The Dutch first imported African slaves in 1620, to the English Colony of Jamestown. In 1637, America built its first slave ship, the DESIRE, this was the first of many American ships to be used in the importation of slaves, by then, the English colonies, then later, the United States of America. The American flag was used on ships that transported slaves, even after the first anti-slavery law was passed in Virginia in 1778, and with the gradual abolition of slaver

Now here in 2003 in the University of Michigan case, the Bush administration has done a turn around and stated that racial preference was unconstitutional under the 14th amendment. Now what are we to believe? Any program that the government implements now is going to come under fire and possible law suite, the reason being, because now, more than ever, America is your typical melting pot. Any program giving preference on the basis of race or gender is no longer necessary, because there is no longer, if judging by the statistics presented a major ethnic minority.

Blacks were then subjugated to the rules and laws of Jim Crow in the south, thus being legally segregated. This means they could not live with whites, drink from the same fountain, eat in the same restaurants, or even use the same restrooms as whites. This continued until the 1950's and 60's when the civil rights movement kicked into full swing and changed the American political and cultural landscape forever (MSN Encarta).

There is always going to be somebody that says they are discriminated against, no matter what laws, programs, or rewards are in place. We are a litigious society and will use any reason at all to take some one to court in the hopes of hitting that big payday. There was a time when hard work, drive, determination, skill, and craftsmanship were supposed to mean something. These were the things that allowed for you to become employed. As the saying goes, "let the best man win", rather than allowing someone to become employed because they are black, female, poor, or just disadvantaged.

It seems that we cannot look to the government for solutions either. The Bush administration, in its first response to an affirmative action dilemma, which was dumped on him, by the previous administration, sided on the side of race and gender preferences. The case was Adaranda v. Mineta, where a white contractor gave the lowest bid and still lost the contract to a minority held company. In this situation the Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, said that the DOT's policies did not meet the strict guidelines required by a race-conscious federal program and sent it back for review and revision (O'Sullivan 19).

It is surprising to find out who is in favor of race or gender preferences. And preferences are nothing but legal privileges according to John O'Sullivan in the Nation Review. In the January 21 edition of Newsweek the number of whites against preferences for blacks is 73 to 22, and this is probably of no surprise to you. Now the results for the same question to black respondents was 56 to 38 against. And the article also found that they were not just against preferences for blacks but any type of preference (Fineman, Lipper).

Some topics in this essay:
Article VII, Michigan Bush, Tsang Dietz, Rights Act, Action Discrimination, Kennedy Kennedy, King Jr, Jim Crow, North West, Dr Gullet, affirmative action, civil rights, rights act, civil rights act, race gender, white male, article vii, war southern independence, bush administration, jim crow, gender minority, skin gender, rights act 1964, 1964 article vii, race gender preferences,