Nebraska and Affirmative Action

On Tuesday, Nebraska voters passed a ballot initiative barring the use of race- or gender-based affirmative action in recruiting students, faculty, and employees at state insititutions, including schools and universities. From an AP account:

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. A similar measure was on the ballot in Colorado, but the vote remained too close to call Thursday.

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....

"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," [Southeast Community College President Jose J.] 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."

More here.

The proposition is being challenged in court, on the grounds that the signatures collected to put in on the ballot were fraudulent. The prop was spearheaded by Ward Connerly, the University of California regent behind the successful attempt to stop race-based set-asides in California's public sector more than a decade ago. How will affirmative action and other forms of preference, which have (I think) declined as a hot-button issue over the years, fare in Obama's America?

reason interviewed Ward Connerly in 1998. It's a very interesting, very relevant, conversation and is online here.

In the November issue of reason, Michael C. Moynihan reviews two new books on race and argues that "Barack Obama's 'post-racial' posture reflects a quiet but radical shift in liberal ideas about race in America."

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • ||

    The Nebraskans did the right thing in getting rid of this terrible program. Its very sad Colorado did not, though I heard the opposition ran a really dirty campaign full of misinformation.

    This issue is based on similar principles to the gay marriage ban issue. Some people on both sides of the aisle have trouble with the idea of equal opportunity...

  • ||

    Affirmative action is always going to be with us, and it will always be flawed. Maybe government institutions will avoid quotas based on race and sex, but corporations seem to be on board (as much for the public relations stuff as the not-getting-sued stuff, though the lawsuits--and there were some obviously horrible cases of discrimination out there--really got the whole thing started.) And even those governments that avoid race and sex go and make other distinctions in their doling out of revenues and services: small business v. big business, local, minority-owned (with majority financing? who cares?), and all sorts of gaming can be done when contract specifications are written.) To suggest that this Nebraska amendment will make their government fair to all is like saying a rainy day ends a drought. Government only plays fair when it has to.

  • ||

    How will affirmative action and other forms of preference, which have (I think) declined as a hot-button issue over the years, fare in Obama's America?

    By defining affirmative action as a from of preference, you dispute Soto's defintion, which claims "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." What evidence do you have that your defintion of affirmative action is more accurate than his? I think of affirmative action as efforts taken to make sure the pool of candidates for a position includes people from groups who have historically been the victims of discrimination, which is closer to Soto's description than Gillespie's.

  • Mad Max||

    Here is how the amendment is described on the Nebraska ballot:

    "A vote 'FOR' will amend the Nebraska Constitution to prohibit the State, any public institution of higher education, political subdivision or government institution from discriminating against, or granting preferential treatment to, individuals or groups based upon race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in operating public employment, education, or contracting. Existing court orders would not be invalidated under the amendment. Bona fide qualifications based on sex reasonably necessary to normal operation of public employment, education or contracting, and actions necessary to obtain federal funds through federal programs would be permitted. A cause of action for violation would be created. The amendment would apply to actions after its adoption."

    Thus, it won't force Nebraskans to surrender their precious federal grants, nor will it affect 90% of affirmative action, assuming of course that Soto is correct in saying that 90% of federal action has "nothing to do" with race or sex discrimination. The amendment even allows sex discrimination if it's a bona fide occupational qualification, just like federal law allows it.

  • Mad Max||

    correction "assuming of course that Soto is correct in saying that 90% of affirmative action has 'nothing to do'" etc.

  • ||

    Now that race and gender preferences have been abolished, white dudes won't have all the advantages anymore. Phew!

    Wait, what?

  • Mad Max||

    I notice that there's an ad on this page for "HotHuskers.com." I suppose the words "Nebraska," "students" and "College" on the page are what did it. Or maybe the fact that this is a libertarian site.

  • ||

    What evidence do you have that your defintion of affirmative action is more accurate than his? I think of affirmative action as efforts taken to make sure the pool of candidates for a position includes people from groups who have historically been the victims of discrimination, which is closer to Soto's description than Gillespie's.



    Your description may well be true in many business environments, but it's simply not accurate as applied in university admissions. In university admissions as practiced, it's clearly a case of preference; there are wide ranges of test scores where the chance for admission is close to one if one is black, but near zero if white or Asian, and the graduation rates for black students are clearly lower.

    This is understandable, as simply making sure that people are present in the pool doesn't guarantee hires, particularly if you haven't addressed fundamental issues of qualifications-- and as the NFL's Rooney Rule demonstrates, it can simply mean token interviews if you already know you're going to hire a particular person. Simply opening the pool isn't going to produce fast enough results for some advocates when there are so many obstacles to overcome.

  • omahan||

    I voted for the amendment, but it wasn't an easy decision. In addition to unintended consequences, I was also concerned about the lack of religion in the list of considerations. Overall, I thought it was a step in the right direction, so I voted "FOR". Problems with paid petitioners in Nebr. have always occurred with the hot issues, but if my recollection is correct, I think there were enough solid signatures in this instance to overcome any fraudulent ones.

  • Daniel Reeves||

    Gillespie: when you say "state insititutions [sic]," you mean that (mostly) privately funded universities still get to discriminate, right?

    What evidence do you have that your defintion of affirmative action is more accurate than his?



    Because ultimately, with affirmative action, race and gender are used to make hiring decisions for godawful, stupid reasons.

  • Daniel Reeves||

    A response to myself: Mad Max posted what it said on the ballot, which shows that the answer to my question is "yes."

  • Rhiannon||

    "Bona fide qualifications based on sex reasonably necessary to normal operation of public employment, education or contracting,[ . . . ] would be permitted."

    Can someone give me an example of a job that includes "bona fide qualifications based on sex"?

  • Guy Montag||

    Can someone give me an example of a job that includes "bona fide qualifications based on sex"?

    Various positions in the dance arts that cater to one sex or the other. Some characters in plays. Not sure where it would apply outside of the arts.

  • Rhiannon||

    "Various positions in the dance arts that cater to one sex or the other. Some characters in plays. Not sure where it would apply outside of the arts."

    Even then, if you've got a transgendered person, a person who can physically pull off the look or feel of the opposite gender and accomplish the same thing, the actual plumbing shouldn't be an issue. Unless the job calls for (a) lactation or (b) ejaculation. I . . . really can't think of that many that do. Porn industry aside.

  • Rhiannon||

    Okay, so I spoke prematurely. So, for example, what about a doctor's office, say an OB/GYN or something, that is all-male and wants to expand a client-base to customers who are more comfortable with female doctors. In that case, they are specifically looking for a female to fill the job description.

    On the other hand, replace "male" with "white" and "female" with "black", and it takes on a different tone. And replace "male" with "black" and "female" with "white" and it *really* takes on a different tone.

  • ||

    Is there any chance this is going to matter? The elites in our society, politicians, business leaders, judges and lawyers, and the people who run universities, all love affirmative action, and the activists who support affirmative action are without scruple ("by any means necessary.") If this isn't thrown out by some judge, and actually gets to be a real law, it will just be ignored by policy makers in government and academia.

    http://www.bamn.com/

  • ||

    An example for Rhiannon: Men can't be girls gym teachers. Unless they're gay...

  • ||

    And medical experiment suckers might have to be the appropriate sex.

  • ||

    This will fall hard on Nebraska's African-Americans.

    Both of them.

  • ||

    "Can someone give me an example of a job that includes "bona fide qualifications based on sex"?

    Bra sales'person'?

  • guy in the back row||

    Is there any chance this is going to matter? The elites in our society, politicians, business leaders, judges and lawyers, and the people who run universities, all love affirmative action, and the activists who support affirmative action are without scruple ("by any means necessary.") If this isn't thrown out by some judge, and actually gets to be a real law, it will just be ignored by policy makers in government and academia.

    Maybe ignored until the current crop of leaders die off or retire?

    There is a lot less enthusiasm for AA among the next generation of managers of all races and genders, especially those who need to get stuff done. The competent person usually wins out over the person who's only qualification is AA.

  • Rhiannon||

    for bigbigslacker: All but one of my gym teachers was a man. None of them were gay. But I do concede the point that eg, a girl's gym "locker room monitor" can't be male, and none of those male gym teachers was monitoring the girls' changing room, surely.

    I don't know that I would consider medical experimentation (clinical trials?) an occupation, though.

  • ||

    Joe is right. Affirmative action will be always be here. The only way you can get rid of it is to end the "disparate impact" discrimination suit. Under that legal theory, you don't have to show any actual discrimination. You just have to show that the percentage of widget makers in company X is lower than the percentage of qualified and interested widget makers in the overall population. Or in the case of promotion cases, that there is some statistical deviation between the promotion rates of minorities than those of similarly situated minorities. Thos cases become a battle of statisticians. Those cases are never about actual facts or motives, just results.

    Smart companies hire their own statisticians and run the numbers themselves. They then cook their promotion rates to ensure that the numbers always look right to keep themselves from being sued. That is affirmative action. It is government mandated affirmative action that is pervasive throughout the economy. I don't think more than a small percentage of the country understands labor law well enough to know what it really means. Going all the way back to the redo of the civil rights act back in 1991, we have not had an honest conversation about this. If the country knew and understood how labor law really works, a vast majority of it would want it changed. But sadly, the race baiters and trial lawyers are able to portray any talk of changing the system as racism and advocating a return to legal discrimination.

  • ||

    'This will fall hard on Nebraska's African-Americans.

    Both of them."

    You have clearly never been there.

  • ||

    Gabrielle Union's from Nebraska. mmmmmmmmm

  • Geotpf||

    Here's the reason affirmative action needs to continue, IMHO:

    http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3495/is_2_48/ai_97873146

    Until tests like this don't show bias, blacks are unfairly disadvantaged in the job market and other areas.

    That is, when people stop being fucking racists, affirmative action can end. Until then, it needs to stay, IMHO.

  • ||

    John | November 7, 2008, 10:07am | #

    Joe is right. Affirmative action will be always be here.


    That was mitch, John.

    You have clearly never been there.

    US Census lists Nebraska's African-American population at 4.4%, roughly 1/3 of their share of the American population.

    Under that legal theory, you don't have to show any actual discrimination. You just have to show that the percentage of widget makers in company X is lower than the percentage of qualified and interested widget makers in the overall population.

    Your law professors would give you half-credit at best for this answer. That is not the doctrine of disparate impact. You have to show some overt act which resulted in the underrepresentation, not just that underrepresentation exists; and even then, you have to meet some standard to prove that the overt action wasn't related to the advancement of a legitimate purpose (with the standard varying based on whether it's a public or private institution, and other criteria). You're right that the overt act doesn't have to based on a conscious desire to discriminate, but just showing that a business has a lower % of black employees than the city it's located in doesn't meet the standard.

  • X||

    'This will fall hard on Nebraska's African-Americans.

    Both of them."


    4.4% in Nebraska
    6.9% in Massachusetts or 3 total in joe math. must be the celtics.

  • $||

    Rhiannon
    "Various positions in the dance arts that cater to one sex or the other. Some characters in plays. Not sure where it would apply outside of the arts."

    Even then, if you've got a transgendered person, a person who can physically pull off the look or feel of the opposite gender and accomplish the same thing, the actual plumbing shouldn't be an issue.

    I believe that would be fraud. Or it should be.

  • ||

    Geotpf, it is percieved to be more dangerous to hire a minority than an easily fired caucasian. That's the more generous explanation.

  • BDB||

    I knew a guy in high school that moved here from Plymouth, MA. He asked once "Why are there so many black people at this high school?"

    Cause blacks aren't supposed to live outside the big cities!

  • ||

    X,

    Could you write that in joe English? Because it made no sense.

  • ||

    The amendment even allows sex discrimination if it's a bona fide occupational qualification, just like federal law allows it.


    Does NE state government own a Hooters?

  • Jordan||

    That is, when people stop being fucking racists, affirmative action can end. Until then, it needs to stay, IMHO.



    Are you new to the human race or something?

  • Guy Montag\'s salacious copy-e||

    Various positions

  • ||

    Joe, that overt act can be setting up a merit system. For you to claim "you have to show an overt act" is half true. It implies that that overt act has to be something discriminatory, which it doesn't. The act can be promoting people based on an objective system that results in the stats not coming out correctly.

    Nice try to defend the system by nitpicking, but it is government sanctioned discrimination. It is immoral, wastes millions of dollars and accomplishes nothing beyond getting a few undeserving plaintiffs and trial lawyers rich.

  • ||

    The work-around here is to change public-sector affirmative action policies from being race-based to economics-based; or even better, to target people from within a low-income area.

    As a matter of public policy, this is a wise move anyway, as the link between race and wealth has been eroded - most African-Americans are middle-class today - while the link between geography and wealth remains as strong as ever, if not stronger.

    Such a program would still disproportionately benefit African-Americans and Latinos - the race/wealth connection isn't completely absent, obviously.

  • ||

    I am well aware of the overt act part. It is just not a significant enough difference to warrant talking about in this context. Since I don't have a guilty conscience over defending an immoral system, I don't see the need to pretend that the overt act requirement in any way makes the system anything other than government mandated discrimination against disfavored groups.

  • ||

    "The work-around here is to change public-sector affirmative action policies from being race-based to economics-based; or even better, to target people from within a low-income area."

    That sounds nice, but that is crazy to. What am I going to quit my job and smoke crack so my kid can get into a school he couldn't get into otherwise? They have tried that in Texas with the 10% rule. What happened is a bunch of kids who were not prepared got into UT and A&M, flunked out and were replaced after two years by kids who went to sattilite campuses for two years when they should have by objective criteria just gotten into the mainline schools. I used to support that until I saw the screwy results it producted in Texas.

  • ||

    John,

    Joe, that overt act can be setting up a merit system. It can be, but it would require showing that the system you use to measure merit is discriminatory. For example, if SATs are the sole measure, despite the fact that factors other than merit effect SAT scores (factors which tend to work against poorer or minority test-takers). Or, if the "merit" being measured isn't actually relevant to the job - for example, if a softward firm had an upper-body strength test and was therefore exluding almost all women. Again, this would require a positive showing by the plaintiff.

    The act can be promoting people based on an objective system that results in the stats not coming out correctly. No, you'd have to show some flaw in the system.

    Nice try to defend the system by nitpicking, The fact that you are unaware of the legal issues involved here doesn't make them nits.

    but it is government sanctioned discrimination. It is immoral, wastes millions of dollars and accomplishes nothing beyond getting a few undeserving plaintiffs and trial lawyers rich.

    Thank you for sharing your feelings.

  • ||

    I'm talking about legal doctrines, and you're speculating on my feelings.

    This is what we call "asymetric warfare."

  • ||

    Legacies, of course, are still okay. Because the idiot scions of privilege need a leg up.

  • Seward||

    Bypassing for the moment any non-consequentialist concerns for the moment , given how incredibly divisive AA is one has to ask what results outweigh such acrimony over it?

  • Seward||

    I would note of course what is well documented: that the vast majority of the black population had moved out of poverty by the implementation of AA. Essentially it was attacking a problem that was heading out the door in the first place.

  • Seward||

    Er, ummm...

    by = before

  • ||

    Joe the standard for establishing an overt act is so low as to be non-existent. These cases are decided on numbers and numbers alone. If your numbers add up as a plaintiff you win. The "overt act" is a mere formality. That is how the cases work in practice. Few if any Plaintiffs ever had good numbers but failed to establish an overt act and few if any defendents ever have good numbers and don't win. IT is defacto affirmative action.

  • ||

    Seward,

    There has always been a loud straing of "the darkies get all the breaks, I'm being oppressed" in American politics.

    I don't think Affirmative Action causes this "divisiveness," it's just the current target for it.

    I would also say the lived experience of integration that millions of people have had due to affirmative action, and the desegregation of the public and business spheres it has brought about, have had a far greater effect on race relations than any backlash it engendered.

  • ||

    Joe the standard for establishing an overt act is so low as to be non-existent. These cases are decided on numbers and numbers alone. If your numbers add up as a plaintiff you win.

    If that were the case, we would be seeing far more successful discrimination suits than we actually do, given the still widespread disproportionate representation of African-Americans and Latinos in so many fields.

  • ||

    "If that were the case, we would be seeing far more successful discrimination suits than we actually do, given the still widespread disproportionate representation of African-Americans and Latinos in so many fields."

    It is by the number of "interested and qualfied" people in the area. If I run a doctor's office in North Philadelphia, they don't look at the black population of my area as a whole, but only the black population of doctors who are interested and qualified in the area. That changes the numbers. Since there are few qualified minorities in a field, the firms in that field are expected to have lower numbers of minorities.

  • ||

    I think Soto is including "outreach" programs to try to get minorities to apply for positions as affirmative action, which is probably fair and unobjectionable, as far as I am concerned.

    However, anything beyond that, including "tie goes to the minority" and especially including differential standards based on race or gender (as is practiced by universities), should be illegal for any state to engage in.

    I do find it somewhat amusing that the work-around proposed by joe, if it amounts to anything more than outreach in the zip codes identified as being economically disadvantaged, amounts to just the kind of redlining that banks used to do. Only in reverse, so that's OK, I guess.

    I would also say the lived experience of integration that millions of people have had due to affirmative action, and the desegregation of the public and business spheres it has brought about, have had a far greater effect on race relations than any backlash it engendered.

    The ends justify the means?

  • ||

    Only in reverse, so that's OK, I guess.

    Uh, yeah, sort like Patton's march through France was just like Rommel's, only in reverse.

    The ends justify the means?

    What else could possibly justify any means, if not the ends they produce? Anyway, there was an actual argument made about ends, so I replied by noting that there were other ends. Sue me.

  • Mad Max||

    Other difficulties with AA:

    -Who gets to be a preferred group? What about Asian-Americans, especially in Western states, which have a history of discriminating against Asians? Strangely enough, Asian-Americans don't make the cut - they aren't a preferred group in the Western states, which means that they get lumped together with the mean old oppressive whiteys.

    -What about people of mixed race? The marital and romantic preferences of Americans haven't always been segregated along uniracial lines, not even when segregation was legally required. So we have people with part white ancestry, part black, part Asian, etc. Sometimes it's difficult to figure out a given American's exact proportion of preferred versus no-preferred genes. Do we use the "one drop" rule that any preferred ancestors makes you a member of a preferred group? Or is it one-eighth, like the old segregation laws in Virginia? Or will you get partial credit based on the proportion of preferred ancestry? And since women are a preferred group, and since we all have 50% female ancestry, does that makes us women under the one-drop rule? If President Obama's daughters are one-fourth white (assuming Mrs. O is pure-blooded African-American), does that mean they're 3/4 preferred and 1/4 non-preferred? If One of the President's daughters gets into college based on Affirmative Action, will they be have to go to classes only 3/4 of the time, and stay out of class the other 1/4 in penance for their contaminated white blood?

  • Seward||

    joe,

    I don't think Affirmative Action causes this "divisiveness," it's just the current target for it.

    I think it does. Indeed, I think there are numerous consequentialist and non-consequentialist reasons for finding AA quite problematic. Indeed, if you are suggesting that opposition to AA is based solely on racism then you are sadly misguided.

    I would also say the lived experience of integration that millions of people have had due to affirmative action, and the desegregation of the public and business spheres it has brought about, have had a far greater effect on race relations than any backlash it engendered.

    I've already demonstrated to you that the U.S. is about as segregated as it was in the mid-1960s (if we take school integration as a proxy for such). Apparently most people like to live in neighborhoods where people look, etc. like they look, etc.

  • ||

    I'm not saying "solely," Seward, but "largely," and I'm not talking about "opposition to affirmative action," but about race relations in general, and white resentment in particular.

    I've already demonstrated to you that the U.S. is about as segregated as it was in the mid-1960s No, you haven't. You demonatrated that medical school enrollment is lower than it was in the 80s.

    Seriously, you can cherrypick all the data you want - do you seriously want to stand by the statement "America is about as segregated as it was in the mid-60s?" Really?

  • Seward||

    Mad Max,

    The main problem with AA is that it involves the government the outcome of who wins and loses. Invariably this will create interest groups, rent seeking, etc. and that IMHO means suboptimal outcomes and government failure. Indeed, that is the primary problem with any type of government regulation.

  • Seward||

    joe,

    No, you haven't. You demonatrated that medical school enrollment is lower than it was in the 80s.

    Actually, you are wrong. I provided you with a link ot a study out of Harvard I believe which showed that schools are about as segregated as they were in 1965. You made some remark, if I recall correctly, about the highwater of desegregation being in the 1980s.

    ...do you seriously want to stand by the statement "America is about as segregated as it was in the mid-60s?" Really?

    Schools represent the neighborhoods which they draw from presumably. If schools are about as segregated as they were then presumably neighborhoods are as well. People apparently do not seek out diversity (of any variety) and apparently they settle in places where people look like they do, think like they do, etc.

    Addendum: I went back to the wikipedia article I drew my original comments from, and here is a direct quote from it:

    According to the Civil Rights Project at Harvard University, the desegregation of U.S. public schools peaked in 1988; since then, schools have become more segregated. As of 2005, the proportion of Black students at majority white schools was at "a level lower than in any year since 1968." [5]

  • curious||

    Geotpf,

    Do you have a studywitht he same methodology with Chinese names, Indian names, and other ethnicities? Perhaps it is a bias against anyone with an "unusual" name, and not a bias against a particular race.

  • Seward||

    joe,

    Also, I believe that the data suggests that really it is only in the political world that government efforts have paid off regarding diversity representation. Which is a good thing, IMHO. In other words, things like the Voting Rights Act and so forth have led to positive gains in that area. It shouldn't be that surprising though that such things are hard to translate into the private sector.

  • ||

    I often wonder how Professional sports would be different if they used some AA. If blacks only make up 15-17% of the entire population then IMO it would only be fair to have one black guy playing for every 3 or 4 whites. Wonder how this plan would go over with the current setup of 90% black players? If applied the same as AA how long would Pro Sports survive if we allowed medicore players on the team simply to fill a % quota?

    This AA issue has always baffled me. How does a segment of society that only makes up such a small percentage of the whole figure that they are entitled to at least 50% of every type of job or position. Even if ever last black was qualified for every job they applied for there are simply not enough blacks to fill 50% of the jobs. But since when has Washington let simple math stop them from their choices.

  • ||

    I see where we're missing each other, Seward. You're talking about residential segregation, while I'm talking about integration in the business and public realms.

    You're talking about who people's neighbors are, I'm talking about how their bosses, coworkers, and business contacts are.

    See, by "schools," I assumed you were talking about colleges, because the integration of colleges is an effort to build those social and professional networks that Brown v. Board discusses, and which affirmative action is focused upon. Now I see that you're talking primarily about grade school, as a proxy for residential integration. On this, I agree with you.

    You must agree that the business, social, and political realms are far less segregated than they were in the mid-60s, right?

    I'll note that there hasn't actually been an affirmative action push in the residential realm - that housing has been dealt with using standard nondiscrimination efforts - as opposed to professions, government, and college admission.

  • ||

    Seward,

    In between what you call "the private sector" - which you are using to refer to neighborhoods and homes - and politics is the business world.

  • robc||

    What else could possibly justify any means, if not the ends they produce?

    The morality of the means themselves.

    If choosing between 2 moral means, by all means (heh) look at the ends they produce.

    If choosing between a moral and immoral mean, there is no need to even check out the end. Always choose the moral mean and deal with the end you get.

    If choosing between two immoral means, dont.

  • Seward||

    joe,

    You must agree that the business, social, and political realms are far less segregated than they were in the mid-60s, right?

    Well, I already mentioned politics. As for the rest, I have no idea. I've never looked any data up on the subject. Well, beyond the low representation of African-Americans in the field of medicine. I'd be more than happy to look at any data you have on the subject.

    I'll note that there hasn't actually been an affirmative action push in the residential realm...

    If that did happened it would be a substantial assault on choice and liberty.

  • ||

    Dee,

    What in the world are you talking about?

  • Kolohe||

    Can someone give me an example of a job that includes "bona fide qualifications based on sex"?

    New York Times Whore Critic?

  • ||

    New York Times Whore Critic?

    Nah. They'd just have Michiko Kakutani do that too.

  • ||

    robc,

    How else are to judge how moral means are, if not by looking at their effect on people? What else would make a means immoral?

    Seward,

    If that did happened it would be a substantial assault on choice and liberty. Agreed.

  • ||

    proposition is being challenged in court, on the grounds that the signatures collected to put in on the ballot were fraudulent.

    WTF?? The reason for requiring so many signatures on a petition to get a referendum on the ballot is to have some way of screening out frivolous proposals. You know, the ones that no one supports and that would be a waste of everyone's time of they were included on the ballot. I would think that once the referendum gets a majority of the voters, it's pretty obvious that's not a problem.

  • Kaiser||

    I was glad to see the Nebraskans vote AA away. I have always been outspoken against it, personally always felt it was a terrible program, it'd just legal discrimination imho.

  • Mike Laursen||

    This will fall hard on Nebraska's African-Americans. Both of them.

    There are few more than two, but I'm pretty sure they are all either (a) playing on the University of Nebraska football team, or (b) working for Burlington Northern Santa Fe.

  • ||

    I often wonder how Professional sports would be different if they used some AA.

    Indeed. Bring back the white running back! (Not to mention white wide receiver, cornerback etc.)

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement