MOTION TO DISMISS ANSWER FROM THE NATIVE AMERICAN INDIAN LABOR UNION #12

Plaintiff’s response to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment and Dismissal



The three Defendants in this case are intentionally seeking to confuse the issue in question with their motions for dismissal of Plaintiff’s lawsuit seeking relief for non-compliance in implementing Affirmative Action on the Bemidji Regional Event Center--- a huge public works project involving tens of millions of public tax dollars.



Native American Indians comprise 25% of Bemidji’s population suffering staggering unemployment and poverty far above the average, and there are three large Indian Reservation nearby from which Native American Indians commute to Bemidji to shop, for education, attend church and to work--- usually at poverty level wages in menial jobs. Unemployment on the three reservations--- Red Lake, White Earth and Leech Lake--- ranges from 65% to 80%. Native American Indians living on the Reservations and in and around Bemidji are forced, because of poverty, to live in some of the most unsatisfactory housing and because of their race and poverty are systematically denied equal opportunities in education. All of this racial injustice and racial inequality is the result of many decades--- over a century--- of institutionalized racism in employment, education, healthcare, housing, media bias and in the judicial system not to mention the stealing of land and resources from Native American Indian peoples who were the original inhabitants of this region which is all matter of historical record and present day research as Native American Indians comprise over 50% of the population of the Beltrami County Jail while Native American Indians comprise less than a fraction of a percent of the public and private workforces in and around Bemidji, Minnesota.



Native American Indian employment at the township, municipal, county, and state departments and agencies operating in the City of Bemidji and surrounding communities of Bemidji is so negligible it is disgustingly shameful.



All these factors taken together would lead any reasonable, thinking, caring and concerned person to conclude that enforcement of affirmative action in hiring is the key to breaking the back of institutionalized racism in the City of Bemidji and the region and “leveling the playing field” for Native American Indians to improve their lives and livelihoods.



No matter how one views this situation whether looking at the deplorable housing conditions or the people standing in line in -30 degree weather at the Beltrami County Food Shelf located directly across the street from the Bemidji City Hall one views the impact of a racist poverty the result of over a century of racist hiring practices. Common sense tells any thinking, caring and concerned individuals that people without jobs are going to poor people living in the squalor of poverty.



Report after report and survey after survey have documented all of this.



The reports and surveys are readily available for all public and appointed public officials to read which are compiled for the purpose of solving these problems which are the result of institutionalized racism.



Affirmative action has been the law of the land in resolving the problems resulting from structured and institutionalized racism since President Lyndon Johnson signed into law Executive Order 11246 upon which Plaintiff’s Claim for Damages arises.



Origin of Affirmative Action: 1965

"The contractor will not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, creed, color, or national origin," declared Executive Order 11246 of September 24, 1965. "The contractor will take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin. [A few years later a fifth category was added: sex.] Such action shall include, but not be limited to the following: employment, upgrading, demotion, or transfer; recruitment or recruitment advertising; layoff or termination; rates of pay or other forms of compensation; and selection for training, including apprenticeship. The contractor agrees to post in conspicuous places, available to employees and applicants for employment, notices to be provided by the contracting officer setting forth the provisions of this nondiscrimination clause."

That was the beginning of affirmative action as we know it today. The term had been used in legal contexts to refer to action taken to uphold a corporate policy of fair labor practice as early as 1935, and statements similar to Executive Order 11246 had been issued since the early 1960s, but it was this declaration from President Lyndon Johnson that made affirmative action a national policy. It was different from mere nondiscrimination, as the director of the U.S. Office of Civil Rights explained in 1973: "The premise of the Affirmative Action concept...is that systematic discrimination in employment has existed, and unless positive action is taken, a benign neutrality today will only preserve yesterday's conditions and project them into the future."

In their initial filings in their defense, Defendants maintained they did not understand Plaintiff’s lawsuit but then they go on to clearly articulate their understanding that this case is about the failure to enforce existing and needed affirmative action guidelines, policies and legislated mandates along with long held court ordered affirmative action guidelines and orders all based upon political, philosophical and, most importantly concerning Plaintiff’s action, long established case law history.



Now come Defendants asking for summary judgment for dismissal, after acknowledging through their own affidavits, they knowingly and intentionally did not make any attempt to administer nor enforce affirmative action guidelines and policies even though state law requires this as does federal statute and the City of Bemidji does not have an active affirmative action program in place, again, according to Defendant City of Bemidji’s own affidavits submitted by City Manager John Chatten and its City Attorney Al Felix.



Nor have Defendants even sought to refute the fact they failed to implement and then enforce affirmative action during all phases of the Bemidji Regional Event Center--- from planning to bring it into operation.



Defendants have one, and only one legitimate claim to stating a case for the summary judgment and dismissal from Plaintiff’s Claim for Damages they are seeking from this court, and they have not presented, nor even tried to establish, such a legitimate claim.

The Defendants’ requests for dismissal--- all based upon their insistence, without presenting any facts to back up this unfounded claim that they have not engaged in discrimination--- is one more notch in their long and unbroken history of a well-structured and intentionally devised plan to assure the continuation of institutionalized racism perpetuating the injustice of racist poverty that existed for decades and continues to exist today.



The crux of Plaintiff’s Claim for Damages centers on AFFIRMATIVE ACTION not being enforced and which is needed and required by federal and state laws because of a well-documented history and pattern of institutionalized racism of which individual acts of racist discrimination (and most likely sexual and handicapped discrimination) is a part.



The Defendants do not argue their only possible defense to this law suit that they in fact have an affirmative action policy they implemented--- nor have they even documented through submission of compliance reports required by the Minnesota Human Rights Commission--- that they are not discriminating in employment based upon race, sex or disability.



Plaintiff will seek these required compliance reports through the discovery process since the Defendants have failed to produce these documents. At this point, Defendants have not even presented affidavits claiming to have said documents much less submitted these documents along with their motion for dismissal. Plaintiff maintains that these compliance reports required by the Minnesota Department of Human Rights are crucial pieces of evidence to this case and without the Defendants presenting even this very basic evidence to this court they don’t have any legitimate basis for requesting a dismissal.



Defendants’ Motion for Dismissal is predicated upon the claim they have not discriminated in hiring based upon race without providing any proof or evidence of any kind to back up this claim. That some minority contractors have been awarded bids on the BREC does not prove there have been no racist hiring practices in regard to hourly-paid workers. Nor does such a claim--- whether true or not--- have any bearing on the fact that an affirmative action policy is not in place based upon the known Native American Indian population and the living conditions of this Native American Indian population in and around Bemidji (this public works project is called the Bemidji Regional Event Center for a reason) and as such Native American Indian people have a right to expect employment based upon the demographics and expectations of full equality with due consideration given to all circumstances--- including unemployment which breeds poverty.



Said Defendants are for dismissal of this case based upon the “fact” (unproven and unsubstantiated with any evidence of any kind only their mere words which ring hollow and empty without any empirical data provided) that they are not “discriminating” in employment practices when it comes to hourly paid employees or when it comes to individual contractors hiring hourly-paid employees.



Even if Plaintiff were to agree with Defendants that the substantial part of this case--- the heart of this case--- is based upon “discrimination,” which Plaintiff has made clear this case is about affirmative action with individual discrimination a component of institutionalized racism, much more than individual acts of discrimination which has most likely occurred even though Defendants are denying this without providing very tangible evidence that is easily obtained in the form of state mandated records from their own files as proof of their denial (Compliance Reports mandated by the Minnesota Department of Human Rights as the State of Minnesota’s chosen method of assuring non-discrimination)--- this case is not based solely upon discrimination; rather, this case is about affirmative action, two very distinct, but interrelated questions and issues.

There is a plethora of case law documenting the fact that because individual acts of discrimination have not taken place that this does not relieve the Defendants of their responsibility to develop, implement and enforce affirmative action if the situation warrants this in response to an “uneven playing field” until the “playing field has been leveled.



Again, Plaintiff maintains “the playing field for Native American Indians” is so unequal in the City of Bemidji and the surrounding region that affirmative action in employment is required and must be developed as governmental policy, implemented and enforced by the City of Bemidji and all those it contracts with and subcontracts with until such time the playing field becomes level.



Plaintiff maintains affirmative action has not been enforced as part of the planning, (quite possibly the bidding process but since Defendants have not supplied details of how the bidding process took place nor of the demographics of the community regarding race, gender and disability Plaintiff is not willing to concede that non-discrimination in the bidding process has not taken place simply because two minority contractors--- who quite possibly are mere fronts for white contractors (we will find out the truth of this matter during the discovery process since Plaintiff has reason to believe at least one owner of what is being claimed as a “minority contractor” who is in probably white, actually purchased his membership in the White Earth Band of Ojibwa Indians and may, in fact not even be Native American which raises questions of corruption and racism coming together to further enforce, rather than break down, structural and institutionalized forms of racism--- and construction of the Bemidji Regional Event Center, while at this late date with the construction of the BREC near completion, the City has made no attempt to formulate, let alone put in place, an affirmative action policy regarding the management or staffing of the BREC once the construction phase is concluded and the BREC comes into full operation; neither is there an affirmative action policy in place for the routine maintenance of the BREC.



There are, in fact, very formidable issues of law at question arising from Plaintiff’s Claim for Damages requiring a full and complete hearing by this court for which there are damages to be awarded along with a court ordered, mandated and supervised plan for the development, implementation and enforcement of affirmative action regarding the Bemidji Regional Event Center, a huge and massive public works project entailing tens of millions of dollars with hundreds of jobs; a good portion of these jobs to which Native American Indians are entitled based upon population and past and present injustices and inequality based upon race and racial discrimination because affirmative action is not in place on this public works project.



Plaintiff is requesting that Defendants’ motion for summary judgment and dismissal be denied by this court and a full and complete hearing including Defendant’s request for a jury trial be so ordered because Defendants have not demonstrated they have devised, implemented and affirmative action for this BREC project; in fact, said Defendants acknowledge in their pleadings and affidavits that even after Kraus-Anderson asked about whether or not they had to abide by any affirmative action policies, they were told “no” by both City Manager John Chattin and City Attorney Alan Felix both of whom acted with malicious and intended racism in telling Plaintiff to take up the issue of affirmative action with Kraus-Anderson, which was done to no avail.



Defendants the City of Bemidji, the Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development and Kraus-Anderson have demonstrated repeatedly in many different ways, two important facts:



1.Defendants do not understand what affirmative action is; and/or
2.Defendants intentionally refuse to enforce develop a plan/s to implement and enforce affirmative action.


Defendants have chosen to confuse affirmative action with non-discrimination either intentionally or through gross ignorance neither of which entitles the Defendants to a Motion of Summary Judgment and a dismissal of this Claim for Damages because ignorance of the law is no excuse for violating the law.



“Non-discrimination policies” and policies designed to create, implement and enforce “affirmative action” are two separate and distinct policies.



It is possible for these Defendants to claim they adhere to “non-discrimination policies” yet be in violation of state and federal statutes requiring these Defendants to be compliant with affirmative action.



The Defendants’ own Motions for Summary Judgment and Dismissal prove they believe because they may not be engaged in discriminatory conduct towards Native American Indians based upon race that they are therefore compliant with affirmative action policies they are required to adhere to.



Plaintiff has demonstrated in the Claim for Damages that the Defendants have engaged in racial discrimination in hiring practices; but, Plaintiff’s cause of action is not predicated on this discrimination. Plaintiff’s Claim for Damages is based on the failure of these Defendants to develop an affirmative action plan based upon the Native American Indian population in the City of Bemidji and in the region together with the known unemployment and poverty statistics combined with understanding the historical wrongs and racist injustices of the past which have created the racist unemployment and racist poverty present and ever prevalent today knowing that if corrective action is not taken the problems of racist unemployment and racist poverty will persist long into the future.



Affirmative action policies on public works projects, public employment and private employment in Bemidji and the region have never been considered; never been implemented and never been enforced.



Plaintiff comes before this court, having exhausted all other remedies, seeking a redress of grievances which shall include, but not be limited to, a court ordered and supervised affirmative action policy for this huge public works project known as the Bemidji Regional Event Center or more popularly known as the BREC.



Plaintiff is seeking compensation and punitive damages as determined by this court for the failure of these three Defendants to develop, implement and enforce an affirmative action policy which, if such a policy had been in place, would have required at least 25% of the construction jobs to be designated for Native American Indians with the affirmative action plan to have included the needed and required education and training before construction work began.



Since no affirmative action plan has been developed by the Defendants City of Bemidji and the Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development for the management, operation, staffing and maintenance of the completed BREC; Plaintiff is seeking from this court an order instructing the Defendants City of Bemidji and Deed to submit a proposed affirmative action program in compliance with all state and federal guidelines, regulations, statutes, executive orders and legislation as required because there is no doubt that the conditions of racist poverty and racist unemployment of the Native American Indian population in the City of Bemidji and the region require affirmative action--- together with non-discrimination--- to be implemented and enforced.



For the three Defendants to be able to present a credible argument for Dismissal of Plaintiff’s Claim for Damages these defendants would have to prove to this court that:



1.Racist unemployment derived from institutional racism does not exist in the City of Bemidji and the region;
2.Racist poverty derived from institutional racism does not exist in the City of Bemidji and the region.


These three Defendants could never prove that racist unemployment does not exist because all facts prove otherwise as the discovery process will conclusively demonstrate; furthermore, the employment records in the form of compliance documents and records required by the Minnesota Department of Human Rights will conclusively demonstrate that these Defendants not only did not develop, implement and enforce affirmative action but they have engaged in racial discrimination in their hiring practices, too, although Plaintiff restates that these racist hiring practices are not the primary basis for this Claim for Damages although an important component because the racist hiring practices of these Defendants is an integral part of the structural and institutionalized racism that is prevalent, prevailing, ever-present and common-place in Bemidji and the region.



Plaintiff notes that the Minnesota Attorney General is representing DEED when the Minnesota Attorney General is mandated by law, statute and by the Constitutions of the State Minnesota and the United States to see to it that government departments and agencies like DEED are living up to their requirements mandating the enforcement of affirmative action and non-discrimination.





Affirmative action has three components all present in Plaintiff’s Claim for Damages…



The three components: political, philosophical and legal are all embodied in this Letter to the Editor written by a Native American Indian residing in the area of the Bemidji Regional Event Center:



Published February 14 2010

Bemidji Pioneer Press

http://www.bemidjipioneer.com/event/article/id/100015910

American Indian issues belittled by the media



This is in response to the article pertaining to the GOP forum Tuesday night. It portrayed Nicole Beaulieu as unaware or uneducated of the negative and positive effects of the affirmative action policies of Minnesota. In fact, as native people and people socially victimized by these institutional racist hiring practices present here in our community, the law of affirmative action is our only outlet to speak out against our discrepancies of injustice.

This is in response to the article pertaining to the GOP forum Tuesday night. It portrayed Nicole Beaulieu as unaware or uneducated of the negative and positive effects of the affirmative action policies of Minnesota. In fact, as native people and people socially victimized by these institutional racist hiring practices present here in our community, the law of affirmative action is our only outlet to speak out against our discrepancies of injustice.

We are in no way questioning the integrity of the non-native worker, but when we make up a large percentage of Bemidji’s population, and we are only a very small fraction of Bemidji’s workforce, then something is wrong here. When we have people with the proper training and education seeking the same jobs as non-natives, but we’re overlooked on the simple assumptions that we are in some way under qualified or not properly adherent to task as our non-native counterparts, then forgive me for taking offense to the retort of the fact that native people are qualified to manage more than court dates.

The Pioneer has no problem whatsoever criminalizing our population with brazen printings of any of our social downfalls, making our problems public and encouraging propaganda within our community based on race relations with the native people of Bemidji. I spoke with Mr. Herwig after the forum and we discussed many things pertaining to the mistreatment of native peoples in this area. I shook his hand and walked away feeling like we established a rapport and a new understanding between us and the problems we face together here in Minnesota, let alone Bemidji. I do not believe Mr. Herwig would appreciate being represented and portrayed as an opponent of human rights, and equality based on his standpoint of affirmative action.

That’s what I am left feeling when our issues are distorted and belittled by the press, but nonetheless, my colleagues and I will diligently pursue justice and equality for natives throughout Minnesota, regardless of the shadows of injustice that shroud our struggle for equality.

This community can ignore its ugly past in dealing with the Ojibwe people, but they can’t ignore its current state of racist degradation victimizing the Native Americans that just so happen to call Bemidji “home.”

Curtis Buckanaga

Bemidji



A Political component…



Policy designed to correct past practices of discrimination against racial minorities, women, the disabled and other historically disadvantaged groups. The advocates of affirmative action programs argue that it is not sufficient to pass legislation aimed at eliminating discrimination in education, employment, and other areas of human activity. Such legislation where it was successful could help eliminate discrimination in the long run, but more drastic measures are required if progress, at an acceptable pace, will to occur in the short term.

In the United States in 1970, for instance, more blacks than ever were going into higher education, yet it remained the case that while blacks made up nearly 12 per cent of the population only 2.2 per cent of doctors and 2.8 per cent of medical students were black. Statistics such as these appeared to justify admissions procedures used in the 1970s by the medical school of the University of California at Davis. Under these arrangements 16 out of 100 places were reserved for minority students, mainly blacks, Chicanos, and Asian-Americans. Allen Bakke, a white applicant who achieved far better test scores than minority students who were admitted, was denied admission. Bakke challenged the legitimacy of this decision in the courts and eventually the matter was addressed by the United States Supreme Court.

In a confusing judgment the Court said that the use of quotas violated the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution and directed that Bakke should be admitted. At the same time the justices said that it was constitutionally acceptable for race to be taken into account in making admissions decisions—affirmative action, in other words, was constitutional.

Affirmative action nevertheless continues to be intensely controversial in the United States. Opponents of such policies insist that they undermine one of the most cherished values of American political culture, the commitment to equality of opportunity. Affirmative action is also condemned for standing in the way of meritocracy—a society where success in life is based on merit rather than birth, class, race, or some other spurious criterion. Critics argue further that affirmative action is ultimately destructive of the goal of eliminating discrimination—that it creates discrimination itself, a reverse discrimination where white males such as Bakke, for example, are denied opportunities for no other reason than their race and sex.



Plaintiff is not requesting in this Claim for Damages that any other group or class should be omitted from employment and the Defendants are not arguing this to be the case.







Philosophical



Action designed to give special support to disadvantaged members of a community, for example by allowing them easier access than others enjoy to benefits such as education, jobs, or housing. This may be thought of as rectifying past injustice, or as instrumental in smoothing out historically entrenched inequalities. It is controversial since it involves what may appear to be procedural injustices of its own. Again, there are no procedural injustices at issue in Plaintiff’s Claim for Damages.

During the 1950s and 1960s, the Supreme Court struck down laws that unfairly discriminated against individuals on the basis of race. Through its decisions in cases such as Brown v. Board of Education (1954) and Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States (1964), the Court ruled that African Americans must have “equal protection of the laws,” which the 14th Amendment says is a right available to all people in the United States. While lauding this major advance in civil rights for African Americans, many civil rights leaders said it was not sufficient to overcome the negative effects of more than two centuries of racial discrimination in the United States. So, during the 1970s and 1980s, leaders of civil rights organizations, such as the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) and the National Organization of Women (NOW), proposed programs designed to go beyond mere equality of opportunity to provide limited kinds of preferential treatment for victims of long-term racial or gender-based discrimination. These programs are called affirmative action because they involve plans designed, through specific actions, to bring about desired outcomes, such as increased job opportunities, job promotions, and admissions to colleges and universities.

Affirmative action plans, as conceived by civil rights leaders, have the following characteristics. First, they may be sponsored or instituted either by government agencies and public educational institutions or by private organizations, such as businesses, labor unions, vocational training schools, or private colleges.

Second, affirmative action plans take into account such personal factors as race, ethnicity, or gender when individuals are under consideration for employment in a job, promotion to a better job, or admission to a school or college. However, individuals must not receive education or employment benefits solely on the basis of such factors as race, ethnicity, or gender; rather, these personal factors will determine who receives or does not receive certain opportunities only when minority candidates are otherwise well qualified for the jobs, educational programs, and so forth that they seek to attain.

Third, affirmative action programs are based clearly on the educational or economic need of individuals resulting from unfair treatment in the past of racial, ethnic, or gender groups to which these people belong.

Fourth, affirmative action plans are supposed to be temporary remedies, not permanent programs; but maintained in force until a level playing field is established.

Supporters of affirmative action plans have pointed out that most members of certain minority groups, such as African Americans and Native American Indians, lag far behind most white Americans in income, educational attainment, job advancement, and general living standards. They claim that these differences are the result of long-term racial discrimination, rooted in the pre-Civil War institution of slavery and a pattern of genocide in the case of Native American Indians who have been forced onto reservations. Further, they argue that affirmative action programs, whether required by the government or voluntarily undertaken by private employers and schools, are the best means to overcome the persistent negative consequences of past discrimination against minorities, especially African Americans and Native American Indians.

Affirmative action programs have been widely established in education and economic institutions of the United States. These programs have raised a fundamental constitutional question. Does the 14th Amendment's guarantee of “equal protection of the laws” permit certain kinds of preferential treatment of certain categories of individuals, such as African Americans, Native American Indians or women, in order to remedy the negative consequences of long-term discrimination against them? Plaintiff answers in the affirmative and the Defendants have not suggested anything to the contrary.





Affirmative action



In the U.S., the effort to improve the employment and educational opportunities of women and members of minority groups through preferential treatment in job hiring, college admissions, the awarding of government contracts, and the allocation of other social benefits. First undertaken at the federal level following passage of the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964, affirmative action was designed to counteract the lingering effects of generations of past discrimination. The main criteria for inclusion in affirmative action programs are race, sex, ethnic origin, religion, disability, and age. The Supreme Court of the United States placed important limitations on affirmative action programs in its 1978 ruling in Regents of the University of California v. Bakke; several subsequent Supreme Court decisions (e.g., Adarand Constructors v. Pena in 1995 and Texas v. Hopwood in 1996) imposed further restrictions. In 1996 California voters passed Proposition 209, which prohibited government agencies and institutions from discriminating against or giving preferential treatment to individuals or groups on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin. Similar measures were subsequently passed in other states. In 2003, in two landmark rulings involving admission to the University of Michigan and its law school, the U.S. Supreme Court reaffirmed the constitutionality of affirmative action but ruled that race could not be the preeminent factor in such decisions.



Affirmative action refers to concrete steps that are taken not only to eliminate discrimination—whether in employment, education, or contracting—but also to attempt to redress the effects of past discrimination. The underlying motive for affirmative action is the Constitutional principle of equal opportunity, which holds that all persons have the right to equal access to self-development. In other words, persons with equal abilities should have equal opportunities.

Affirmative action programs differ widely in the extent to which they attempt to overturn discrimination. Some programs might simply institute reviews of the hiring process for women, minorities, and other affected groups. Other affirmative action programs might explicitly prefer members of affected groups. In such programs, minimum job requirements are used to create a pool of qualified applicants from which members of affected groups are given preference.

Affirmative action affects small businesses in two main ways. First, it prevents businesses with 15 or more employees from discriminating on the basis of race, color, sex, religion, national origin, and physical capability in practices relating to hiring, compensating, promoting, training, and firing employees. Second, it allows the state and federal governments to favor women-owned and minority-owned businesses when awarding contracts, and to reject bids from businesses that do not make good faith efforts to include minority-owned businesses among their subcontractors.

The interpretation and implementation of affirmative action has been contested since its origins in the 1960s. A central issue of contention was the definition of discriminatory employment practices. As the interpretation of affirmative action evolved, employment practices that were not intentionally discriminatory but that nevertheless had a "disparate impact" on affected groups were considered a violation of affirmative action regulations. Another central issue was whether members of affected groups could receive preferential treatment and, if so, the means by which they could be preferred. This issue is sometimes referred to as the debate over quotas. Though affirmative action programs came under heavy attack during the Reagan and Bush administrations, the principles of affirmative action were reaffirmed by the Civil Rights Act of 1991. But in 1997, California's Proposition 209 banned affirmative action in that state. The resulting legal battles, which were expected to reach the U.S. Supreme Court, seemed likely to have wide-reaching effects on affirmative action.

Affirmative action is the process of a business or governmental agency in which it gives special rights of hiring or advancement to ethnic minorities to make up for past discrimination against that minority. Affirmative action has been the subject of debate, with opponents claiming that it produces reverse discrimination against Caucasians. Affirmative action programs are governed by a number of overlapping laws. A common principle is that whether for admissions or employment, affirmative action programs such as targeted recruitment and goals are encouraged to remedy past effects of discrimination; quotas are disfavored. Affirmative action in American employment law has evolved through a series of governmental proclamations, court decrees, and voluntary programs instigated by employers in the private sector. Private employers who receive no public funding are not required to adopt affirmative action policies. Affirmative action policies are enforced by the entities adopting them if they are voluntary, while affirmative action policies required by government mandates can be enforced through the legal system.

For federal contractors and subcontractors, affirmative action must be taken by covered employers to recruit and advance qualified minorities, women, persons with disabilities, and covered veterans. Affirmative actions include training programs, outreach efforts, and other positive steps. These procedures should be incorporated into the company’s written personnel policies. Employers with written affirmative action programs must implement them, keep them on file and update them annually.

The contents of both voluntary and mandatory affirmative action plans are essentially the same. The Office of Federal Compliance Programs (OFCCP) oversees the administration of plans for private entities which are government contractors under either a construction or non-construction contract.

Affirmative action policies vary. The following is an example of a university's affirmative action policy: "... is committed to ensuring that all educational programs and personnel actions including application, hiring, promotion, compensation, benefits, transfer, layoffs, training, tuition assistance, and social and recreational programs are administered without regard to race, color, sex (except where sex is a bona fide occupational qualification), sexual orientation, religion, national or ethnic origin, age (except where age is a bona fide occupational qualification), disability, or status as a disabled veteran or veteran of the Vietnam Era. The University's policy is applicable to faculty and other employees, applicants for faculty positions and other employment, and applicants to educational programs and activities. This policy is fundamental to the effective functioning of the University as an institution of teaching, scholarship, and public service.

Simple absence of discrimination is not sufficient. Our task is to work to eliminate all patterns of unequal treatment. The University's policies are dedicated to the full realization of equal opportunity for all through affirmative action predicated on the following tenets: (1) serious and imaginative recruitment methods; (2) ongoing administrative reviews of hiring practices; (3) frequent affirmative action analyses of faculty, staff, and student units to determine "challenge areas"; (4) direct and firm responses to units identified as having undesirable affirmative action practices; and (5) professional development training."



Additional Definitions

Affirmative Action

Affirmative action refers to concrete steps that are taken not only to eliminate discrimination—whether in employment, education, or contracting—but also to attempt to redress the effects of past discrimination. The underlying motive for affirmative action is the Constitutional principle of equal opportunity, which holds that all persons have the right to equal access to self-development. In other words, persons with equal abilities should have equal opportunities.

The extent to which affirmative action programs attempt to overturn discrimination differs widely. Some programs simply institute reviews of the hiring process for women, minorities, and other affected groups. Other affirmative action programs explicitly prefer members of affected groups. In such programs, minimum job requirements are used to create a pool of qualified applicants from which members of affected groups are given preference.

Affirmative action affects small businesses in two main ways. First, it prevents businesses with 15 or more employees from discriminating on the basis of race, color, sex, religion, national origin, and physical capability in practices relating to hiring, compensating, promoting, training, and firing employees. Second, it allows the state and federal governments to favor women-owned and minority-owned businesses when awarding contracts, and to reject bids from businesses that do not make good faith efforts to include minority-owned businesses among their subcontractors.

The interpretation and implementation of affirmative action have been contested since their origins in the 1960s. A central issue of contention was the definition of discriminatory employment practices. As the interpretation of affirmative action evolved, employment practices that were not intentionally discriminatory but that nevertheless had a "disparate impact" on affected groups were considered a violation of affirmative action regulations.

Another central issue of contention is whether members of affected groups may receive preferential treatment and, if so, the means by which they are to be preferred. This issue is sometimes referred to as the debate over quotas. Though affirmative action programs came under heavy attack during the Reagan and Bush administrations, the principles of affirmative action were reaffirmed by the Civil Rights Act of 1991. In 1997, however, California's Proposition 209 banned affirmative action in that state. In 2003 a group of affirmative action opponents began a campaign to challenge its use in Michigan. Ward Connerly, a California businessman and national leader in the campaign to end affirmative action, has pushed for the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative, which would bar the use of race and gender in government hiring, contracting, and university admissions. As of early 2006, and barring legal appeals to the contrary, the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative will be on the November 2006 Michigan ballot. The legal battles over affirmative action and how it may and may not be used continue. On a state-by-state basis, challenges to affirmative action programs are being made.





HISTORY OF AFFIRMATIVE ACTION

Affirmative action has its roots in the civil rights movement. In March of 1961, President John F. Kennedy signed Executive Order 10925, which established the President's Commission on Equal Employment Opportunity. The order stated that contractors doing business with the government "will take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and employees are treated during their employment, without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin." The order did not advocate preferential treatment of affected groups but rather sought to eliminate discrimination in the traditional sense.

The legal status of affirmative action was solidified by the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This landmark legislation prohibited discrimination in voting, public education and accommodations, and employment in firms with more than fifteen employees. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act offered a similar understanding of affirmative action as Executive Order 10925, stating that the act was not designed "to grant preferential treatment to any group because of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin." The act's sponsors, Senators Joseph Clark and Clifford Case, emphasized this non-preferential interpretation of affirmative action when they wrote: "There is no requirement in Title VII that an employer maintain a racial balance in his workforce. On the contrary, any deliberate attempt to maintain a racial balance, whatever such a balance may be, would involve a violation of Title VII, because maintaining such a balance would require an employer to hire or refuse to hire on the basis of race."

The Civil Rights Act did not provide criminal penalties for employers that discriminated, nor did the civil remedies established by the act include compensation for pain and suffering or punitive damages. Rather, the act sought to establish a conciliation process by which victims would be restored to the situation they would have had in the absence of discrimination. To carry out the conciliation process, the act created a new federal agency as a branch of the U.S. Department of Labor, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). The EEOC acts as a facilitator between plaintiffs and private employers and also pressures violating employers to provide compensation, whether in the form of back pay or restitution. The EEOC also provides legal support for plaintiffs should the plaintiffs pursue their grievances in court.

Two important issues were contested in the wake of the Civil Rights Act of 1964: whether unintentional or structural discrimination constituted violation of the principle of equal opportunity; and the extent to which preferential treatment should be given to affected groups. These issues came to the forefront during the Johnson administration. In a 1965 commencement speech, President Johnson argued that equality of opportunity required more than simply ending discrimination. Rather, he argued for a more active interpretation of affirmative action that would assure "equality as a result."

In 1966, the U.S. Department of Labor began collecting employment records with breakdowns by race in order to evaluate hiring practices, overturning earlier policies of the Eisenhower and Kennedy administrations. In 1968, the Office of Federal Contract Compliance issued regulations which required, for the first time, that specific targets be set by which the effects of affirmative action programs could be evaluated. The regulations stated that "the contractor's program shall provide in detail for specific steps to guarantee equal employment opportunity keyed to the problems and needs of minority groups, including, when there are deficiencies, the development of specific goals and timetables for the prompt achievement of full and equal employment opportunity." It was in these regulations and analogous measures by the EEOC that the debate over affirmative action quotas had its origins.

Goals and timetables were established by the U.S. Department of Labor using "utilization analysis," which statistically compared the proportion of employed women and minorities in a firm with the proportion of women and minorities in the regional workforce, deriving a measure of what the department called "disparate impact." In the absence of discrimination, it was assumed that these proportions would and should be roughly equal. Since these regulations focused on results and not intent, the structural nature of discrimination was officially recognized. In addition, these regulations provided an official and measurable basis for the preferential treatment of affected groups.

In the landmark Griggs v. Duke Power Co. case of 1971, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled against Duke's requirement of high school diplomas or IQ tests for those applying for unskilled jobs. The decision held that "Title VII forbids not only practices adopted with a discriminatory motive, but also practices which, though adopted without discriminatory intent, have a discriminatory effect on minorities and women." The ruling provided a legal foundation for cases of "disparate impact," asserting that employers may not use job requirements that adversely affect women and minorities unless required by what it termed "business necessity." (For example, in the case of serious health or safety threats to co-workers or customers.)

The EEOC was strengthened by the Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972, which enabled the Commission to file class action suits. Under the Carter administration, the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection established the "four-fifths rule." This rule was significant in that it provided an explicit benchmark to determine disparate impact, which had been left vague in earlier U.S. Department of Labor regulations. The four-fifths rule held that firms contracting with the federal government should not be allowed to hire any race, sex, or ethnic group at a rate below four-fifths that of any other group.

Another significant Supreme Court ruling on affirmative action came in a 1978 case, Regents of the University of California v. Bakke. Under the University of California at Davis's admission policies, 16 of 100 places were set aside for minority applicants. Allan Bakke was a white applicant who was denied enrollment to Davis's medical school, even though his test scores were higher than the minority students who were admitted. Casting the deciding vote, Justice Lewis Powell held that Bakke should be admitted to the program since Davis's policies constituted a rigid quota, but that, nonetheless, Davis could continue to favor minorities in its admission practices and that it had a "compelling state interest" to attain a diversified educational environment.

The tide favoring affirmative action began to turn in the 1980s during the Reagan and Bush administrations. In his 1980 campaign, Reagan stated, "We must not allow the noble concept of equal opportunity to be distorted into federal guidelines or quotas which require race, ethnicity, or sex—rather than ability and qualifications—to be the principal factor in hiring or education." Through court appointments, hiring and firing decisions, and budget cuts, the Reagan administration sought to end affirmative action as it had evolved since the Johnson administration. Between 1981 and 1983, the budget of the EEOC was cut by 10 percent and the staff by 12 percent. The Office of Federal Contract Compliance was hit harder yet, with budget cuts of 24 percent and staff cuts of 34 percent during these same years.



AFFIRMATIVE ACTION IN THE 1990S AND 2000S

In an effort to fight the dramatic rollback of affirmative action, Congress passed the Civil Rights Act of 1991. The Act returned the burden of proof to employers in disparate impact cases, requiring employers to prove that employment practices that resulted in disparate impact were "job related" and "consistent with business necessity." The act thus overturned the Supreme Court's rulings in Watson v. Fort Worth Bank and Trust and Wards Cove Packing Company v. Antonio. In addition, the Civil Rights Act of 1991 addressed issues of unlawful harassment and intentional discrimination, allowing minority and female victims of intentional discrimination to be awarded up to $300,000 in compensatory damages in addition to back pay and restitution.

In 1994, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) initiated one of the largest affirmative action programs ever. The FCC voted unanimously to earmark 1,000 of 2,000 new radio licenses for small businesses owned by women and minorities. These licenses are for businesses serving the rapidly growing number of users of pocket-sized telephones, fax machines, pagers, and handheld computers. Small companies owned by women or minorities could receive up to a 60 percent discount on the cost of these licenses, which federal officials estimated have a total market value of $10 billion. One of the concerns expressed about the FCC ruling is that it would enable the rise of companies that were only nominally headed by women or minorities. This could occur as a result of the acquisition provisions of the ruling, which allow up to 75 percent of the equity and 49.9 percent of the voting stock of a small firm to be acquired by a larger firm, and yet the small firm still qualifies for licensing discounts.





Origin of Affirmative Action: 1965

"The contractor will not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, creed, color, or national origin," declared Executive Order 11246 of September 24, 1965. "The contractor will take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin. [A few years later a fifth category was added: sex.] Such action shall include, but not be limited to the following: employment, upgrading, demotion, or transfer; recruitment or recruitment advertising; layoff or termination; rates of pay or other forms of compensation; and selection for training, including apprenticeship. The contractor agrees to post in conspicuous places, available to employees and applicants for employment, notices to be provided by the contracting officer setting forth the provisions of this nondiscrimination clause."

That was the beginning of affirmative action as we know it today. The term had been used in legal contexts to refer to action taken to uphold a corporate policy of fair labor practice as early as 1935, and statements similar to Executive Order 11246 had been issued since the early 1960s, but it was this declaration from President Lyndon Johnson that made affirmative action a national policy. It was different from mere nondiscrimination, as the director of the U.S. Office of Civil Rights explained in 1973: "The premise of the Affirmative Action concept...is that systematic discrimination in employment has existed, and unless positive action is taken, a benign neutrality today will only preserve yesterday's conditions and project them into the future."

Thirty years later, the policy of affirmative action in government and business was still in effect, with evident results in greater employment of minorities and women. It has been repeatedly tested in the courts.

Affirmative action in employment originated in the 1960s in the policies of administrative agencies enforcing Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and Executive Orders Nos. 10 925 and 11 246 regulating federal contractors. In the 1970s the Supreme Court played a major role in rationalizing and legitimating the new race‐conscious approach to civil rights. In general, the Court proceeded on the theory that racial discrimination was by definition class discrimination and was essentially the same phenomenon regardless of where or in what form it appeared. The Court assumed that measures used in school desegregation and voting rights cases to remedy the effects of past discrimination, which took account of race and insisted on specific degrees of racial balance, could be applied in employment despite the substantially different nature of the activities involved. In the 1980s, the Supreme Court decisively protected and legalized affirmative action preferences in employment against the attempt of the executive branch to reorient civil rights policy in the direction of impartial individual rights and equality of opportunity.

Affirmative action challenges the traditional liberal principle that individuals have rights in respect of which they are entitled to be protected equally without regard to race or other irrelevant personal characteristics. The guarantee of these rights where government acts upon individuals establishes equality before the law (the principal meaning of equality of opportunity). To deny an individual his or her rights or treat the individual differently because of race is to discriminate. In contrast to this view, which may be referred to as the disparate treatment theory of discrimination, affirmative action postulates the disparate impact theory of discrimination. This theory asserts that discrimination is a statistical racial disparity resulting from employment practices or other social institutional activity that cannot be justified as essential or necessary to business enterprise or the activity in question. According to this view, unlawful discrimination is not an intentional denial of rights motivated by racial prejudice. It is the social effects of legitimate social and economic practices measured by a standard of racial inclusiveness or proportional representation.

The disparate impact concept of discrimination was initially employed in school desegregation and voting rights cases, where courts held that racially neutral policies were unlawful because they had the effect of excluding African‐Americans. In Gaston County v. United States (1969), for example, the Supreme Court decided that a racially neutral literacy test was discriminatory on the ground that past school segregation denied African‐Americans equal educational opportunity, thereby preventing them from developing their intellectual ability in a way that would enable them to pass the test. In employment affirmative action based on the disparate impact theory was anticipated in seniority desegregation cases, in which courts held that racially integrated departmental classifications continued the effects of past (lawful) discrimination and were hence unlawful under Title VII.

In the landmark decision in Griggs v. Duke Power Co. (1971), the Supreme Court adopted the disparate impact concept of discrimination as the theoretical framework for enforcing Title VII. The Court held unanimously that an aptitude test and high school graduation requirement used by a company to select employees were unlawful because they had a disparate racial impact. The company had practiced racial discrimination before the enactment of Title VII, and its introduction of testing as a selection device at the time the act went into effect might have been judged intentionally discriminatory against African‐Americans. The Court did not find intentional discrimination, however. Declaring that Title VII was directed at the consequences of employment practices and that Congress intended that the posture and condition of the job seeker be taken into account, Chief Justice Warren Burger said practices that operated to exclude African‐Americans were illegal unless shown to be related to job performance, or justified by “business necessity.”

Griggs was broadly applied by the lower courts to strike down employment practices shown to have a disparate racial impact. Affirmed in Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody (1975), the disparate impact theory of Title VII enforcement provided a strong incentive for private and public employers, who were brought under Title VII coverage in 1972, to engage in race‐conscious hiring to avoid discrimination charges based on statistics of racial imbalance. Concurrently, federal executive agencies, acting under regulations of the Office of Federal Contract Compliance, required employers to submit written affirmative action plans specifying goals and timetables to correct “underutilization” of minority groups and women.

Most large employers, who were covered by both Title VII and the contract compliance program, responded as expected by engaging in preferential practices. As affirmative action plans were put into effect, white male employees began to file discrimination suits charging unlawful practices under the Civil Rights Act. In the late 1970s three reverse discrimination cases in the Supreme Court challenged the emerging structure of affirmative action under the disparate impact theory.

In Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978), the Supreme Court considered a medical school affirmative action plan that assigned sixteen of one hundred places in its entering class to members of minority groups. Bakke, whose qualifications were superior to those of most of the minority admittees, claimed that the plan violated his statutory and constitutional right to equal protection of the laws. In an artfully contrived compromise, for which Justice Lewis Powell was the sole spokesman, the Court in effect handed down two decisions. It decided, 5 to 4, that the affirmative action plan was an illegal quota that denied Bakke's right not to be discriminated against because of race. Justice Powell declared, however, that race‐conscious policies adopted as a remedy for proven discrimination, which by 1978 had assumed considerable proportions in employment, were permissible under the Civil Rights Act and the Constitution. Joining with a different group of justices to form a pro‐affirmative action majority, Powell, in what amounted to a second decision, held that race was a legitimate factor that could be considered in a state university's admission policy, on the theory that it advanced the First Amendment value of “diversity.”

The Supreme Court further expanded affirmative action in Fullilove v. Klutznick (1980). At issue was the constitutionality of a provision in the Public Works Employment Act of 1977 requiring that 10 percent of all federal grants awarded by the Department of Commerce be given to minority business enterprises. Rejecting a white contractor's charge of discrimination, the Court decided, 6 to 3, to uphold the law as an exercise of congressional power under the Fourteenth Amendment to prohibit public contracting practices that perpetuated the effect of past discrimination. Although several justices used remedial rhetoric, the Court did not require a finding of unlawful discrimination as a predicate for racial preference. Directed against societal discrimination, the decision sanctioned broad congressional authority to legislate racial preferences that in reality rested on the principle of proportional racial representation under the disparate impact theory of discrimination.

In a series of decisions in the mid‐1980s, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the legality of quotas and defined the scope of race‐conscious affirmative action. In Local 28 Sheet Metal Workers International Association v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (1986), the Court approved, 5 to 4, a lower court quota order that imposed a 29 percent membership goal on a union found in violation of Title VII. For the Court, Justice Brennan declared that quota or “race‐conscious class relief” was appropriate where an employer or union “has engaged in persistent or egregious discrimination, or where necessary to dissipate the lingering effects of pervasive discrimination” (p. 445). In Local 93 International Association of Firefighters v. City of Cleveland (1986), the Court upheld a consent decree between the city and a class of minority employees that provided for promotion quotas. Justice Brennan's majority opinion viewed the consent decree as a form of voluntary affirmative action that did not infringe the rights of nonminority employees. And in United States v. Paradise (1987), the Court affirmed, 5 to 4, the constitutionality of a 50 percent promotion quota ordered as a remedy for egregious discrimination by a state police department. Describing the standards for adopting an affirmative action plan, Justice Brennan said the quota order was flexible, temporary, and fair to white employees because it merely postponed their advancement rather than dismiss them.

From its inception in the 1960s, the underlying logic of the disparate impact theory of discrimination was to induce employers to engage in preferential practices as though they were doing it voluntarily, rather than under the threat of discrimination suits based on statistical disparities. The effectiveness of the policy further required protecting employers against reverse discrimination charges when they took affirmative action, without admitting to past discrimination that would have opened them to Title VII suits by minority group individuals. In Johnson v. Santa Clara County (1987), the Supreme Court confirmed this fundamental rationale. It rejected a white male employee's claim of discrimination against a public employer's gender‐based preference under a voluntary affirmative action plan. Clarifying and going beyond Weber, the Court dispensed with the idea that affirmative action is a remedy for unlawful discrimination. For the majority, Justice Brennan said the use of race or sex as a consideration in job selection was justified by “the existence of a ‘manifest imbalance’ that reflected an underrepresentation of women ‘in traditionally segregated job categories’” (p. 617). In Johnson, the Court acknowledged that affirmative action is a prospective policy based on the idea of group rights that aims at achieving racial and gender balance, under the idea of proportional representation that is inherent in the disparate impact theory of discrimination.

While broadly approving race‐conscious measures, the Court placed some limits on affirmative action. In Firefighters Local Union No. 1794 v. Stotts (1984), the Court decided, 6 to 3, that a judicial order modifying a consent decree to protect black affirmative action hires from being laid off under a seniority agreement exceeded judicial authority under Title VII. In Wygant v. Jackson Board of Education (1986), the Court held, 5 to 4, that an affirmative action plan that protected minority employees against layoff and caused the layoff of more senior white teachers violated the equal protection clause of the Constitution. These decisions reflected the solicitude for seniority rights evident in Teamsters v. United States (1977), where the Supreme Court overruled a line of precedents conferring benefits to blacks under the present‐effects doctrine, and held that intent to discriminate must be proved in order to find a seniority system unlawful.

Having protected affirmative action against the Reagan administration's anti-quota policy, the Supreme Court in 1989 appeared to shift course by modifying the evidentiary rules for proving discrimination under the disparate impact theory. Easing the burden on employers defending against discrimination charges, the Court limited the tendency toward quotas inherent in the disparate impact concept and merged the disparate impact and disparate treatment ideas in a unified theory of employment discrimination. In Ward's Cove Packing Co. v. Atonio (1989), the Court stated that in a disparate impact case the burden of proof remained on the plaintiff throughout the trial, as in a disparate treatment case. It held further that a simple statistical comparison of racial percentages between skilled and unskilled jobs was insufficient to make a prima facie case. And it said that in defending against a disparate impact charge, the employer was required to show only that its practices served legitimate business purposes, not that they were essential or indispensable.

The Court further tightened the rules of affirmative action in Richmond v. J. A. Croson Co. (1989). In a 6 to 3 decision, it struck down a city‐ordered 30 percent quota for minority contractors as an unconstitutional violation of the rights of white contractors. Applying for the first time the standard of strict scrutiny review to a benign racial classification, the Court held that the set‐aside was defective because it was not justified by a showing of past discrimination in public contracting.

In 1990, the Court continued its zigzag course on affirmative action by approving preferential treatment in the broadcasting industry. In Metro Broadcasting v. Federal Communications Commission, the Court declared, 5 to 4, that an FCC policy favoring minority broadcasters, which Congress through the appropriations process had required the agency to maintain, was substantially related to achieving the important governmental objective of broadcast diversity. Affirming congressional power to legislate racial preferences under the standardless appropriations power (in contrast to the more limited legislative power under the Fourteenth Amendment), the Court focused on the future benefits rather than the remedial justification of affirmative action.

Metro Broadcasting, like Johnson, reflected the tendency of supporters of affirmative action to view group rights and equality of result as principles of public policy needed to overcome societal discrimination. Despite the reservations about the disparate impact theory of discrimination expressed by the Supreme Court in Ward's Cove, as the struggle to define the meaning of equality continued in the 1990s, affirmative action remained solidly entrenched in the policies of the civil rights bureaucracy. With the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, Congress overturned Ward's Cove and other recent decisions that had limited the scope of federal civil rights protections, thereby reaffirming the national commitment to the principles of affirmative action.



In its tumultuous 48-year history, affirmative action has been both praised and pilloried as an answer to racial inequality. The term "affirmative action" was first introduced by President Kennedy in 1961 as a method of redressing discrimination that had persisted in spite of civil rights laws and constitutional guarantees. It was developed and enforced for the first time by President Johnson. "This is the next and more profound stage of the battle for civil rights," Johnson asserted. "We seek… not just equality as a right and a theory, but equality as a fact and as a result."

KISS MY " SWEET AAAAAVERMENTS" SEE YOU IN COURT!!

This member has got the fortitude to stand up and fight and be counted in the ongoing effort to bring recognition to Our United stand and his and the young lady member also stands strong for a better tomorrow.
I am at this time bringing to conclusion our response to Dispositive Motion hearing for February , 22,2:30 pm, Please attend and show your support.The three entities who have denied our civil right to ask for Affirmative Action Law to be implemented are going to try to wiggle like a snake and talk like one while we want to utilize the laws at hand (Afffirmative Action)that also apply to us and not just the ones these blackrobes toss us into incarceration with.

These three entities named in the suit are depending on a institutionally racist court system to make it legal to deny our right to JOBS!!!!! Similarly like all the land deals that took our ability to exact self determination and meet our needs instead creating reservations that became quite legal. It is fun to watch the White Man play God and his time is coming my brothers and sisters.This lawsuit is an offer to work together and correct the biases that keep our mutual humanitarian needs unmet ,yet all he can see is he needs to be right ,this article says it all.

Published February 14 2010

Bemidji Pioneer Press

http://www.bemidjipioneer.com/event/article/id/100015910

American Indian issues belittled by the media

This is in response to the article pertaining to the GOP forum Tuesday night. It portrayed Nicole Beaulieu as unaware or uneducated of the negative and positive effects of the affirmative action policies of Minnesota. In fact, as native people and people socially victimized by these institutional racist hiring practices present here in our community, the law of affirmative action is our only outlet to speak out against our discrepancies of injustice.

This is in response to the article pertaining to the GOP forum Tuesday night. It portrayed Nicole Beaulieu as unaware or uneducated of the negative and positive effects of the affirmative action policies of Minnesota. In fact, as native people and people socially victimized by these institutional racist hiring practices present here in our community, the law of affirmative action is our only outlet to speak out against our discrepancies of injustice.

We are in no way questioning the integrity of the non-native worker, but when we make up a large percentage of Bemidji’s population, and we are only a very small fraction of Bemidji’s workforce, then something is wrong here. When we have people with the proper training and education seeking the same jobs as non-natives, but we’re overlooked on the simple assumptions that we are in some way under qualified or not properly adherent to task as our non-native counterparts, then forgive me for taking offense to the retort of the fact that native people are qualified to manage more than court dates.

The Pioneer has no problem whatsoever criminalizing our population with brazen printings of any of our social downfalls, making our problems public and encouraging propaganda within our community based on race relations with the native people of Bemidji. I spoke with Mr. Herwig after the forum and we discussed many things pertaining to the mistreatment of native peoples in this area. I shook his hand and walked away feeling like we established a rapport and a new understanding between us and the problems we face together here in Minnesota, let alone Bemidji. I do not believe Mr. Herwig would appreciate being represented and portrayed as an opponent of human rights, and equality based on his standpoint of affirmative action.

That’s what I am left feeling when our issues are distorted and belittled by the press, but nonetheless, my colleagues and I will diligently pursue justice and equality for natives throughout Minnesota, regardless of the shadows of injustice that shroud our struggle for equality.

This community can ignore its ugly past in dealing with the Ojibwe people, but they can’t ignore its current state of racist degradation victimizing the Native Americans that just so happen to call Bemidji “home.”

Curtis Buckanaga

Bemidji

February 2, 2010 CAUCUS Night Fighting For You

This is the resolution i brought forward this evening and have to say its a good thing i been pressing for AFFirmative Action At the BEMIDJI REGIONAL EVENT CENTER LAWSUIT ,Or Who On Gods Green Earth would speak out on this missing Action Agenda of our DFL PartyPlatform.

Precinct Caucus Resolution Supporting Affirmative Action

Institutionalized racism is still firmly in place and entrenched in all aspects of life Minnesota.

Institutionalized racism has resulted in horrendous and disgraceful unemployment and poverty afflicting communities of people of color far exceeding that of the general population.

No place is the effects of institutionalized racism more evident than in Native American Indian communities and on Indian Reservations.

Affirmative action is the only remedy to discriminatory practices in hiring resulting from institutionalized racism.

State agencies and departments are required by statute to enforce affirmative action in hiring as the way to end historic patterns of discrimination against people of color, women and the disabled.

The required enforcement of affirmative action has not been taking place in Minnesota.

Whereas the Minnesota Democratic Farmer-Labor Party is not presently on record supporting affirmative action;

Therefore---

Be it resolved the Minnesota Democratic Farmer-Labor Party supports the strict enforcement of all affirmative action guidelines and policies; and, when missing, but required, affirmative action plans must be drawn up and implemented to become part of all projects in Minnesota--- including as part of the initial planning process and in all stages thereafter.

Be it resolved that Affirmative Action shall become a part of the Minnesota Democratic Farmer-Labor Party’s “Action Agenda” and it shall become the responsibility of all public officials--- elected and appointed--- to see to it that affirmative action is fully enforced on all public works projects and any projects involving public participation by local, state or federal government bodies in Minnesota employing more than ten people and/or involving more than $50,000.00 in public investments.

Moved for support by:



Seconded:



Approved (please circle): Yes No Precinct Caucus: County:

Signature of Precinct Caucus Secretary:

Signature of Precinct Caucus Chair: Date: February 2, 2010