SAMPLE EXCERPT:

(5) It is this disparity and inequitable application of Affirmative Action resources based purely on racial criteria that inspires resentment and also devalues the impressive accomplishments of black Americans who genuinely manage to overcome bona-fide hardships on the road to (deserved) academic scholarships and professional opportunities in corporate business.

4. Facts from the Census Bureau for Black History Month; United States Department of Commerce News (1996)

5. Carter, L.H. Reason In Law (p 206)

In principle, considering the backgrounds and challenges facing black

Americans in order to reward compensation and assistance based on the merits of achievement in the face of genuine adversity makes perfect sense. Certainly, in particular cases comparing the qualifications of two very closely matched candidates for consideration, both educational and professional business communities benefit from rewarding highly qualified candidates (regardless of race) who have triumphed over adverse socioeconomic challenges. By the same token, both communities are diminished to whatever extent highly qualified candidates (of any race) are ever displaced by marginally qualified candidates merely by virtue of racial identity.

The right approach to equitably and morally compensating genuine victims of modern day vestiges of the horrors of the enslavement of black Africans in America would be designed to recognize legitimate instances of merit, accomplishment, and triumph over adversity wherever they truly exist.

It is a blindly overbroad approach focusing purely on racial identity that inspires resentment and gives rise to high profile "reverse discrimination" law suits on the part of prospective students and employees unfairly displaced by less qualified (sometimes even completely unqualified) candidates, merely by virtue of their race.(6)

The philosophical beauty of focusing on identifying genuine cases of merit wherever they may exist is that it properly allocates resources of federal and state assistance to all Americans equally, without undermining the interests of the original class of beneficiaries for whom they were developed originally.

6. Carter, L.H., Reason In Law (pp 101-3)

That the holocaust of American enslavement of black Africans gives rise to a moral obligation is uncontroverted. It is a testament to the sincerity of the modern

American system of justice that the descendants of African slaves now enjoy all the rights, freedoms, and opportunities of American citizenship, by law. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 expresses the principle of economic opportunity to which all

Americans are entitled by law:

No person in the United States shall, on the grounds of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance"(7)

The ultimate goal of Affirmative Action theory is to level the playing field, not to establish a field of opportunity that is permanently slanted, long after the underlying circumstances justifying their inception have been eliminated.

The ultimate result of failing to incorporate modern realities into Affirmative

Action theory and programs is a perpetuation of a racial divide between black and white Americans, rather than a country united, where achievement is based on merit and never blindly denied or awarded, merely by virtue of race.

Business corporations, like the federal government, have a moral obligation to recognize and reward triumph over genuinely adverse situations wherever possible.

At the same time, they must provide opportunities to qualified candidates fairly, and utterly without prejudice or blind preferences based on racial identity. A failure to ignore the latter consideration undermines the moral and philosophical concerns expressed by the former, to the detriment of business, individual rights, the achievements of highly qualified minority candidates, and American society.

7) Carter, L.H., Reason In Law (p. 101)

SOURCES

1. Carter, L.H. Reason In Law; 1979 (Little Brown and Co.)

2. Grutter v. Bollinger, (02-241) 288 F.3d 732, affirmed. Accessed at http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-241.ZO.html

3. Regents of Univ. Of Cal. v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265 (1978). Accessed at http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-241.ZO.html

4. United States Department of Commerce News (1996);

Facts from the Census Bureau for Black History Month Accessed at http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/blkhis1.html