skilled-position applicants. The failure to hire talented women and minorities is poorly reflected in managing human resources and will harm the workplace and national psyche in the end.

To make it more universal, it may be wise to apply Affirmative Action benefits based on class instead of the race without disturbing levels of diversity within universities without resorting to racial quotas (Kahlenberg). Moving from race-based criterion to a class-based principle will reinvigorate Affirmative Action Programs that will be more inclusive than divisive grounds of race.

America may take a cue from the largest democracy in the world, India, which faces a similar dilemma what the oldest democracy faces. Though quite different from the race issues faced in the US, which is an outcome of ethnicity and only a few hundred years old, India has a peculiar cast system being practised for thousands of years. The characteristic grain running through both countries is the exploitation of the weak by the strong in its all-encompassing meaning. On attaining independence, the Indian Constitution made some reservations for the so-called lower casts in government education and jobs. Though it was intended for ten years, only the country’s Parliament kept extending it in perpetuity. On April 10, 2008, the Supreme Court of India upheld the constitutional validity of the reservations in higher education with a caveat that the economically and socially better off (what they call the creamy layer) should be kept out of the ambit of the benefit. They could be considered along with the general category (The Hindu, 2008). Thus an overflow mechanism has been put in place whereby those crossing the upper bar automatically flows out into the mainstream. America can consider a similar mechanism by which a person reaching the threshold of the middle class automatically loses Affirmative Action benefits.

Conclusion

Gallup Poll results indicate that Affirmative Actions are generally welcome by the people who want it to continue:

  • During 1995, 2000 and 2001, almost 60 per cent of the people felt Affirmative Actions to be right. While around 34 per cent feel it is not so (Table – 1).
  • Voters were equally divided during 1995, 1997 and 2001 whether to increase, keep the same or decrease Affirmative Actions Programs (Table – 2).
  • In a 2001 August poll, 56 per cent supported Affirmative Actions while 39 per cent opposed it (Table – 3).
  • 58 per cent approved Affirmative Actions in workplaces while 37 per cent opposed it in August 2001 (Table – 4).
  • Compared to 1995 in 2001 there was an increase of 7 per cent who believed that Affirmative Actions Programs would be helpful to protect discrimination while during the same period there was a 6 per cent decrease in the number of people who feels Affirmative Actions will not reduce discrimination (Table – 5).
  • Almost 2/3 of the people feel Affirmative Actions will always be needed while 1/3 feel it need not (Table – 6).

 African Americans need to realize that to be equal, socially as well as legally, they have to think and act as equals and unalienable part of mainstream American society. The scars of the ills that befell blacks in this country are gradually fading. If they do not come to grips with the situation, racism and black problem will become a millstone around their necks. They must learn to retain and improve upon the exclusive physical, mental and spiritual qualities bestowed by God on them. They have to assimilate with the surroundings and be proud of their ethnicity. The black American community brings richness and strength to the unique table. Today they dominate the cultural and sports field. There are world-famous artists, athletes and sportsmen. They are not exclusive Black American achievements but of all Americans to be proud of. America, as a whole, will benefit from it. It seems, though, that black Americans, rather than being held back, are holding themselves back. It is sad and unfortunate. Perhaps it is not surprising given their history in this country, but it is a reaction to be discarded the earliest.

Appendix ‘A’

Report Card on Equality in The U S (1978 & 2003)
Serial Category 1978 2003
1 Life expectancy of a black child Five years shorter than a white child Improved to six years shorter
2 Risk of a black woman dying during childbirth Three times as likely Notched up to 3-1/2 times as likely
3 Infant mortality rate for blacks Twice that of whites Slightly more than twice
4 Black families below the poverty line Four times the number of white families Unchanged
5 Unemployment rate for black adults Twice that of whites Unchanged
6 Unemployment rate for black teens Three times that of whites Unchanged
7 Median income of a black family 60 percent of a white family’s 66 percent
8 Lawyers and judges 1.2 percent black 5.1 percent
9 Physicians 2.0 percent black 5.6 percent
10 Engineers 1.1 percent black 5.5 percent
11 College and university professors 2.6 percent black 6.1 percent

 

Appendix ‘B’

Gallup Poll Results on Affirmative Actions
Table 1

On the whole, do you think affirmative action has been good for the country, or do you think it has not been good?

  Good Not good No opinion
2001 Aug 3-5 58 33 9
2000 Aug 4-5 59 33 8
1995 Jul 20-23 54 35 11

 

Table 2    

In general, do you think we need to increase, keep the same, or decrease affirmative action programs in this country?

                        Increase Keep the same   Decrease No opinion
2001 Aug 3-5 24 34 35 7
1997 Jan 4-Feb 28 27 28 33 12
1995 Mar 17-19 31 26 37 6

 

Table 3

Do you favor or oppose affirmative action programs for minorities and women for admission to colleges and universities?

  Favor Oppose No opinion
2001 Aug 3-5 56 39 5
Gallup Poll Results on Affirmative Actions (Continuation)
Table  4

Do you favor or oppose affirmative action programs for minorities and women for job hiring in the workplace?

  Favor Oppose No opinion
2001 Aug 3-5 58 37 5

 

Table 5

Today do you think affirmative action programs are needed to help women and minorities overcome discrimination, or are they not needed today?

  Needed Not needed No opinion
2001 Aug 3-5 56 41 3
1995 July 20-23 49 47 4

 

Table 6

Do you think the day will ever come that affirmative action programs will no longer be needed at all, or will they always be needed?

              Always needed Not needed No opinion
2001 Aug 3-5 66 30 4
1995 July 20-23 69 27 4

 

References;
  • Abigail and Stephan Thernstrom, 1997. “America in Black and White: One Nation, Indivisible”. Simon & Schuster 1997, Touchstone 1999. Retrieved from: http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/critical_acclaim-america_in_bl.htm Accessed April 16, 2008
  • Affirmative Action in American Law Schools A Briefing Before pp.135-136 law school pdf. In a briefing before The United States Commission on Civil Rights Held in Washington, D.C., June 16, 2006
  • Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia,2007. “Reconstruction to 1954”  6th Ed. Copyright © 2007, Columbia University Press. Retrieved from: http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/history/A0858850.html Accessed April 16, 2008
  • Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia, “Affirmative Action”. 6th Ed. Copyright © 2007, Columbia University Press. All rights reserved. Retrieved from: http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/society/A0802658.html Accessed April 16, 2008
  • Kahlenberg, Richard D. 1999. Class-Based Affirmative Action” Boston Globe, 1/19/1999. The Century Foundation Retrieved from: http://www.equaleducation.org/commentary.asp?opedid=186 Accessed April 16, 2008
  • National Archives of the United States “Civil Rights Act (1964)” Official website http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?doc=97 Accessed April 16, 2008
  • The Hindu Online edition of India’s National Newspaper
    Saturday, Apr 12, 2008 http://www.hindu.com/2008/04/12/stories/2008041255021200.htm Accessed April 16, 2008
  • Richey Warren, 2003. Affirmative Action’s Evolution. How the Debate has Changed Since 1970s”.  Staff writer, The Christian Science Monitor. March 28, 2003. Edition The Christian Science Monitor. Retrieved from: http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0328/p01s01-usju.html Accessed April 16, 2008
  • “The Gap Persists, A Report on Racial and Ethnic Discrimination in the Greater Boston Home Mortgage Lending Market”. May 2006. Fair Housing Center of Greater Boston, Boston p. 13 to 16. Retrieved from: http://www.bostonfairhousing.org/GapPersists.pdf Accessed April 16, 2008.
  • Whorter, John H. Mc. August 18, 2000, “Losing The Race. Self-Sabotage In Black America” Free Press A Division of Simon & Schuster, Inc., 1230 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10020

related articles

Leave a Comment