One of the interesting things that I have encountered over the years in this great country (America) is the celebration of Christmas; why? It is the spirit of Christmas manifested in the various way we celebrate it. As a young child back in Tonga, I was taught the meaning of Christmas—yes, it is the giving of gifts that I remember the most; however, the religious part of Christmas was inescapable. No matter where I am in the island—church is a must, Christian church, that is. The climax of every Sunday school programs is uncovered during Christmas Eve. If I was a good Sunday school’s kid—I would be rewarded with candies and, maybe, an envelop contained one pa’anga; if I was not a good kid—don’t expect an envelop.
Nevertheless, this whole experience is always centered on the baby Jesus. Much of the same spirit is still alive here in the United States; although, the commercial aspect of the season seems to have driven everything surrounding Christmas, however, it is still the Baby Jesus—yep, He is the Reason for the celebration. Whether I live in Tonga or America—Jesus is still the reason. This past Christmas was very special because we were brought together as a family by baby Jesus. Many of my nieces and nephews have grown and some has family of their own, but 2011 Christmas, we managed to gather in Abilene and I witnessed the true manifestation of the Christmas Spirit.
In America and around the world, in some ways or fashion, Christmas was celebrated. Various cultures and customs expressed their celebrations in various ways—but Jesus is still the reason. True, there are other traditions and holidays but Christmas rank up there at the top. Why? The coming of Jesus to this world changes millions of people from all walks of life. During a short three years ministry on this earth, he performed many miracles and said many things that have changed many peoples and have changed the whole world.
Here are few miracles that have directly impacted my life:
1.Jesus made the blind see – thank you, I can now see.
2.Jesus made the lame walk—than you, I now can walk.
3.Jesus made the leper clean—thank you, I am now clean.
4.Jesus turned water into wine—thank you, I am no longer thirst.
5.Jesus fasted for 40 days and nights—thank you, I can no longer live on bread alone.
6.Jesus calmed the rough sea—thank you, I now have smooth sailing.
8.Jesus fed thousands from two bread and five fish—thank you, I shall hunger no more.
9.Jesus resurrected the dead—thank you, you have given me hope for everlasting life.
Here are few of His sayings that have directly impacted my life:
1.“Love your neighbors as yourself” – thank you for teaching me how to love
2.“It is better to give than to receive” - what a blessing
3.“Judge not that ye be not Judged”—I’ve learned to know myself
4.“Ye shall know them by their fruits”—I’ve learned to look within.
5.“Love your enemies”—love everyone, see the Jesus in everyone.
6. “Do unto others as you would have them do to you”—I put myself in other’s shoes.
Again, during 2011 Christmas, my reflection was on the Son of God's greatest gift—His life was given because of me! In Tonga, America, and around the world today, and of course, my family—the greatest gift from us is to empty ourselves and let the miracles and the life of the Baby Jesus live among our lives—let the spirit of Christmas live in all of us for 2012 and toward eternity.
'ofa atu,
- Finau Tangata'olakepa Siale
Monday, January 9, 2012
Sunday, January 8, 2012
AFFIRMATIVE ACTION: Historical Observation
From Tonga to America: Affirmative Action
- Finau Tangata'olakepa Siale
It has been my interest to observe and recount the social, political and policy events that gave birth to our current environment in America. As a first generation immigrant from Tonga, I am indebted to those that paved the way to this country. Some paved it with the blood and sweat of their lives as they were forced into slavery by the simple human hunger for social and economic power at the birth of this nation, some paved the way because they wanted to free themselves from religious persecution, nevertheless, there were those that suffered as they sacrifice country and families and those that celebrated because they found a new country to call their own.
Today, I harvest the fruits of the seeds that were sowed by those that came before me. As generations struggled to turn racial maelstrom into conquering prejudice, the color of our skin often diminished the brilliant minds of the human person. Thus, my American Journey was made possible by those that came before me: Those that stood up against the institution of slavery; those that marched during the civil right movements of the 1960’s; those with political power that were willing to stand up for what was right.
AFFIRMATIVE ACTION: Historical Observation
Policy analysts and theorists have developed several models and theories as an attempt to explain how ideas evolve from the public and private arena into the subsystems of government and onto become policies and laws. The “Stages Heuristic” model developed by Jones, Anderson, Brewer, and Deleon is one of the earliest of these models. It divided the policy process into stages. Another model is the “Institutional Rational Choice” developed by Moe, Shepsle, and Miller which focuses on how material self-interest motivates policy makers (Sabatier 1999). Another policy observation by John Kingdon (1995) is based on “Multiple Streams;” he identified three streams that flow through the system: problems, policies, and politics. The tributaries flow from separate sources and when these streams joined at the right time, the policy issue rises from the subsystem to the main policy arena. There are many others, however, this paper focuses on how Jones and Baumgartner’s (1993) “Punctuated-Equilibrium” characterizes the process which lead to the creation of Affirmative Action. Punctuated-Equilibrium derived from an organizational theory model created by Gersick, et al. which characterizes how organizational changes evolved. “Punctuated equilibrium theory depicts organizations evolving through relatively long periods of stability (equilibrium period) in their basic patterns of activity that are punctuated by relatively short bursts of fundamental changes (Sabatier 1999).” Jones and Baumgartner (1993) argued that the policy process follows similar cycle as that of the organizational cycle.
This paper is a general observation and should not be considered empirical in any form; rather it is a proposed theoretical framework on characterizing the structure in which Affirmative Action was created. Yet, with the interests and requirements set forth for this essay in mind, I will concentrate only on events which I consider major images surrounding Affirmative Action and its creation. The literature and court decisions were explored to determine the preliminary events and images which occurred surrounding the creation and the life of Affirmative Action. Although my concentration will be on the equilibrium period and the punctuated events which lead to the creation and the life of Affirmative Action, this paper is not bound to one model or theory. It is my assumption that the punctuated equilibrium model characterized the activities surrounding Affirmative Action; however, other models may offer better explanation; thus, other models are also considered. Moreover, Affirmative Action has been historically applied to two protective class—African Americans and women. The impact on women in the workforce, education, and other institutions are immeasurable; however, race issues seemed to have been the focal point of the debates throughout history. Thus, I will focus on the progression of the debates surrounding Affirmative Action in terms of the racial and in particular the civil rights issue.
Pre-Civil War
Prior to the civil war, African Americans were mere objects or properties of their white masters; they were sold in the public market, beaten with most the extreme cruelty, hunted, and murdered like animals. African American young women were commonly robbed of their innocents in the most heinous way. Slave children were also considered as property, marketable as the pigs on the plantation’s bin. Without going into dramatic images, these were the daily images which exposed the reality of slavery. Although it seems horrendous for contemporary standards, the historic-reality dictates otherwise. These were the images painted by many slave narratives that were able to penetrate the system into publication. During 1857, in fact, the Dred Scott’s decision affirmed the condition of the African Americans disposition in this country. The Supreme Court ruled that African Americans were “subordinates and inferior beings” who could not constitutionally be a citizen of the United State.
The two opposing images during this period were the supremacy of the White Europeans versus the inferiority of the Black Africans. These images were not driven by any factual findings; hence, they were cultural perceptions that infiltrated society resulting from human greed and weakness. Laws and policies, included Dred Scott’s, were not based on purely rational choices, but they were emotionally driven to protect the materialistic ethos which gave one race power over another.
Toward Civil War
As the economy started to shift from agricultural to industrial, the slave system started to fracture. More and more slaves were able to gain limited freedom as they gained employment in the industries of the North. Thus, they started to mobilize and advocate freedom movements commonly known as the abolitionist movement. From the midst of the utmost misery, some of them were still capable of understanding their condition: “Surely this traffic cannot be good, which spreads like a pestilence, and taints what its touches! Which violates that first natural right of mankind, equality and independency, and gives one man a dominion over his fellow’s which God could never intend? For it raises the owner to a state as far above man as it depresses the slave below it (Donalson 1996).” These words were written by Olaudah Equiano, a slave from late 1800th, are reflective of the understanding that most abolitionists had in terms of their relationship to their white counterparts. The Abolitionist movement drew attention to a nation that celebrated its independency while sanctioning the institution of slavery.
On July 5, 1852, on a speech delivered in Rochester New York, Fredrick Douglass laid out the scorching images that empowered the abolitionist movement. “For it is not light that is needed, but fire; it is not gentle shower, but thunder. We need the storm, the whirlwind, and the earthquake (Donalson 1996).” Although these sentiments were countered by Dred Scot’s, the argument for equality were gaining momentum as the country moved closer to Civil War.
Emancipating Proclamation
During the height of the Civil War, the President signed the Emancipating Proclamation which actually freed African Americans in the Confederacy. The shift from Dred Scot’s to the Emancipating Proclamation was dramatic. Perhaps the conversional wisdom was to set the Black Confederates free so that they can move across the battle line and fight on the side of the Union. Hence, the movement toward the Emancipating Proclamation, for the most part, was punctuated by the war; however, it limited the punctuated relationship between the Civil War and the Emancipating Proclamation. It is undeniable that the war presented opportunities to capture the emotions and the hearts of African Americans that were oppressed by slavery, in which the President took advantage of that opportunity as a momentum builder. Although the changes in policy attitudes may have been naturally prevalent due to the cry of the abolitionists, nonetheless, the war may have been the necessary fire, thunder, and the storm that Fredrick Douglass spoke about.
This momentum was substantiated by the passing of the first Civil Rights law in 1866. Although the principles behind the act were not fully realized until the Fourteenth Amendment, however incremental the act, it was cleared that the opposing images to the supremacy of the white race was gaining ground. The Fourteenth Amendment was ratified in 1868 followed by the Fifteenth Amendment in 1870. Primarily, the focus during this period was establishing affirmative steps to ensure greater political participation by African Americans (Kranz 2002).
Jim Crow’s
The Ku Klux Klan aligned themselves with the White Leagues in a campaign of terror against black Southerners. “Mob violence and intimidation marked the state and local election of 1874, and black voting declined (Kanz 2002).” Moreover, any momentum that was gain for the movement took a blow during 1883 when the Supreme Court struck down the Civil Rights Act of 1875. This move by the federal government enabled Southern States to institute laws which enhanced segregation based on race and color; these laws were applied to education employment, and public accommodation. These laws were set out to destroy any gains previously made by African Americans. It prevented them from voting, holding public offices, and a fair participation in the legal process. Primarily, the drawback was due to the compromise made by Rutherford B. Hayes when he agreed to remove the Union army from the South in order to win the presidency. Apparently, the Republican dropped their commitment to the Civil Right movement. Consequently, Southerners took this as endorsements for things to come.
Through the Court
From 1886 to 1961, most of the significant dialogs regarding Civil Right and Affirmative Action were done trough the court. It started with Yick Wo v. Hopkins. The court ruled against a San Francisco ordinance requiring laundry owners to get permission from the Board of Supervisors to operate a laundry. In 1896, Plessy v. Ferguson ruling came down endorsing Jim Crow laws. However, it was quite interesting that the images of the Civil Rights movement were voiced by the lone dissent of Justice Harlan: “the goal of the federal policy must be color-blinded Constitution (Graham 1992).” In 1917, Buchanan v. Warley ruled that residential segregation is unconstitutional. Sipuel v. Board of Regent was handed down in 1948 allowing African American to be admitted into the University of Oklahoma Law School. Perhaps one of the most significant cases of all was Brown v. Board of Education was handed down in 1954. The court decision struck down Plessy’s by ordering that “Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal.” The court widened their decision to eliminate Jim Crow’s and ordered the desegregation of all schools (Kranz 2002).
There were other significant events occurred during this period such as the creation of the NAACP. Executive order 8802 by Franklin D. Roosevelt barred segregation by government contractors, and Harry Truman’s Committee on Government Contract Compliance was created. Harry Truman urged the Bureau of Employment Security to “act positively and affirmatively” to implement nondiscrimination (Greene 1989). However, this period is signified by how the discourse played out within the parameter of the court and its relative impact on the Affirmative Action and the entirety of the Civil Rights movement.
In terms of Civil Rights issues, incrementalism best describe the policy movement during this period, as the Jim Crow laws dominated the era. Thus, most of the agendas that were pushed through the court found their way into the politics of decisional stasis until Brown’s. Perhaps the solution was always there but the system needed fundamental value alignment to punctuate any movement; that’s what Brown’s did. It was the Supreme Court aligning values with the Civil Rights movement.
Affirmative Action and EEOC
On March 6, 1961, President Kennedy signed executive order 10925. Kennedy ordered the creation of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and directed that federal contractors “take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed and that employees are treated during employment without regard to their race, color, creed, or national origin (Graham 1992).” By 1963 there were many organized movements throughout college campuses and throughout the South where some of the most powerful images from the movements were televised throughout the country. Consequently, these images were dominated by a single interest which stimulated the policy process to move forth with a comprehensive Civil Rights policy which embraced compensatory and distributive justice. In his response to the Washington’s civil rights march, President Kennedy urged congress to pass the Civil Rights bill sent by the administration. Oddly enough, on the eve of his assassination, congress passed provisions which include prohibition of job-discrimination on Title VII and administered by an employment commission called the EEOC.
On July 2, 1964, President Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Act included title VII which banned discrimination in both public and private employers. Despite all of the gained in the Civil Rights movement during this period, the dramatic effects of discrimination from previous periods lingered. Thus, problems seemed to persist even as positive gains were made. Several racial violent riots occurred in cities throughout the country. As a result, many argued that simply removing the elements which maintained racial policy during past decades is not the solution but just part of the solution. This is echoed by President Johnson speech at Howard University in June of 1965: "You do not take a person who, for years, has been hobbled by chains and liberate him to the starting line of the race and then say, you are free to compete with all others.” And still justly believe that you have been completely fair. … We seek … not just equality as a right and a theory but equality as a fact and equality as a result. (Graham 1992)
Johnson followed Kennedy’s idea of pushing for programs that would expand educational and employment opportunities, including special apprenticeship and training programs, for those who have been a victim of racial discrimination. Precisely, these were the images that define the agenda. It was a combination of empirical facts driven by emotions. Thus, it was agreed that past racial discrimination trapped its victims in a chain of disadvantage.
Although the movement toward implementing an aggressive Affirmative Action policy cannot avoid racial preferences, it further violates the equal protection clause. There were common agreements that a compensatory policy must be implemented in order to remedy not only current problems but compensate for past discrimination. The equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment stated, nevertheless, that a person rights should not be abridged because of race, it was, however, not indented to abolish segregation in education when it was established. Brown’s decision followed this same logic; thus, it was not the specific intent rather it was the abstract intent of the laws in which their decision were based (Rosenfeld 1991; Bishop 1982). One of the strongest arguments for Affirmative Action “holds that redistribution is not the end, it is the means. It is not designed to achieve proportional representation or achieve equality of opportunity, but it is necessary to reduce racial tension and increase, over the long run, the expectations of blacks and women through integration of the work force (Green 1989).” Similar arguments were made by Justice Brennan in the Sheet Metal v. Johnson’s case. Thus, proponents of the Affirmative Action looked for these justifications as inspiration to push forth with a more aggressive policy.
By 1967, Johnson’s executive order 11246 was amended by executive order 11375 which extended the hands of Affirmative Action to include those that are discriminated on the basis of gender. The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 was also passed prohibiting discrimination on basis of age for worker aged 40 and over but less than 65 years. Perhaps one of the most significant leaps of Affirmative Action was the Philadelphia Plan; it established requirements for federal contractors to present a written affirmative action plan complete with goal and timetable for correcting deficiencies (Welch 1981). The goal is to remove the systematic patterns of discrimination persisted throughout years of institutional discrimination (Stryker and Pedriana 1997). The momentum of the 1960’s lingered on to the 1970’s with the passage of the Equal Opportunity Act of 1972 amending Title VII. The act extended the jurisdiction of the EEOC to include states, local government, educational institutions, and employers which employed fifteen or more employees. The 1972’s act was significant because it expanded the EEOC enforcement power. The EEOC started in 1966 with a case load of 8700; however, the case load was significantly greater after 1972. Pre 1972, “claims were investigated and conciliation was attempted but the burden of federal court enforcement rested mainly on the charging individual (Welch 1981).” Once the 1972’s act increased the jurisdiction of the EEOC and empowered them to sue in federal courts, the case load dramatically increases.
Between 1972 and 1977, several decisions handed down by the court seemed to let Affirmative Action policy gain greater momentum as the court sided with its goal. Decisions, such as the one in Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody, the court agree with the policy purposes of Affirmative Action, one being to eliminate future discrimination and eliminate the effects of past discrimination.
Reverse Discrimination
In 1978, the court heard the argument of The Regents of the University of California v. Bakke. Bakke was denied admission because other white students were more qualified then he was and argued that the special program designated at increasing minority enrolment was the reason for his denial. The California Supreme Court agreed with Bakke under the reasoning of strict scrutiny. “Bakke, as an individual and not one of group status, had been invidiously discriminated against because of his race, and the California Supreme Court had correctly used the “strict scrutiny” tier method, traditional used in behalf of discrete and insular minorities, because the degree of judicial scrutiny did not depend upon membership in a particular racial group (Bishop 1982).” The Supreme Court went on to affirm the California Supreme court’s decision stating that “while race is a legitimate factor in school admissions, it is unconstitutional to apply inflexible quotas such as those used at the medical school of University of California, Davis (Kranz 2002).” However, what is quite interesting is that the mood of the country seemed to have shifted from the aggressive movement toward equality of the 1960’s. “A Gallup Poll during March, 1977, indicated that 83% of the American people opposed preferential treatment for women and minorities in higher education and employment, and they favored merit tests despite past discrimination (Bishop 1982).”
Another case that raised more questions about the Affirmative Action policy was Weber v. Kaiser Aluminum. The Weber’s decision set three conditions for instituting a voluntary affirmative action plan for private corporation: 1. There is manifest racial imbalance; 2. The jobs has been traditionally segregated; 3. The affirmative action plan does not unnecessarily trammel white employees’ interests. When Ronald Reagan became president in 1980, his position on Affirmative Action was cleared; his campaign was built on the momentum set forth by court’s decision restraining the expansion of Affirmative Action. In fact, during his campaign, he quoted the Weber case as the ideal policy—voluntary. During the 1980’s and 1990’s, the discourse gone back to the court with incremental movements between the two opposing sides with new themes of “reverse discrimination” and “racial quotas” stimulated by court decisions and the current mood of the country while the two tiers test of “compensating the effect of past discrimination” and “eliminating future discrimination” are fading into policy after-life.
Conclusion
It was my assumption that the movements in the Affirmative Action policy were characterized by the Punctuated Equilibrium model—long period of incrementalism with the occasional punctuated events occurred every so often that forced dramatic policy changes; however, after my limited exploration of the literature, it is my opinion that policy life, especially Affirmative Action and Civil Rights is best characterized by incremental movements, which generates solutions while continuously seeking alignment opportunities with the right value system. This characterization resembles to that of John Kingdon’s (1994) multiple streams model. The Multiple Streams model consisted of Policy stream, Problem stream, and Politic stream. Kingdon contented that policy rises to the top when these streams converged at a critical time or the right time as the window of opportunity opens only for brief time.
During the Civil War period, it was not the events of the civil war that punctuated and stimulated the Emancipate Proclamation; rather it, was the value system which regulated the political actors and the environment at the time. The Civil War presented a window of opportunity where the problem and solution can aligned and converge. The Brown’s decision seemed to come through the same way—solution was generated waiting for the right opportunity for the chance to converge with the right political value. During the 1960’s, the opportunity was generated by the multiple protests occurred throughout the country; thus politics, policies and problems converged and took advantage of that window of opportunity which opened briefly, but by the mid 1970’s, the window was closed.
Strategy is a very important element of any policy movement; moreover, strategy must not only probe how the policy will impact the future but must also accommodative to current environment yet willing to challenge the current sentiment. Probing the future of policy environment involves utilization of dynamic scenarios that can synchronize the current environment and the future while reconciling the past. Thus, an effective strategy is resulted from understanding the policy process. Currently, in regard to Affirmative Action, we are in a period of near stasis with solution at hands waiting for a window of opportunity. We must ask, therefore, how can we obtain that window of opportunity? This paper presented three windows: Civil War, the period during Brown’s, and the 1960’s Civil Rights demonstrations. Whatever window that is available to us, we must be able to identify and take advantage of the opportunities encountered.
Cited Works
Bishop, David W. The Affirmative Action Cases: Bakke, Weber and Fullilove. The Journal of Negro History, Vol. 67, No. 3 (Autum, 1982), 229-244.
Donalson, Melvin. 1996. Cornerstones: An Anthology of African American Literature. New York: St. Martin’s Press.
Graha, Hugh D. The Origin of Affirmative Action: Civil Rights and Regulatory State. Annals of the American, Political and Social Science, Vol 523, Affirmative Action Revisted (Sept., 1992), 50-62
Green, Kathanne W. 1989. Affirmative Action and Principles of Justice. New York: Greenwood Press.
Jones, Bryan and Baumgartner, James. Policy Punctuations: U.S. Budget Authority, 1947-1995. The Journal of Politics, Vol 60.1 (Feb., 1998) 1-33.
Kingdon, John W. 1993. Politicians, Self-Interest, and Ideas. In Marcus and Hanson, eds.
Reconsidering the Democratic Public, pp. 73-89. University Park: Penn State University Press.
Kranz, Rachel. 2002. Affirmative Action. New York: Facts On File Inc.
Rosenfeld, Michel. 1991. Affirmative Action and Justice. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Sabatier, Paul A. 1999. Theories of the Policy Process. Boulder: Westview Press.
Stryker, Robin. and Pedriana, Nicholas. Political Culture Wars 1960s Style: Egual Employment Opportunity—Affirmative Action Law and the Philadelphia Plan. The American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 103, No.3 (Nov., 1997), 633-691.
Welch, Finis. Affirmative Action and Its Enforcement. The American Economic Review, Vol 71, No.2 (May, 1981), 127-133.
- Finau Tangata'olakepa Siale
It has been my interest to observe and recount the social, political and policy events that gave birth to our current environment in America. As a first generation immigrant from Tonga, I am indebted to those that paved the way to this country. Some paved it with the blood and sweat of their lives as they were forced into slavery by the simple human hunger for social and economic power at the birth of this nation, some paved the way because they wanted to free themselves from religious persecution, nevertheless, there were those that suffered as they sacrifice country and families and those that celebrated because they found a new country to call their own.
Today, I harvest the fruits of the seeds that were sowed by those that came before me. As generations struggled to turn racial maelstrom into conquering prejudice, the color of our skin often diminished the brilliant minds of the human person. Thus, my American Journey was made possible by those that came before me: Those that stood up against the institution of slavery; those that marched during the civil right movements of the 1960’s; those with political power that were willing to stand up for what was right.
AFFIRMATIVE ACTION: Historical Observation
Policy analysts and theorists have developed several models and theories as an attempt to explain how ideas evolve from the public and private arena into the subsystems of government and onto become policies and laws. The “Stages Heuristic” model developed by Jones, Anderson, Brewer, and Deleon is one of the earliest of these models. It divided the policy process into stages. Another model is the “Institutional Rational Choice” developed by Moe, Shepsle, and Miller which focuses on how material self-interest motivates policy makers (Sabatier 1999). Another policy observation by John Kingdon (1995) is based on “Multiple Streams;” he identified three streams that flow through the system: problems, policies, and politics. The tributaries flow from separate sources and when these streams joined at the right time, the policy issue rises from the subsystem to the main policy arena. There are many others, however, this paper focuses on how Jones and Baumgartner’s (1993) “Punctuated-Equilibrium” characterizes the process which lead to the creation of Affirmative Action. Punctuated-Equilibrium derived from an organizational theory model created by Gersick, et al. which characterizes how organizational changes evolved. “Punctuated equilibrium theory depicts organizations evolving through relatively long periods of stability (equilibrium period) in their basic patterns of activity that are punctuated by relatively short bursts of fundamental changes (Sabatier 1999).” Jones and Baumgartner (1993) argued that the policy process follows similar cycle as that of the organizational cycle.
This paper is a general observation and should not be considered empirical in any form; rather it is a proposed theoretical framework on characterizing the structure in which Affirmative Action was created. Yet, with the interests and requirements set forth for this essay in mind, I will concentrate only on events which I consider major images surrounding Affirmative Action and its creation. The literature and court decisions were explored to determine the preliminary events and images which occurred surrounding the creation and the life of Affirmative Action. Although my concentration will be on the equilibrium period and the punctuated events which lead to the creation and the life of Affirmative Action, this paper is not bound to one model or theory. It is my assumption that the punctuated equilibrium model characterized the activities surrounding Affirmative Action; however, other models may offer better explanation; thus, other models are also considered. Moreover, Affirmative Action has been historically applied to two protective class—African Americans and women. The impact on women in the workforce, education, and other institutions are immeasurable; however, race issues seemed to have been the focal point of the debates throughout history. Thus, I will focus on the progression of the debates surrounding Affirmative Action in terms of the racial and in particular the civil rights issue.
Pre-Civil War
Prior to the civil war, African Americans were mere objects or properties of their white masters; they were sold in the public market, beaten with most the extreme cruelty, hunted, and murdered like animals. African American young women were commonly robbed of their innocents in the most heinous way. Slave children were also considered as property, marketable as the pigs on the plantation’s bin. Without going into dramatic images, these were the daily images which exposed the reality of slavery. Although it seems horrendous for contemporary standards, the historic-reality dictates otherwise. These were the images painted by many slave narratives that were able to penetrate the system into publication. During 1857, in fact, the Dred Scott’s decision affirmed the condition of the African Americans disposition in this country. The Supreme Court ruled that African Americans were “subordinates and inferior beings” who could not constitutionally be a citizen of the United State.
The two opposing images during this period were the supremacy of the White Europeans versus the inferiority of the Black Africans. These images were not driven by any factual findings; hence, they were cultural perceptions that infiltrated society resulting from human greed and weakness. Laws and policies, included Dred Scott’s, were not based on purely rational choices, but they were emotionally driven to protect the materialistic ethos which gave one race power over another.
Toward Civil War
As the economy started to shift from agricultural to industrial, the slave system started to fracture. More and more slaves were able to gain limited freedom as they gained employment in the industries of the North. Thus, they started to mobilize and advocate freedom movements commonly known as the abolitionist movement. From the midst of the utmost misery, some of them were still capable of understanding their condition: “Surely this traffic cannot be good, which spreads like a pestilence, and taints what its touches! Which violates that first natural right of mankind, equality and independency, and gives one man a dominion over his fellow’s which God could never intend? For it raises the owner to a state as far above man as it depresses the slave below it (Donalson 1996).” These words were written by Olaudah Equiano, a slave from late 1800th, are reflective of the understanding that most abolitionists had in terms of their relationship to their white counterparts. The Abolitionist movement drew attention to a nation that celebrated its independency while sanctioning the institution of slavery.
On July 5, 1852, on a speech delivered in Rochester New York, Fredrick Douglass laid out the scorching images that empowered the abolitionist movement. “For it is not light that is needed, but fire; it is not gentle shower, but thunder. We need the storm, the whirlwind, and the earthquake (Donalson 1996).” Although these sentiments were countered by Dred Scot’s, the argument for equality were gaining momentum as the country moved closer to Civil War.
Emancipating Proclamation
During the height of the Civil War, the President signed the Emancipating Proclamation which actually freed African Americans in the Confederacy. The shift from Dred Scot’s to the Emancipating Proclamation was dramatic. Perhaps the conversional wisdom was to set the Black Confederates free so that they can move across the battle line and fight on the side of the Union. Hence, the movement toward the Emancipating Proclamation, for the most part, was punctuated by the war; however, it limited the punctuated relationship between the Civil War and the Emancipating Proclamation. It is undeniable that the war presented opportunities to capture the emotions and the hearts of African Americans that were oppressed by slavery, in which the President took advantage of that opportunity as a momentum builder. Although the changes in policy attitudes may have been naturally prevalent due to the cry of the abolitionists, nonetheless, the war may have been the necessary fire, thunder, and the storm that Fredrick Douglass spoke about.
This momentum was substantiated by the passing of the first Civil Rights law in 1866. Although the principles behind the act were not fully realized until the Fourteenth Amendment, however incremental the act, it was cleared that the opposing images to the supremacy of the white race was gaining ground. The Fourteenth Amendment was ratified in 1868 followed by the Fifteenth Amendment in 1870. Primarily, the focus during this period was establishing affirmative steps to ensure greater political participation by African Americans (Kranz 2002).
Jim Crow’s
The Ku Klux Klan aligned themselves with the White Leagues in a campaign of terror against black Southerners. “Mob violence and intimidation marked the state and local election of 1874, and black voting declined (Kanz 2002).” Moreover, any momentum that was gain for the movement took a blow during 1883 when the Supreme Court struck down the Civil Rights Act of 1875. This move by the federal government enabled Southern States to institute laws which enhanced segregation based on race and color; these laws were applied to education employment, and public accommodation. These laws were set out to destroy any gains previously made by African Americans. It prevented them from voting, holding public offices, and a fair participation in the legal process. Primarily, the drawback was due to the compromise made by Rutherford B. Hayes when he agreed to remove the Union army from the South in order to win the presidency. Apparently, the Republican dropped their commitment to the Civil Right movement. Consequently, Southerners took this as endorsements for things to come.
Through the Court
From 1886 to 1961, most of the significant dialogs regarding Civil Right and Affirmative Action were done trough the court. It started with Yick Wo v. Hopkins. The court ruled against a San Francisco ordinance requiring laundry owners to get permission from the Board of Supervisors to operate a laundry. In 1896, Plessy v. Ferguson ruling came down endorsing Jim Crow laws. However, it was quite interesting that the images of the Civil Rights movement were voiced by the lone dissent of Justice Harlan: “the goal of the federal policy must be color-blinded Constitution (Graham 1992).” In 1917, Buchanan v. Warley ruled that residential segregation is unconstitutional. Sipuel v. Board of Regent was handed down in 1948 allowing African American to be admitted into the University of Oklahoma Law School. Perhaps one of the most significant cases of all was Brown v. Board of Education was handed down in 1954. The court decision struck down Plessy’s by ordering that “Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal.” The court widened their decision to eliminate Jim Crow’s and ordered the desegregation of all schools (Kranz 2002).
There were other significant events occurred during this period such as the creation of the NAACP. Executive order 8802 by Franklin D. Roosevelt barred segregation by government contractors, and Harry Truman’s Committee on Government Contract Compliance was created. Harry Truman urged the Bureau of Employment Security to “act positively and affirmatively” to implement nondiscrimination (Greene 1989). However, this period is signified by how the discourse played out within the parameter of the court and its relative impact on the Affirmative Action and the entirety of the Civil Rights movement.
In terms of Civil Rights issues, incrementalism best describe the policy movement during this period, as the Jim Crow laws dominated the era. Thus, most of the agendas that were pushed through the court found their way into the politics of decisional stasis until Brown’s. Perhaps the solution was always there but the system needed fundamental value alignment to punctuate any movement; that’s what Brown’s did. It was the Supreme Court aligning values with the Civil Rights movement.
Affirmative Action and EEOC
On March 6, 1961, President Kennedy signed executive order 10925. Kennedy ordered the creation of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and directed that federal contractors “take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed and that employees are treated during employment without regard to their race, color, creed, or national origin (Graham 1992).” By 1963 there were many organized movements throughout college campuses and throughout the South where some of the most powerful images from the movements were televised throughout the country. Consequently, these images were dominated by a single interest which stimulated the policy process to move forth with a comprehensive Civil Rights policy which embraced compensatory and distributive justice. In his response to the Washington’s civil rights march, President Kennedy urged congress to pass the Civil Rights bill sent by the administration. Oddly enough, on the eve of his assassination, congress passed provisions which include prohibition of job-discrimination on Title VII and administered by an employment commission called the EEOC.
On July 2, 1964, President Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Act included title VII which banned discrimination in both public and private employers. Despite all of the gained in the Civil Rights movement during this period, the dramatic effects of discrimination from previous periods lingered. Thus, problems seemed to persist even as positive gains were made. Several racial violent riots occurred in cities throughout the country. As a result, many argued that simply removing the elements which maintained racial policy during past decades is not the solution but just part of the solution. This is echoed by President Johnson speech at Howard University in June of 1965: "You do not take a person who, for years, has been hobbled by chains and liberate him to the starting line of the race and then say, you are free to compete with all others.” And still justly believe that you have been completely fair. … We seek … not just equality as a right and a theory but equality as a fact and equality as a result. (Graham 1992)
Johnson followed Kennedy’s idea of pushing for programs that would expand educational and employment opportunities, including special apprenticeship and training programs, for those who have been a victim of racial discrimination. Precisely, these were the images that define the agenda. It was a combination of empirical facts driven by emotions. Thus, it was agreed that past racial discrimination trapped its victims in a chain of disadvantage.
Although the movement toward implementing an aggressive Affirmative Action policy cannot avoid racial preferences, it further violates the equal protection clause. There were common agreements that a compensatory policy must be implemented in order to remedy not only current problems but compensate for past discrimination. The equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment stated, nevertheless, that a person rights should not be abridged because of race, it was, however, not indented to abolish segregation in education when it was established. Brown’s decision followed this same logic; thus, it was not the specific intent rather it was the abstract intent of the laws in which their decision were based (Rosenfeld 1991; Bishop 1982). One of the strongest arguments for Affirmative Action “holds that redistribution is not the end, it is the means. It is not designed to achieve proportional representation or achieve equality of opportunity, but it is necessary to reduce racial tension and increase, over the long run, the expectations of blacks and women through integration of the work force (Green 1989).” Similar arguments were made by Justice Brennan in the Sheet Metal v. Johnson’s case. Thus, proponents of the Affirmative Action looked for these justifications as inspiration to push forth with a more aggressive policy.
By 1967, Johnson’s executive order 11246 was amended by executive order 11375 which extended the hands of Affirmative Action to include those that are discriminated on the basis of gender. The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 was also passed prohibiting discrimination on basis of age for worker aged 40 and over but less than 65 years. Perhaps one of the most significant leaps of Affirmative Action was the Philadelphia Plan; it established requirements for federal contractors to present a written affirmative action plan complete with goal and timetable for correcting deficiencies (Welch 1981). The goal is to remove the systematic patterns of discrimination persisted throughout years of institutional discrimination (Stryker and Pedriana 1997). The momentum of the 1960’s lingered on to the 1970’s with the passage of the Equal Opportunity Act of 1972 amending Title VII. The act extended the jurisdiction of the EEOC to include states, local government, educational institutions, and employers which employed fifteen or more employees. The 1972’s act was significant because it expanded the EEOC enforcement power. The EEOC started in 1966 with a case load of 8700; however, the case load was significantly greater after 1972. Pre 1972, “claims were investigated and conciliation was attempted but the burden of federal court enforcement rested mainly on the charging individual (Welch 1981).” Once the 1972’s act increased the jurisdiction of the EEOC and empowered them to sue in federal courts, the case load dramatically increases.
Between 1972 and 1977, several decisions handed down by the court seemed to let Affirmative Action policy gain greater momentum as the court sided with its goal. Decisions, such as the one in Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody, the court agree with the policy purposes of Affirmative Action, one being to eliminate future discrimination and eliminate the effects of past discrimination.
Reverse Discrimination
In 1978, the court heard the argument of The Regents of the University of California v. Bakke. Bakke was denied admission because other white students were more qualified then he was and argued that the special program designated at increasing minority enrolment was the reason for his denial. The California Supreme Court agreed with Bakke under the reasoning of strict scrutiny. “Bakke, as an individual and not one of group status, had been invidiously discriminated against because of his race, and the California Supreme Court had correctly used the “strict scrutiny” tier method, traditional used in behalf of discrete and insular minorities, because the degree of judicial scrutiny did not depend upon membership in a particular racial group (Bishop 1982).” The Supreme Court went on to affirm the California Supreme court’s decision stating that “while race is a legitimate factor in school admissions, it is unconstitutional to apply inflexible quotas such as those used at the medical school of University of California, Davis (Kranz 2002).” However, what is quite interesting is that the mood of the country seemed to have shifted from the aggressive movement toward equality of the 1960’s. “A Gallup Poll during March, 1977, indicated that 83% of the American people opposed preferential treatment for women and minorities in higher education and employment, and they favored merit tests despite past discrimination (Bishop 1982).”
Another case that raised more questions about the Affirmative Action policy was Weber v. Kaiser Aluminum. The Weber’s decision set three conditions for instituting a voluntary affirmative action plan for private corporation: 1. There is manifest racial imbalance; 2. The jobs has been traditionally segregated; 3. The affirmative action plan does not unnecessarily trammel white employees’ interests. When Ronald Reagan became president in 1980, his position on Affirmative Action was cleared; his campaign was built on the momentum set forth by court’s decision restraining the expansion of Affirmative Action. In fact, during his campaign, he quoted the Weber case as the ideal policy—voluntary. During the 1980’s and 1990’s, the discourse gone back to the court with incremental movements between the two opposing sides with new themes of “reverse discrimination” and “racial quotas” stimulated by court decisions and the current mood of the country while the two tiers test of “compensating the effect of past discrimination” and “eliminating future discrimination” are fading into policy after-life.
Conclusion
It was my assumption that the movements in the Affirmative Action policy were characterized by the Punctuated Equilibrium model—long period of incrementalism with the occasional punctuated events occurred every so often that forced dramatic policy changes; however, after my limited exploration of the literature, it is my opinion that policy life, especially Affirmative Action and Civil Rights is best characterized by incremental movements, which generates solutions while continuously seeking alignment opportunities with the right value system. This characterization resembles to that of John Kingdon’s (1994) multiple streams model. The Multiple Streams model consisted of Policy stream, Problem stream, and Politic stream. Kingdon contented that policy rises to the top when these streams converged at a critical time or the right time as the window of opportunity opens only for brief time.
During the Civil War period, it was not the events of the civil war that punctuated and stimulated the Emancipate Proclamation; rather it, was the value system which regulated the political actors and the environment at the time. The Civil War presented a window of opportunity where the problem and solution can aligned and converge. The Brown’s decision seemed to come through the same way—solution was generated waiting for the right opportunity for the chance to converge with the right political value. During the 1960’s, the opportunity was generated by the multiple protests occurred throughout the country; thus politics, policies and problems converged and took advantage of that window of opportunity which opened briefly, but by the mid 1970’s, the window was closed.
Strategy is a very important element of any policy movement; moreover, strategy must not only probe how the policy will impact the future but must also accommodative to current environment yet willing to challenge the current sentiment. Probing the future of policy environment involves utilization of dynamic scenarios that can synchronize the current environment and the future while reconciling the past. Thus, an effective strategy is resulted from understanding the policy process. Currently, in regard to Affirmative Action, we are in a period of near stasis with solution at hands waiting for a window of opportunity. We must ask, therefore, how can we obtain that window of opportunity? This paper presented three windows: Civil War, the period during Brown’s, and the 1960’s Civil Rights demonstrations. Whatever window that is available to us, we must be able to identify and take advantage of the opportunities encountered.
Cited Works
Bishop, David W. The Affirmative Action Cases: Bakke, Weber and Fullilove. The Journal of Negro History, Vol. 67, No. 3 (Autum, 1982), 229-244.
Donalson, Melvin. 1996. Cornerstones: An Anthology of African American Literature. New York: St. Martin’s Press.
Graha, Hugh D. The Origin of Affirmative Action: Civil Rights and Regulatory State. Annals of the American, Political and Social Science, Vol 523, Affirmative Action Revisted (Sept., 1992), 50-62
Green, Kathanne W. 1989. Affirmative Action and Principles of Justice. New York: Greenwood Press.
Jones, Bryan and Baumgartner, James. Policy Punctuations: U.S. Budget Authority, 1947-1995. The Journal of Politics, Vol 60.1 (Feb., 1998) 1-33.
Kingdon, John W. 1993. Politicians, Self-Interest, and Ideas. In Marcus and Hanson, eds.
Reconsidering the Democratic Public, pp. 73-89. University Park: Penn State University Press.
Kranz, Rachel. 2002. Affirmative Action. New York: Facts On File Inc.
Rosenfeld, Michel. 1991. Affirmative Action and Justice. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Sabatier, Paul A. 1999. Theories of the Policy Process. Boulder: Westview Press.
Stryker, Robin. and Pedriana, Nicholas. Political Culture Wars 1960s Style: Egual Employment Opportunity—Affirmative Action Law and the Philadelphia Plan. The American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 103, No.3 (Nov., 1997), 633-691.
Welch, Finis. Affirmative Action and Its Enforcement. The American Economic Review, Vol 71, No.2 (May, 1981), 127-133.
Thursday, January 5, 2012
Essay for Tongan Youth Association of Texas News Letter
This essay was printed on TYAT News Letter for January, 2012
Talangata'a 'ia tekita 'o fai ki tu'a'aa mama'o, tuku mu'a keu hufanga atu he pue 'o e ta'u fo'ouni pea mo e 'uli ngaholo 'o e vaka 'a e TYAT. Teu lave atu ki he ohi ngaue kuo hama 'aki 'eta fononga 'i Texas. Koe fatungakakato 'o e Tonga , 'oku tefito ia meihe 'ene ma'opo'opo he tapa kotoa pe 'o e 'aatakai, pea 'e makatu'unga ia meihe 'utumauku 'oku fatu mei loki ako. Pea 'i he 'ene pehee leva, te tau malava leva ke fofola atu 'a e fala 'o e fakapotopoto he tafa'aki fakasiosiale, faka'ekonimika, pea pehee foki ki he fakafamili. Koia, meihe loki ako, 'oku lau ai 'etau kau he fakama'unga 'o e fasi-matangi ki he fakafonualelei 'oku fakaakeake 'aki hotau kuongani.
Meihe tumu'aki e fonuani, 'oku fatu'ilangi mei ai e mahu'inga ke tu'uholoaki 'a e matapa 'o e ako ki he taha kotoa pe. 'Oku fale'i 'e Palesiteni Obama ke uho 'aki 'a 'ene fuafatongia: 1) 'a e fakapapau ke holoki 'a e ngaahi malumu 'oku felei 'aki e hala ki loki ako 2) pea ke to e hoko foki 'a Amelikani ko e tu'ukimu'a he mala'e 'o e ako 'i mamani.
Ko e tu'unga 'o e ako 'i he fonuani, 'i hono savea'i e tamaiki kuo 'osi 'a e High School 'o fakatatau ki he tamaiki 'oku ma'u mata'itohi mei he Univesisti, 'oku tomui 'aki 'e Amelikani 'a e peseti 'e 11 'i hono fakafehoanaki ki he ngaahi fonua fakalakalaka 'o mamani--'oku fu'u kei tokolahi 'a e tamaiki 'oku 'osi meihe High School kae 'ikai 'osi meihe Univesiti. Koe ngaahi fonua fakalakalaka, ko e peseti 'e 50 'o e tamaiki 'oku 'osi meihe High School 'oku lava lelei 'enau ako meihe Univesiti, ka ko Amelikani, ko e peseti pe 'e 39. Ko hono 'omai 'a e satisitika ko 'eni ki hotau kainga Tonga', ko e vanu 'ataa e vaa mama'o 'a e kehekehe hono fakatatau e tokolahi 'a e tamaiki 'osi meihe High School moe tamaiki 'osi meihe Univesisti. 'E lava pe ke fai kiai ha fakafuofua kapau tetau sio pe ki he fakaola 'a e tamaiki Tonga 'oku fai meihe L.D. Bell poea mo Trinity High School. Ko e vanu ko'eni 'oku tau faka'anaua ke vaaofi ange pe toe si'isi'i ange.
'I he tohi 'a Carnevale et al.'s “Help Wanted,” 'oku ne fakafuofua ai, koe ngaahi ta'u si'i hoko mai, ko e peseti 'e 63 'o e ngaahi ngaue (jobs) kotoa pe, 'oku hanga pe ia ki ha tokotaha 'oku 'iai ha'ane mata'itohi meihe Univesisti 'aia ko e peseti leva 'e 37 kiakinautolu 'oku 'ikai 'osi meihe Univesiti. 'I he 'ene tu'u pehee, 'e toe faingata'a ange ke ma'u ha ngaue kapau 'oku 'ikai 'ia ha mata'itohi.
Kuo tau fonua 'eta folau he 2012 pea kuo pavaki mai hono ngaahi koloa pea pehee foki ki hono ngaahi peau, ka ko e fakalaulauloto 'oku ou hu'una kiai, ko e haa koaa e ngaahi tamu'a foloau 'o e 2012? Fokotu'u atu: fai mu'a ha tokanga makehe ki he fakanofonofo 'o 'eta fanau ako. 'Oku 'iai pe 'a e me'a teta ala lava 'o fai, neongo pe ko haa 'a e tu'unga 'oku te 'iai. 'Oku 'iai 'a e tokanga ki he ngaahi me'ani:
1. How can we react to changes in the educational system?
2. How can we aid students that are struggle academically?
3. How can we access financial assistance?
4. Develop and Provide programs that are relevant to improving education for Tongan youths in Texas.
5. As parents, we must become the catalyst for our children's education by providing an environment that encourages them to maximize their abilities.
Ko e uki ngaue 'a e TYAT, 'oku tefito ia meihe faka'anaua 'ofa he 'auhee 'oku ta fai mai ki he fonuani, pea ke fakaakeake 'a e Tonga ke hoko ko e maka malohi 'i he kaha'una. Koe ngaahi me'a 'e nima 'oku hiki atu heni ko e kongasi'i pe ia 'o e ngaahi me'a 'oku ta fefahu'i mo ia he ngaahi 'ahoni.
Fanau 'a hou'eiki, 'oku ta taumu'a taha he faka'anaua ke fakaolamelie 'a e feinga 'oku ta fai. Ala mai mu'a ke ta nima-taha kae kaukaua 'a hota ivi pea si'i ai 'eta kavenga. Fakatauange ke hoko mai 'a e 2012 moe fangumalingi kakala ke laukau 'aki he'e Tonga kotoa, pea keta lau e koloa 'o e ta'ufo'ou kae 'oua na'a tafia 'i hono ngaahi peau.
'Ofa atu
Tangata'olakepa
=======================================================
English Version
For us here Tongans in Texas, Education is the most valuable asset a person can possess. A well-informed and educated Tongans that live here in the states is fundamental to our social and economic well-being. It is through education that we can achieve social fulfillment, attain economic goals, and improve our overall standard of living. Education for Tonga in Texas encourages us to think for ourselves and to contribute to our society in a macro level. It will help us find the right balance between our needs, the transmission of Tongan culture, and meeting the development needs of our society here in Texas.
In his effort to ensure that everyone has an equitable access to a quality education, President Obama has committed to higher education by: 1) ensuring that all Americans have the ability to pursue college, and 2) for
the U.S. to “regain its lost ground” and have the highest proportion of young adults with college degrees compared to other developed nations by 2020. The Lumina Foundation also introduced its “Big Goal” of increasing the proportion of Americans with high-quality degrees and credentials to 60 percent by the year 2025. Currently, the United States remains at 39 percent for college degree attainment behind developed countries which are currently at 50 percent.
Why did I mention the above comments? As Tongans reside in the United States, we are unquestionably part of these statistics. Unfortunately, my assumption about Tongans’ college attainment, although not an empirical
hypothesis, is lower than that of the entire population-lower than 39 percent. We don’t have to look any further than our own backyard: how many students graduated from Trinity and LD Bell last year and compare that with our college graduating class of the same year? This is a reality that we must face. According to Carnevale et al.'s “Help Wanted,” low-skilled jobs that traditionally do not require a post-secondary degree are disappearing and in their place are jobs requiring some level of post-secondary education which are estimated to become 63 percent of total jobs in this country over the next decade. To us, Tongans in Texas, jobs will be harder to find. Therefore, for this New Year, 2012, equitable access to the highest level of education from primary to post secondary education for every Tongan's Youth in Texas should be our highest priority.
How do we achieve equitable access in 2012? We must recognize that each student has different abilities and needs. Hence, we will seek resources that match and help guide each student to the highest level possible. We
must volunteer our times and resources. Parents, churches, and community leaders must work together. Thus, together with a common goal of equitable access, we are required to response to many challenges that faced our youths each and everyday:
1. How can we react to changes in the educational system?
2. How can we aid students that are struggle academically?
3. How can we access financial assistance?
4. Develop and Provide programs that are relevant to improving education for Tongan youths in Texas.
5. As parents, we must become the catalyst for our children's education by providing an environment that encourages them to maximize their abilities.
It is the hope of TYAT and it's members that the 2012 will be a productive year and will bring us happiness and many successes. As always, TYAT is here to provide assistance with the many challenges our community will face in this New Year and beyond.
- Finau Tangata'olakepa Siale
Talangata'a 'ia tekita 'o fai ki tu'a'aa mama'o, tuku mu'a keu hufanga atu he pue 'o e ta'u fo'ouni pea mo e 'uli ngaholo 'o e vaka 'a e TYAT. Teu lave atu ki he ohi ngaue kuo hama 'aki 'eta fononga 'i Texas. Koe fatungakakato 'o e Tonga , 'oku tefito ia meihe 'ene ma'opo'opo he tapa kotoa pe 'o e 'aatakai, pea 'e makatu'unga ia meihe 'utumauku 'oku fatu mei loki ako. Pea 'i he 'ene pehee leva, te tau malava leva ke fofola atu 'a e fala 'o e fakapotopoto he tafa'aki fakasiosiale, faka'ekonimika, pea pehee foki ki he fakafamili. Koia, meihe loki ako, 'oku lau ai 'etau kau he fakama'unga 'o e fasi-matangi ki he fakafonualelei 'oku fakaakeake 'aki hotau kuongani.
Meihe tumu'aki e fonuani, 'oku fatu'ilangi mei ai e mahu'inga ke tu'uholoaki 'a e matapa 'o e ako ki he taha kotoa pe. 'Oku fale'i 'e Palesiteni Obama ke uho 'aki 'a 'ene fuafatongia: 1) 'a e fakapapau ke holoki 'a e ngaahi malumu 'oku felei 'aki e hala ki loki ako 2) pea ke to e hoko foki 'a Amelikani ko e tu'ukimu'a he mala'e 'o e ako 'i mamani.
Ko e tu'unga 'o e ako 'i he fonuani, 'i hono savea'i e tamaiki kuo 'osi 'a e High School 'o fakatatau ki he tamaiki 'oku ma'u mata'itohi mei he Univesisti, 'oku tomui 'aki 'e Amelikani 'a e peseti 'e 11 'i hono fakafehoanaki ki he ngaahi fonua fakalakalaka 'o mamani--'oku fu'u kei tokolahi 'a e tamaiki 'oku 'osi meihe High School kae 'ikai 'osi meihe Univesiti. Koe ngaahi fonua fakalakalaka, ko e peseti 'e 50 'o e tamaiki 'oku 'osi meihe High School 'oku lava lelei 'enau ako meihe Univesiti, ka ko Amelikani, ko e peseti pe 'e 39. Ko hono 'omai 'a e satisitika ko 'eni ki hotau kainga Tonga', ko e vanu 'ataa e vaa mama'o 'a e kehekehe hono fakatatau e tokolahi 'a e tamaiki 'osi meihe High School moe tamaiki 'osi meihe Univesisti. 'E lava pe ke fai kiai ha fakafuofua kapau tetau sio pe ki he fakaola 'a e tamaiki Tonga 'oku fai meihe L.D. Bell poea mo Trinity High School. Ko e vanu ko'eni 'oku tau faka'anaua ke vaaofi ange pe toe si'isi'i ange.
'I he tohi 'a Carnevale et al.'s “Help Wanted,” 'oku ne fakafuofua ai, koe ngaahi ta'u si'i hoko mai, ko e peseti 'e 63 'o e ngaahi ngaue (jobs) kotoa pe, 'oku hanga pe ia ki ha tokotaha 'oku 'iai ha'ane mata'itohi meihe Univesisti 'aia ko e peseti leva 'e 37 kiakinautolu 'oku 'ikai 'osi meihe Univesiti. 'I he 'ene tu'u pehee, 'e toe faingata'a ange ke ma'u ha ngaue kapau 'oku 'ikai 'ia ha mata'itohi.
Kuo tau fonua 'eta folau he 2012 pea kuo pavaki mai hono ngaahi koloa pea pehee foki ki hono ngaahi peau, ka ko e fakalaulauloto 'oku ou hu'una kiai, ko e haa koaa e ngaahi tamu'a foloau 'o e 2012? Fokotu'u atu: fai mu'a ha tokanga makehe ki he fakanofonofo 'o 'eta fanau ako. 'Oku 'iai pe 'a e me'a teta ala lava 'o fai, neongo pe ko haa 'a e tu'unga 'oku te 'iai. 'Oku 'iai 'a e tokanga ki he ngaahi me'ani:
1. How can we react to changes in the educational system?
2. How can we aid students that are struggle academically?
3. How can we access financial assistance?
4. Develop and Provide programs that are relevant to improving education for Tongan youths in Texas.
5. As parents, we must become the catalyst for our children's education by providing an environment that encourages them to maximize their abilities.
Ko e uki ngaue 'a e TYAT, 'oku tefito ia meihe faka'anaua 'ofa he 'auhee 'oku ta fai mai ki he fonuani, pea ke fakaakeake 'a e Tonga ke hoko ko e maka malohi 'i he kaha'una. Koe ngaahi me'a 'e nima 'oku hiki atu heni ko e kongasi'i pe ia 'o e ngaahi me'a 'oku ta fefahu'i mo ia he ngaahi 'ahoni.
Fanau 'a hou'eiki, 'oku ta taumu'a taha he faka'anaua ke fakaolamelie 'a e feinga 'oku ta fai. Ala mai mu'a ke ta nima-taha kae kaukaua 'a hota ivi pea si'i ai 'eta kavenga. Fakatauange ke hoko mai 'a e 2012 moe fangumalingi kakala ke laukau 'aki he'e Tonga kotoa, pea keta lau e koloa 'o e ta'ufo'ou kae 'oua na'a tafia 'i hono ngaahi peau.
'Ofa atu
Tangata'olakepa
=======================================================
English Version
For us here Tongans in Texas, Education is the most valuable asset a person can possess. A well-informed and educated Tongans that live here in the states is fundamental to our social and economic well-being. It is through education that we can achieve social fulfillment, attain economic goals, and improve our overall standard of living. Education for Tonga in Texas encourages us to think for ourselves and to contribute to our society in a macro level. It will help us find the right balance between our needs, the transmission of Tongan culture, and meeting the development needs of our society here in Texas.
In his effort to ensure that everyone has an equitable access to a quality education, President Obama has committed to higher education by: 1) ensuring that all Americans have the ability to pursue college, and 2) for
the U.S. to “regain its lost ground” and have the highest proportion of young adults with college degrees compared to other developed nations by 2020. The Lumina Foundation also introduced its “Big Goal” of increasing the proportion of Americans with high-quality degrees and credentials to 60 percent by the year 2025. Currently, the United States remains at 39 percent for college degree attainment behind developed countries which are currently at 50 percent.
Why did I mention the above comments? As Tongans reside in the United States, we are unquestionably part of these statistics. Unfortunately, my assumption about Tongans’ college attainment, although not an empirical
hypothesis, is lower than that of the entire population-lower than 39 percent. We don’t have to look any further than our own backyard: how many students graduated from Trinity and LD Bell last year and compare that with our college graduating class of the same year? This is a reality that we must face. According to Carnevale et al.'s “Help Wanted,” low-skilled jobs that traditionally do not require a post-secondary degree are disappearing and in their place are jobs requiring some level of post-secondary education which are estimated to become 63 percent of total jobs in this country over the next decade. To us, Tongans in Texas, jobs will be harder to find. Therefore, for this New Year, 2012, equitable access to the highest level of education from primary to post secondary education for every Tongan's Youth in Texas should be our highest priority.
How do we achieve equitable access in 2012? We must recognize that each student has different abilities and needs. Hence, we will seek resources that match and help guide each student to the highest level possible. We
must volunteer our times and resources. Parents, churches, and community leaders must work together. Thus, together with a common goal of equitable access, we are required to response to many challenges that faced our youths each and everyday:
1. How can we react to changes in the educational system?
2. How can we aid students that are struggle academically?
3. How can we access financial assistance?
4. Develop and Provide programs that are relevant to improving education for Tongan youths in Texas.
5. As parents, we must become the catalyst for our children's education by providing an environment that encourages them to maximize their abilities.
It is the hope of TYAT and it's members that the 2012 will be a productive year and will bring us happiness and many successes. As always, TYAT is here to provide assistance with the many challenges our community will face in this New Year and beyond.
- Finau Tangata'olakepa Siale
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
-
Captain Josiah Nickerson Knowles's Timeline First Marriage Second Marriage Mountain View Cemetery, 5000 Piedmont Ave. Oakland , ... -
http://nla.gov.au/nla.obj-52774913 Hou’eiki mo Kainga, Fanongo mai Teu hivehiva atu pe ki Palataisi Koe fuo anagahala ‘a hotau ha’a...