Wednesday, 1 October 2008

Re: USA started affirmative action, not Malaysia

Extracted from wikipedia: Affirmative_action_in_the_United_States

* Regents of the University of California v. Bakke 438 U.S. 265

The Supreme Court held that the UC Davis medical school admissions
program violated the equal protection clause with the institution of
quotas for underrepresented minorities. However, Justice Lewis
Powell's decision in the majority upheld diversity in higher education
as a "compelling interest" and held that race could be one of the
factors in university admissions.

[What it means is that "race could be one of the factors in university

* Hopwood v. Texas, :78 F.3d 932 (5th Cir.1996), 1996

(first successful legal challenge to racial preferences in student
admissions since Regents of the University of California v. Bakke).

If you read the details, the court still allows race as a
qualification but not in having separate evaluation committees and
test scores.

"Moreover, the court held that the plaintiffs were not entitled to
prospective injunctive relief, because "of the law school's voluntary
change to a procedure, which on paper and from the testimony, appears
to remedy the defects the Court has found in the 1992 procedure." Id.
[FN15] To pass muster under the court's reasoning, the law school
simply had to have one committee that at one time during the process
reviewed all applications and did not establish separate TI numbers to
define the presumptive denial categories. In other words, if the law
school applied the same academic standards, but had commingled the
minority review in the discretionary zone with the review of whites,
its program would not have been struck down. The same admissions
result would occur, but the process would be "fair." Id.

* President Clinton's Affirmative Action Review, 1998


4.1. Evidence of Continuing Discrimination

There has been undeniable progress in many areas. Nevertheless, the
evidence is overwhelming that the problems affirmative action seeks to
address -- widespread discrimination and exclusion and their ripple
effects -- continue to exist.

* Minorities and women remain economically disadvantaged: the
black unemployment rate remains over twice the white unemployment
rate; 97 percent of senior managers in Fortune 1000 corporations are
white males; (28) in 1992, 33.3 percent of blacks and 29.3 percent of
Hispanics lived in poverty, compared to 11.6 percent of whites. (29)
In 1993, Hispanic men were half as likely as white men to be managers
or professionals; (30) only 0.4 percent of senior management positions
in Fortune 1000 industrial and Fortune 500 service industries are
Hispanic. (31)

* Blatant discrimination is a continuing problem in the labor
market. Perhaps the most convincing evidence comes from "audit"
studies, in which white and minority (or male and female) job seekers
are given similar resumes and sent to the same set of firms to apply
for a job. These studies often find that employers are less likely to
interview or offer a job to minority applicants and to female
applicants. (32)

* Less direct evidence on discrimination comes from comparisons of
earnings of blacks and whites, or males and females. (33) Even after
adjusting for characteristics that affect earnings (such as years of
education and work experience), these studies typically find that
blacks and women are paid less than their white male counterparts. The
average income for Hispanic women with college degrees is less than
the average for white men with high school degrees. (34)

* Last year alone, the Federal government received over 90,000
complaints of employment discrimination. Moreover 64,423 complaints
were filed with state and local Fair Employment Practices Commissions,
bringing the total last year to over 154,000. Thousands of other
individuals filed complaints alleging racially motivated violence and
discrimination in housing, voting, and public accommodations, to name
just a few.

[The situations are similar to Malaysia as well where Chinese
dominated businesses refused to admit Malays an natives in significant
numbers as salary scales that will alleviate the glaring disparity in

No comments: